Our understanding of zombies is dictated by the predominantly human film industry. I can't believe I'm the only one to point this out but that means that were undead creatures that engage in brain-eating to appear on Earth, all our diverse inferences and theories would inevitably be influenced by one very limited discourse. This discourse depends on views of the dead (as inanimate, repulsive and mysterious, and whose reanimation is unnatural and threatening) that are socially constructed at a very young age in virtually every society. There is also a firmly institutionalized norm (spanning at least a century) that the dead remain dead. What's to say they are not higher beings, emancipated from death and abstract thought. What we need is greater 'Verstehen' - understanding.

Our views of 'zombies', their customs and behaviour will continue to be severely deficient until some noble IR pioneers take it upon themselves to conduct a series of exploratory ethnographies on them, were they to appear. This would, however, be exceedingly difficult if the theory that they are all categorically out for our brains is supported - though that would yield robust knowledge as an example of valid hypothesis testing. But then again there would always be doubts as to how generalisable the findings would be. And hermeneutics may pose problems.

After initial case studies and qualitative analysis, I think a Critical Theory approach could be enriching. Although 'zombies' are typically portrayed as 'communicating' vocally in bloodcurdling grunts, this is not to say that their methods of communication are in any way inferior to our own. After the emergence of a 'zombie' presence in human society the system/lifeworld dialectic would presumably result in the instrumentalisation of the cultural practice of groaning by the system, followed by its 'recolonisation' by the lifeworld, resulting in a morbid form of communication (see Anievas 2005). The same goes for body language, which makes up approximately 70% of communication (probably more for zombies). This would be one step towards achieving a Habermasian ideal speech situation. And since theories of human/zombie antagonism rest on the assumption that communication is impossible, I believe we would eventually (though probably over many many years) cease to discriminate between dead and undead. Such is the trajectory of the Enlightenment Project.

Even the ultimate pacifist (overlooked by the Nobel Committee, no less) Mahatma Gandhi said:

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."

"Witness her own dishonor" could obviously be applied to America in terms of terrorist attacks and other violent realities. I think this was Obama's way of chiding the Nobel Committee for thrusting an award upon him that only added more pressure to subsequent decisions they knew he had to make.

His speech was an amalgamation of every undergrad IR course I have taken, articulated by the orator of our time. I am no Obama supporter, but this speech was revolutionary in its differentiation between the will to power and its utilization. Aldous Huxley and the other Christian pacifists would have a lot to consider after hearing this speech. His message also meshes will with the Islamic conflict resolution studies of Hashimi and Kelsay; that non-violence is a secondary but nonetheless useful tool amongst others in providing peace and stability. All in all, as a student of political science, I was amazed by his articulate rationale and admission that some peace must simply be attained through means that include war. Good show, Mr. President! Lets hope he means what he says...

As a IR student and a realist i solemenly agree that there will never be real peace among state even among allies. What he reitirated to me was, what i believe all along that in order for survival of individual states there must be wars to protect its citizens. Am not an Obama fan matter of fact i believe he is the worst president that has come along since being of our presidency. But i must agree with him in his speech about the conflicts of states amd among its people. As long as there is mankind there will never be peace on this planet.

As a freshman majoring in International Studies, this exercise seems right up my alley. Having just completed my first semester, including an introductory course in world politics, I was drawn to the language of this speech. Though, I must say, it makes me envious. Obama’s speech is exactly what I wish I was capable of writing for the essay I just completed as my final exam. My final discussed how neoliberal institutionalism will define the problems of my generation. Obama and I even quoted the same JFK speech given in 1963 at my school, American University. After listening to Obama’s speech, I now realize the much greater substance that existed beneath some of the points I attempted to make in my paper. For this reason, I decided to take a crack at applying your list of IR theories to the speech.

Neoliberal Institutionalism:
Though Obama invokes a variety of theories, this speech is centered on the principles of neoliberal institutionalism. There is the overt demonstration of this with quotes such as “the world needed institutions to prevent another world war.” Obama also speaks favorably of interdependence by including the statement “commerce has stitched much of the world together” in a section about the accomplishments of institutions. Even in a later section that seeks to acknowledge the role of force in achieving goals of the world, Obama settles on the liberal ideal that the better future we seek is one in which other peoples of the world “can live in freedom and prosperity.” He reiterates this precept of liberalism again later in the speech when he asserts his belief that “force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.” Obama also channels Kant, saying that he is convinced “that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates- and weakens- those who don’t.”

Social Constructivism:
The prevailing precept of constructivism, i.e. the importance of identity in defining interests, makes a few brief appearances in the President’s speech. “The resurgence of ethnic and sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos” says Obama. Consistent with the theory of social constructivism, Obama is defining the source of the threats of today as groups, not necessarily states. Identity also appears in Obama’s discussion of human rights, when he attributes the opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as based on the perception that the principles expressed are Western values. While Obama dismisses this as a “false suggestion,” the role of social constructivism is apparent. Once again, the language has strayed from the role of “states” to more nebulous distinctions, like “foreign and local culture.”

Democratic Peace Theory:
A good amount of democratic peace theory overlaps with the sections of the speech I have cited under neoliberal institutionalism. Like Obama’s support of institutions, his belief in the democratic peace theory is hard to miss. Michael Doyle, in Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, affirms “the political bond of liberal rights and interests has proven a remarkably firm foundation for mutual nonaggression.” With the assertion of the fact that “America has never fought a war against a Democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens,” Obama is unequivocally subscribing to Kant and Doyle’s theory of a democratic peace.

Feminist IR Theory:
The feminist perspective makes a brief but deliberate appearance in the conclusion of Obama’s speech. In his description of the “world that ought to be,” Obama uses the imagery of a female protestor “awaiting the brutality of her government”. Another example in this section is an idealistic mother who takes time to teach her son. The image of a female protestor stands out, as it seems to pay homage to Neda-Agha Soltan, the young woman killed during the post-election protests in Iran earlier this year. In an area of the world where the rights of women are often denied, the courage of female protestors in Iran is noteworthy. It is no wonder, then, that Obama would implement such imagery when trying to promote examples of the struggle for justice, equality, and peace.

Human Security:
In the third way set forth to achieve a just and lasting peace, Obama speaks of human security. Using language associated with the Human Development Report, Obama defines true peace as “not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.” He highlights the importance of access to basic human needs, and links the importance of development and security.

From this post, I begin to question the wisdom of spending taxpayer money on political science. I am shocked by my thought.