請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55282
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張登及(Teng-Chi Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yin-Ru Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳盈如 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T03:54:42Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-02-04 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-02-04 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2014-12-27 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考書目
一、中文 專書 孔子,《論語》,顏淵篇。 瞿同祖,《中國法律與中國社會》(台北:里仁,1984)。 瑪格麗特.米德(Margaret Mead)著,宋踐等譯,《三個原始部落的性別與氣質》(台北:遠流,1990年)。 趙全勝,《日本政治背後的政治》(香港:商務印書館,1996年)。 季辛吉(Henry Kissinger),林添貴、顧淑馨譯,《大外交(上)》(Diplomacy) (台北:智庫,1998年)。 Simone de Beauvoir;陶鐵柱譯,《第二性》(Le Deuxième Sexe ) (台北市:貓頭鷹出版,城邦文化發行,1999年)。 R.W. Connell,劉泗翰譯,《性�別 Gender:多元時代的性別角力》(台北:書林,2004年)。 吳逸驊,《圖解社會學》(台北:博士文化:2004)。 Barbara Arneil,郭夏娟譯,《政治學與女性主義》(Politics& Feminism) (北京:東方出版社,2005年)。 鞠德源,《釣魚台正名》(北京:崑崙出版社,2006)。 Allan G. Johnson,成令方、王秀雲、游美惠、邱大昕、吳嘉苓譯,《性別打結:拆除父權違建》(台北:群學,2008年)。 孫中興、張莉莉編,《女性主義研究方法》(上海:2007)。 Judith Butler,林郁庭譯,《性/別惑亂:女性主義與身分顛覆》(台北:桂冠,2008年)。 Carol Grbich 著,司徒懿譯,《簡明質性研究法分析》(Quantative Data Analysis: An Introduction)(台北:韋伯文化,2009年)。 詹俊峰、洪文慧、劉岩編,《男性身份研究讀本》(武漢:武漢大學出版社,2010年)。 明居正主編,《國際關係綜論》(台北:晶典文化,2010年)。 Raewyn Connell,國家教育研究院主譯、劉泗翰譯,《性/別的世界觀》(台北:國家教育研究院、書林,2011年)。 復旦─密歇根大學社會性別研究所編,《男性研究》(上海:上海三聯書店,2012年)。 卜睿哲(Richard C. Bush),林添貴譯,《一山二虎─中日關係的現狀與亞太局勢的未來》(The Perils of Proximity: China-Japan security relations)(台北:遠流,2012年)。 專書篇章 Connell, R.W. and Messerschmidt, James W.著,姚偉、楊麗靜譯,「霸權男性特質:針對此概念的再思考」(Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept),載於王政、張穎主編,《男性研究》(上海:上海三聯書局,2012年),頁35-79。 Enloe, Cynthia.〈在阿布格萊布塑造男性特質:一個美國軍事醜聞的女權主義解讀〉(Wielding Masculinity Inside Abu Ghraid: Making Feminist Sense of an American Military Scandal),載於王政、張穎主編,《男性研究》(上海:上海三聯書局,2012年),頁375-387。 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky.〈天哪,喬治男孩,你肯定對你的男性氣質相當自信!〉 (Gosh, Boy George, You Must Be Awfully Secure in Your Masculinity!),載於詹俊峰、洪文慧、劉岩編,《男性身份研究讀本》(武漢:武漢大學出版社,2010年),頁107-121。 期刊論文 余國藩,2001年。〈靜觀其變─論儒家思想與人權的展望〉,《中國文史哲研究通訊》,11(1),頁99-133。 吳輝,2001年。〈從國際法討論中日釣魚島爭端及其解決前景〉,《中國邊疆史地研究》,10(1),頁75-83。 報章雜誌 紐約時報中文版,2013年10月9日〈日中關係為「購島」失去的一年〉,http://cn.nytimes.com/asia-pacific/20131009/cc09kato/zh-hant/。檢索日期:2014年12月11日。 新華網,2014年11月7日〈楊潔篪會見日本國家安全保障局長谷內正太郎 中日就處理和改善中日關係達成四點原則共識〉, http://japan.xinhuanet.com/2014-11/07/c_133772945.htm。檢索日期:2014年11月20日。 二、英文 專書 Brod, Harry. and Kaufman, Michael. (eds.), Theorizing Masculinities (London: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994). Bruce Lawrence Berg, Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (Boston: Allyn& Bacon,2000), 4th ed. Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939 (London: Harper Perennial, 1964). Connell, R.W.. Masculinity (Cambridge: Political Press, 1995). Dean, Robert D.. Imperial Brotherhood: Gender and the Making of Cold War foreign Policy (Amherst: Massachusetts Press, 2001). Easton, David. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953). Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Women and War ( New York : Basic Books, 1987). Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas ,Beaches, and Bases (London: University of California Press, 1990). Enloe, Cynthia, The Curious Feminist (London : University of California Press, 2004). Graham T. Allison& Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis ( Peking: Peking University Press& Pearson Education, 2008). Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, The Philosophy of History (London: Forgotten Books, 2012). Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited. with Introduction and Notes by Edwin Curley (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994). Hooper, Charlotte. Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001). Johnston, Alastair Iain. Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980-2000 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). Jackson, Richard., Breen-Smyth, Marie., Gunning, Jeroen. & Jarvis, Lee (eds.), Terrorism: A Critical Introduction ( UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). Kronsell, Annica. and Svedberg, Erika. Making Gender, Making War (New York: Routledge, 2012). Messerschmidt, James W.. Hegemonic masculinities and camouflaged politics : unmasking the Bush dynasty and its war against Iraq (Boulder, Colo. : Paradigm Publishers, 2010). Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988). Pateman, Carole. Worlding Women (Sydney: Routledge, 1996). Ruspini, Elisabetta., Hearn, Jeff., Pease, Bob., and Pringleedt, Keith., Men and Masculinities Around the World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001). Sjoberg, Laura. Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq: A Feminist Reformulation of Just War Theory (Oxford: Lexington Books, 2006). Sylvester, C. (ed.), Feminist international Relations: critical concepts in international relations(London: Routledge, 2011), 5 vols. Tickner, J. Ann and Sjober, Laurag, Feminism and International Relations (New York: Routledge, 2011). Von Clausewitz, Carl. On War, trans. Col. J.J. Graham, Vol. 1. New and Revised edition with Introduction and Notes by Col. F.N. Maude (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & C., 1918), Vol.3. V. S. Peterson. (ed.),Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher, 1992). West, Richard & H.Turner, Lynn, Introducing Communication Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007). Yuval-Davis, Nira. Gender& Nation (London: SAGE, 1997). Zalewski, M. and J. Parpart (eds.). The “Man” Question in International Relations (Colorado: Westview Press, 1998). 專書篇章 Biricik, Alp. “The ‘Rotten Report’ and the Reproduction of masculinity, Nation and Security in Turkey, “in Annica Kronsell and Erika Svedberg (eds.), Making gender, making war (New York: Taylor& Francis, 2012), pp.76-89. Cohn, Carol.” Gays in the Military: Texts and Subtexts,” in Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart (eds.), The “Man” Question in International Relations (Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 129-179. Hooper, Charlotte. “Masculinitist Practices and Gender Politics: The Operation of Multiple Masculinities in International Relations,” in Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart (eds.), The “Man” Question in International Relations (Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), pp.28-53. Haaland, Torunn Laugen. “Friendly War-Fighters and Invisible Women: Perceptions of Gender and Masculinity in the Norwegian Armed Forces on Mission Abroad,” in Annica Kronsell and Erika Svedberg (eds.), Making Gender, Making War (New York: Taylor& Franci, 2012), pp.63-75. Kimmel, Michael S. “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence of the Gender Identity,” in Harry Brod and Michael Kaufman (eds.), Theorizing Masculinities (London: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994) pp. 119-141. Munn, Jamie. “National myths and the creation of heroes, “in Jane L. Parpart and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), Rethinking the man question: sex, gender and international relations (London: Zed Books Ltd., 2008), pp.143-162. Niva, Steve. “Tough and Tender: New World Order Masculinity and the Gulf War, “ in Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart edt., The “Man” Question in International Relations (Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), pp.109-128. Pettman, Ralph. “Sex, Power, and the Grail of Positive Collaboration,” in Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart edt., The “Man” Question in International Relations (Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 169-184. Smith, Steve. “‘Unacceptable Conclusions’ and the ‘Man’ Question: Masculinity, Gender, and International Relations,” in Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart (eds.), The “Man” Question in International Relations (Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), pp.54-72. Wendt, Alexander E. “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics,” in Y. Lapid and F. Kratochwil (eds), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996), pp. 47-64. Whitworth, Sandra. “Militarized masculinity and Post-traumatic stress disorder,” in Jane L. Parpart and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), Rethinking the man question: sex, gender and international relations (London: Zed Books Ltd., 2008), pp.109-126. 期刊論文 Christensen, Wendy M. & Ferree, Myra Marx.” Cowboy of the World? Gender Discourse and the Iraq War”, Debate,Qualitative Sociology ,Vol.31(3) (2008), pp. 287-306. Dean, Robert D. “Masculinity as Ideology: John F. Kennedy and the Domestic Politics of Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History, Vol.22 (1) (1998), pp. 29–62. Enloe, Cynthia. “Afterword: Hegemonic Masculinities in International Politics,” Men and Masculinity, Vol.10 (4) (2008), pp.383-388. Farnham, Barbara.” Impact of the Political Context on Foreign Policy Decision-Making,” Political Psychology, Vol. 25(3) (2004), Special Issue (Part Two), pp.441-463. Hooper, Charlotte. “Masculinities, IR and the ‘gender variable’: a cost-benefit analysis for (sympathetic) gender sceptics,” Review of International Studies, Vol.25(1999), pp.475-491. Johnston, Alastair Iain. “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.45(2001), pp.487-515. Lease, Suzanne H., Montes, Sarah H., Baggett, Linda R., Sawyer II, R. John., M, Kristie. , Fleming-Norwood, Hampton, Ashley B., Ovrebo, Elin., Çiftçi, Ayse. and Boyraz, Güler. ” A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Masculinity and Relationships in Men From Turkey, Norway, and the United States, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 44(1) (2013), pp.84-105. Locher, Birgit and Prügl, Elisabeth. “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds apart or sharing the middle ground,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.45:1(2001), pp. 111-129. Pitchford, Jenna.” From One Gulf to Another: Reading Masculinity in American Narratives of the Persian Gulf and Iraq Wars,” Literature Compass, Vol.9 (5) (2012), pp. 357-370. Tickner, J. Ann. “Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation, Millennium,” Vol.17 (3) (1988), pp. 429-440. Wendt, Alexander E. “The agent-structure problem in international relations theory,” International Organization, Vol.41 (3) (1987), pp.335-370. Wibben, Annick T.R. “ Feminist International Relations: Old Debates and New Directions,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol.10(2) (2004), p. 97-113. 網路資源 Shor, Francis. (2005).”Hypermasculine Warfare: From 9/11 to the War on Iraq.” Bad Subjects Issue, Retrieved December 18, 2013 from http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2005/shor.html. Cornell University. (2005, August 3). “Men Overcompensate When Masculinity Is Threatened.” ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050803064454.htm Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). “Path to the Brink: A Chronology of the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://cisac.stanford.edu/. “ Statement by Ambassador Stevenson to U.N. Security Council.” Retrieved April 4, 2014 from https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/adlai.htm. Presidential Proclamations. Retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/proclamations.php. 日文 專書 彥坂諦,《男性神話》(東京:径書房,1991年)。 相良亨,《日本人論》(東京:ぺりかん社,1992年)。 井桁碧編,《「日本」囯家と女》(東京:青弓社,2000年)。 Tickner, J. Ann、進藤久美子、進藤榮一譯,《国際関係論とジャンダ 》 (東京:岩波書局,2005年)。 淺井春夫、伊藤悟、村瀨幸浩,《日本の男はどこからきて、どこへ行くのか》(東京:十月舍,2011年)。 期刊論文 中內康夫,2012年。〈尖閣諸島をめぐる問題と日中関係―日本の領土編入から今日までの経緯と今後の課題―〉,《立法と調査》,No.334,頁69-84。 網站來源 The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php 香港文匯報,http://www.wenweipo.com/。 新華網,http://www.xinhuanet.com/。 紐約時報中文網,http://cn.nytimes.com/zh-hant/。 聯合報,http://udn.com/NEWS/mainpage.shtml。 中國外交部網站,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn。 中國國防部網站,http://www.mod.gov.cn/。 中華人民共和國中央人民政府,http://www.gov.cn/。 日本首相官邸網站,http://www.kantei.go.jp/。 日本外務省網站,http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/index.html。 日本海上保安廳網站,http://www.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/index.html。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55282 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 國際關係領域近來有兩大爭論,一為主流國關理論與非主流國關理論的爭議、二為國關理論對不同區域的適用性。其一,國際關係理論長期以來由現實主義及自由主義為主流。然而,隨著不同觀點進入國際關係領域,例如:女性主義;開始質疑長久以來支配國際關係的基本假設。其二,隨著國際政治的發達,越來越多非西方國家在國際社會中活躍,現行國際關係理論開始被質疑是否適用於非西方國家。
傳統國際關係理論:自由主義與現實主義,認為國際關係是性別中立的。但女性主義否定這項先驗假設,認為國際社會並非性別中立的,而是以性別中立掩蓋依靠性別分立運作的事實。性別分析的觀點更認為國際政治實際上是藉由定義「陽剛氣質」(masculinity)運作的「陽剛政治」(politics of masculinity)。此外,現實主義與自由主義是建構在傳統西方政治哲學上的國際關係理論,但東方國家有不同的政治、社會文化,則以西方傳統為基礎的理論不一定適用於非西方國家。 本研究之目的為檢視基於區域差異而產生的國家展演陽剛氣質的不同。研究方法為檢視衝突情境中分屬不同區域國家的官方論述,並藉由文本分析、論述分析與性別分析:霸權陽剛氣質的概念,呈現國家展演的國家氣質、國家角色想像,並比較區域間陽剛氣質的不同。因此,本文以古巴飛彈危機與2012年中日釣魚台爭端為分析案例,以美國代表西方典型、中國及日本做為東方的對照組,分析與比較美、中、日三國展演的陽剛氣質及西方─東方的差異。 在古巴飛彈危機中,美國同時實踐現實主義與自由主義的陽剛氣質,展演國際社會中霸權陽剛氣質的典範;相對地,中國與日本皆受儒家文化及自身文化脈絡影響,各自展現了獨特的陽剛氣質。尤其是中國因為不相信西方價值,因此表現出截然不同於西方典範的陽剛氣質與國家角色。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | There have been two research paradigms in International Relations (IR). The first mainstream, realism and liberalism included; consider international society is constructed of gender-free actors (states). The second one, feminism and other post-structuralist theories alike, believe that international society is built upon deliberate construction and separation of sex, such as feminity and masculinity. Now, gender approach already got its ways into IR and gender-based theoretical case studies are applied to IR, which offer innovative visions in contemporary international relations.
Meanwhile, there has been intensely debated that whether the mainstream IR paradigm originated from the West could be conducted to the East (from Turkey, Russia to Japan and China). Given the various regional / civilizational features of culture and history, there is a growing concern that mainstream IR theories from the West may not be “universal” to the East. These cultural and historical diversities also lead to different construction of the separation and identity of sex. Though the World constructed by IR theories from the West, it does not mean that the same identity will be simply taken for granted. Being grounded on the conception of hegemonic masculinity, this study tries to compare the different hegemonic masculinities between the West and the East. Given the similar conditions of international relations, eastern countries may still practice different separation of sex, gender identities, and masculinities in their respective region. This study intends to compare 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis and the Senkaku Islands/ Diaoyu Islands disputes in 2012, of which the foreign discourse and behavior are examined. The main research method is content and discursive analysis over top political leaders’ speeches during these two crises. Through analyzing and comparing selected texts, the author concludes the paper with different, cross-region types of masculinities, which help formulate how the targeted countries conducted foreign policy in different way. While the U.S. performed realism-liberalism hegemonic masculinity, Japan and China performed their own distinct masculinities. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T03:54:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R00322034-1.pdf: 9012116 bytes, checksum: d91ec34e2db016eecf7f508cf546d1b9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書
第壹章、緒論 第一節、研究動機與目的.1 第二節、研究案例與預期貢獻.7 第三節、案例與研究途徑選擇.11 第四節、研究範圍與研究限制.33 第五節、章節架構.35 第貳章、性別分析與國際關係研究 第一節、女性主義與傳統國際關係理論.37 第二節、陽剛氣質、文化與國際衝突.61 第三節、性別分析與國際衝突的案例研究.70 第四節、小結.76 第參章、古巴危機與美國的陽剛氣質分析 第一節、古巴危機的背景與經過:性別分析的視角.79 第二節、美國衝突論述分析.82 第三節、小結.104 第肆章、釣魚台衝突與陽剛氣質分析:日本方面 第一節、釣魚台衝突的背景與經過:日本的視角.109 第二節、日本的衝突論述分析.113 第三節、日本國家角色與陽剛氣質分析.135 第伍章、釣魚台衝突與陽剛氣質分析:中國方面 第一節、釣魚島衝突的背景與經過:中國的視角.143 第二節、中國的衝突論述分析.147 第三節、中國國家角色與陽剛氣質分析.187 第陸章、結論 第一節、比較分析:東方與西方陽剛氣質展演的異同.191 第二節、國際關係中競逐的陽剛氣質典範.196 第三節、研究限制與展望.208 參考書目.211 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 國際衝突的陽剛氣質展演:美、中、日三國的案例比較 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Comparison of Cross-regional Masculinities in International Relations: Case Studies on the US, Japan and China | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 何思慎,周嘉辰 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 性別研究,霸權陽剛氣質,古巴飛彈危機,釣魚台衝突,區域研究,比較研究, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Gender Study,Hegemonic Masculinity,Cuban Missile Crisis,Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands,Cross-Regional Study, | en |
dc.relation.page | 222 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2014-12-29 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-103-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 8.8 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。