Jarrod Hayes – författare

The Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) has been inhabited for millennia by a heterogeneous populace. However, in the wake of World War II, when independence movements began to gain momentum in these French colonies, the dominant national discourses attempted to define the national identities by exclusion. One rallying cry from the 1930s was "Islam is my religion, Arabic is my language, Algeria is my fatherland". In this incisive postcolonial study, Jarrod Hayes uses literary analysis to examine how Francophone novelists from the Maghreb engaged in a diametric nation-building project. Their works imagined a diverse nation peopled by those who were excluded by the dominant discourses, especially those who did not conform to traditional sexual norms. By incorporating representations of marginal sexualities, sexual dissidence, and gender insubordination, Maghrebian novelists imagined an anticolonial struggle that would result in sexual liberation and envisioned nations that could be defined and developed inclusively.

In international relations (IR), the theory of constructivism argues that the complicated web of international relations is not the result of basic human nature or some other unchangeable aspect but has been built up over time and through shared assumptions.Constructivism Reconsidered synthesizes the nature of and debates on constructivism in international relations, providing a systematic assessment of the constructivist research program in IR to answer specific questions: What extent of (dis)agreement exists with regard to the meaning of constructivism? To what extent is constructivism successful as an alternative approach to rationalism in explaining and understanding international affairs? Constructivism Reconsidered explores constructivism’s theoretical, empirical, and methodological strengths and weaknesses, and debates what these say about its past, present, and future to reach a better understanding of IR in general and how constructivism informs IR in particular.

Employing rootedness as a way of understanding identity has increasingly been subjected to acerbic political and theoretical critiques. Politically, roots narratives have been criticized for attempting to police identity through a politics of purity—excluding anyone who doesn’t share the same narrative. Theoretically, a critique of essentialism has led to a suspicion against essence and origins regardless of their political implications.The central argument of Queer Roots for the Diaspora is that, in spite of these debates, ultimately the desire for roots contains the “roots” of its own deconstruction. The book considers alternative root narratives that acknowledge the impossibility of returning to origins with any certainty; welcome sexual diversity; acknowledge their own fictionality; reveal that even a single collective identity can be rooted in multiple ways; and create family trees haunted by the queer others patrilineal genealogy seems to marginalize.The roots narratives explored in this book simultaneously assert and question rooted identities within a number of diasporas—African, Jewish, and Armenian. By looking at these together, one can discern between the local specificities of any single diaspora and the commonalities inherent in diaspora as a global phenomenon. This comparatist, interdisciplinary study will interest scholars in a diversity of fields, including diaspora studies, postcolonial studies, LGBTQ studies, French and Francophone studies, American studies, comparative literature, and literary theory.

Employing rootedness as a way of understanding identity has increasingly been subjected to acerbic political and theoretical critiques. Politically, roots narratives have been criticized for attempting to police identity through a politics of purity—excluding anyone who doesn’t share the same narrative. Theoretically, a critique of essentialism has led to a suspicion against essence and origins regardless of their political implications.The central argument of Queer Roots for the Diaspora is that, in spite of these debates, ultimately the desire for roots contains the “roots” of its own deconstruction. The book considers alternative root narratives that acknowledge the impossibility of returning to origins with any certainty; welcome sexual diversity; acknowledge their own fictionality; reveal that even a single collective identity can be rooted in multiple ways; and create family trees haunted by the queer others patrilineal genealogy seems to marginalize.The roots narratives explored in this book simultaneously assert and question rooted identities within a number of diasporas—African, Jewish, and Armenian. By looking at these together, one can discern between the local specificities of any single diaspora and the commonalities inherent in diaspora as a global phenomenon. This comparatist, interdisciplinary study will interest scholars in a diversity of fields, including diaspora studies, postcolonial studies, LGBTQ studies, French and Francophone studies, American studies, comparative literature, and literary theory.

In international relations (IR), the theory of constructivism argues that the complicated web of international relations is not the result of basic human nature or some other unchangeable aspect but has been built up over time and through shared assumptions.   Constructivism Reconsidered synthesizes the nature of and debates on constructivism in international relations, providing a systematic assessment of the constructivist research program in IR to answer specific questions: What extent of (dis)agreement exists with regard to the meaning of constructivism? To what extent is constructivism successful as an alternative approach to rationalism in explaining and understanding international affairs? Constructivism Reconsidered explores constructivism’s theoretical, empirical, and methodological strengths and weaknesses, and debates what these say about its past, present, and future to reach a better understanding of IR in general and how constructivism informs IR in particular.

Jarrod Hayes explores why democracies tend not to use military force against each other. He argues that democratic identity - the shared understanding within democracies of who 'we' are and what 'we' expect from each other - makes it difficult for political leaders to construct external democracies as threats. At the same time, he finds that democratic identity enables political actors to construct external non-democracies as threats. To explore his argument, he looks at US relations with two rising powers: India and China. Through his argument and case studies, Professor Hayes addresses not just the democratic peace but also the larger processes of threat construction in international security, the role of domestic institutions in international relations, and the possibility for conflict between the United States and the world's two most populous countries.

Jarrod Hayes explores why democracies tend not to use military force against each other. He argues that democratic identity - the shared understanding within democracies of who 'we' are and what 'we' expect from each other - makes it difficult for political leaders to construct external democracies as threats. At the same time, he finds that democratic identity enables political actors to construct external non-democracies as threats. To explore his argument, he looks at US relations with two rising powers: India and China. Through his argument and case studies, Professor Hayes addresses not just the democratic peace but also the larger processes of threat construction in international security, the role of domestic institutions in international relations, and the possibility for conflict between the United States and the world's two most populous countries.