No description available.

This dissertation produces the first attempt to bring the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and the political theory literature on citizenship into dialogue with the scholarship on American empire in the field of International Relations (IR). It explores how the United States’ quest for global pre-eminence, mirrored by the war in Iraq, reveals and exacerbates the social wounds at the seams of American society. To do this, it introduces three new concepts to the field of International Relations. It builds on historian Christophe Charle’s sociological framework of “imperial society” and “national habitus” (2001, 2004 and 2005) and introduces an original concept, the field of citizenship, to examine social conflict over the distribution of military sacrifice amongst citizens in the United States. Finally, it explores these tensions by looking at multiple documentary sources, including over 200 newspaper articles, 60 testimonies about the war from soldiers and their relatives, congressional documents, and military manpower policies.

This dissertation produces the first attempt to bring the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and the political theory literature on citizenship into dialogue with the scholarship on American empire in the field of International Relations (IR). It explores how the United States’ quest for global pre-eminence, mirrored by the war in Iraq, reveals and exacerbates the social wounds at the seams of American society. To do this, it introduces three new concepts to the field of International Relations. It builds on historian Christophe Charle’s sociological framework of “imperial society” and “national habitus” (2001, 2004 and 2005) and introduces an original concept, the field of citizenship, to examine social conflict over the distribution of military sacrifice amongst citizens in the United States. Finally, it explores these tensions by looking at multiple documentary sources, including over 200 newspaper articles, 60 testimonies about the war from soldiers and their relatives, congressional documents, and military manpower policies.

This dissertation produces the first attempt to bring the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and the political theory literature on citizenship into dialogue with the scholarship on American empire in the field of International Relations (IR). It explores how the United States’ quest for global pre-eminence, mirrored by the war in Iraq, reveals and exacerbates the social wounds at the seams of American society. To do this, it introduces three new concepts to the field of International Relations. It builds on historian Christophe Charle’s sociological framework of “imperial society” and “national habitus” (2001, 2004 and 2005) and introduces an original concept, the field of citizenship, to examine social conflict over the distribution of military sacrifice amongst citizens in the United States. Finally, it explores these tensions by looking at multiple documentary sources, including over 200 newspaper articles, 60 testimonies about the war from soldiers and their relatives, congressional documents, and military manpower policies.

This dissertation produces the first attempt to bring the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and the political theory literature on citizenship into dialogue with the scholarship on American empire in the field of International Relations (IR). It explores how the United States’ quest for global pre-eminence, mirrored by the war in Iraq, reveals and exacerbates the social wounds at the seams of American society. To do this, it introduces three new concepts to the field of International Relations. It builds on historian Christophe Charle’s sociological framework of “imperial society” and “national habitus” (2001, 2004 and 2005) and introduces an original concept, the field of citizenship, to examine social conflict over the distribution of military sacrifice amongst citizens in the United States. Finally, it explores these tensions by looking at multiple documentary sources, including over 200 newspaper articles, 60 testimonies about the war from soldiers and their relatives, congressional documents, and military manpower policies.

<p>  </p> <p>Many viewers—especially those from the continental United States—have praised Disney for such recent actions as casting Pacific Islanders in the animated feature film <em>Moana</em> (2016) and assembling a group of cultural advisors (named the Oceanic Story Trust) to guide the filmmakers’ creative decisions. However, my project contends that Disney continues to play a significant role in the maintenance of settler colonialism in Hawai‘i, despite these seemingly progressive attempts at challenging Hollywood’s whitewashing. In this project, I argue that Disney creates and replicates the structures of settler colonialism in Hawai‘i through a mechanism that I term <em>imagineered imperial tourism</em>. In my formulation, imagineered imperial tourism involves commodifying historical narratives of colonization to serve the Disney brand by “innocently” repackaging them for the purpose of settler tourist consumption. To signal a Disney-specific branding and reproduction of settler colonial tropes and ideologies, I use the term “imagineered”—a play on Disney’s trademarked term <em>Imagineering</em>, which names the work of the creative team tasked with engineering the company’s most innovative devices, built environments, and technologies.</p> <p>Through a sustained study of Disney’s relevant productions—from the feature films <em>Lilo & Stitch</em> (2002) and <em>Moana</em> to its built environments at the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, FL, and Aulani, A Disney Resort & Spa in Ko Olina, Hawai‘i—I suggest that over time, Disney has normalized a version of Native Hawaiian people and history in US popular culture that reproduces common settler colonial discourses which have structured popular perceptions of Hawai‘i. The company’s almost century-long history of media production has cemented these discourses into a set of public pedagogies that have been reproduced across generations. Disney’s Pacific Island-themed productions and attractions are rife with tropes of native primitivism and imperialist nostalgia. They also reveal the primacy of the discursive framework of hegemonic multiculturalism vis-à-vis the commodified “spirit of aloha,” a sentiment which is superficially rooted in Native Hawaiian epistemologies and branded as a key selling point by the tourism industry. Furthermore, Disney has actively colonized Hawaiian lands since 2007, capitalizing on the Islands’ exploitative tourist industry while also obscuring longstanding battles over land ownership and denying Native Hawaiians sovereignty over their stolen lands. Ultimately, I suggest that Disney’s ostensibly “innocent” repackaging contributes to the violent erasure of Native Hawaiian history in popular culture. </p>