Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersPerforming Statehood through Crises: Citizens, Strangers, Territory
This article applies the growing International Relations literature on state performance and performativity to the question of how practitioners categorize different kinds of crises. The aim is to add value to the crisis literature by paying more attention to how performances are staged for multiple audiences, how statehood is produced as a collective (as opposed to an individual) body, and how and why one and the same state actor performs statehood in different ways. Drawing on interviews and participant observation, we discuss how one state apparatus, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), performs statehood during different types of crisis. The MFA has institutionalized crisis management in three very different ways, depending on whether it defines the crisis as a security crisis, a humanitarian crisis, or a civilian crisis. Different crises have different audiences, are performed in different repertoires, and produce three different aspects of the state that we name, respectively, caretaking, do-gooding, and sovereignty. Bringing the performativity literature to the study of crises gives us a better understanding of the statecraft that goes into using crises as opportunities to make visible and strengthen the state as a presence in national and global social life. Conversely, our focus on the specificity of various state performances highlights how the performance literature stands to gain from differentiating more clearly between the straightforward performing of practices, on the one hand, and the performing of state identity by means of the same practices, on the other.
Preface
Foreign and security policy have long been removed from the political pressures that influence other areas of policymaking. This has led to a tendency to separate the analytical levels of the individual and the collective. Using Lacanian theory, which views the subject as ontologically incomplete and desiring a perfect identity which is realised in fantasies, or narrative scenarios, this book shows that the making of foreign policy is a much more complex process. Emotions and affect play an important role, even where ‘hard’ security issues, such as the use of military force, are concerned. Eberle constructs a new theoretical framework for analysing foreign policy by capturing the interweaving of both discursive and affective aspects in policymaking. He uses this framework to explain Germany’s often contradictory foreign policy towards the Iraq crisis of 2002/2003, and the emotional, even existential, public debate that accompanied it. This book adds to ongoing theoretical debates in International Political Sociology and Critical Security Studies and will be required reading for all scholars working in these areas
Kinship in International Relations: Introduction and framework
This chapter identifies and discusses some of the ways in which kinship may be of use to IR scholars. The chapter offers examples of how kinship relations have manifested themselves historically in international relations, seeking to demonstrate how blood kinship from the beginning has been accompanied, reinforced and challenged by metaphorical kinship – that is, how certain non-blood related relations in or via practice come to be treated as kin, with the duties, obligations and expectations that entails.
Kinship in International Relations
While kinship is among the basic organizing principles of all human life, its role in and implications for international politics and relations have been subject to surprisingly little exploration in International Relations (IR) scholarship. This volume is the first volume aimed at thinking systematically about kinship in IR – as an organizing principle, as a source of political and social processes and outcomes, and as a practical and analytical category that not only reflects but also shapes politics and interaction on the international political arena. Contributors trace everyday uses of kinship terminology to explore the relevance of kinship in different political and cultural contexts and to look at interactions taking place above, at and within the state level. The book suggests that kinship can expand or limit actors’ political room for maneuvereon the international political arena, making some actions and practices appear possible and likely, and others less so. As an analytical category, kinship can help us categorize and understand relations between actors in the international arena. It presents itself as a ready-made classificatory system for understanding how entities within a hierarchy are organized in relation to one another, and how this logic is all at once natural and social.
Expertise and Practice: The Evolving Relationship between Study and Practice of Security
The chapter details the evolving relationship between the study and the practice of international security. This relationship is seen as one of differentiation: international security has proliferated into several sub-fields - cyber security, conflict management etc - with increased specialisation of techniques of governing. This specialisation is matched by a differentiation in academic research and expertise, so that there is by now a broad array of different types of security expertise. This differentiation into sub-fields reflects a broader trend also found in other issue-areas.
Diplomacy as Global Governance
The chapter details how diplomacy - the case study being Norwegian diplomacy - is no longer solely about representing the state vis a vis other states. It has evolved to also include governing specific issues. This governance aspect of diplomacy becomes even more interesting as an expression of the transformation of diplomacy when we consider that what is being governed is not directly linked to the security of the state, but to ideals and principles that attain meaning as first and foremost "international" issues or goals. We find evidence of a gradual shift of diplomacy towards governing of international issues, and reflect on what this means for the presentation of the state vis a vis other states.
Diplomacy, the arts, and popular culture
Diplomacy usually takes place in settings that are constructed not only with a view to functionality, but also to beauty. Beauty lends status and ambiance to diplomatic sites. The first part of this entry discusses the use of art by diplomats. The second part discusses how diplomacy is represented in popular culture and art. Since very few people have first‐hand knowledge of diplomacy, and diplomacy as such is rarely given much exposure in the news, most people owe their understanding of diplomacy to representations of diplomacy in popular culture and the arts. These representations have legitimacy effects. They feed back into how diplomats represent themselves to the public and, by extension, into how politicians represent issues to the public. In this sense, representations of diplomacy have an indirect constitutive effect on diplomacy.
Moral authority and status in International Relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking
We develop scholarship on status in international politics by focusing on the social dimension of small and middle power status politics. This vantage opens a new window on the widely-discussed strategies social actors may use to maintain and enhance their status, showing how social creativity, mobility, and competition can all be system-supporting under some conditions. We extract lessons for other thorny issues in status research, notably questions concerning when, if ever, status is a good in itself; whether it must be a positional good; and how states measure it.
Governmentality
Governmentality is a concept that Michel Foucault developed in response to critics that found no subjects in his analyses of power. It refers to how subjects such as states may govern from afar by conducting the conduct of other subjects such as NGOs, individuals etc. This chapter traces the emergence of the concept, relates it to Foucault’s two other modes of power (sovereignty and discipline) and précis its use across the social sciences.
Security, ethnicity, nationalism
In this article, Neumann asks which aspects of ethnicity and nationalism that may be brought into sharper focus if we read these two phenomena with a view to how they have been shaped by security concerns. The first part of the article clears up some problems inherent in such exercises in diachronic concept analysis, and establishes the temporal area of validity for the analysis. The second part argues that the very emergence of the concept of ethnos (and its Roman translation, gens) was immersed in security thinking. It emerged as a way in which Greeks and Romans imposed order on what was outside that was not there before. Ethnic groups became ethnic by being interpellated by a stronger polity, and the process was driven first and foremost by security concerns. The third part illustrates this with a case study of the emergence of Slavic ethnicity. The fourth part of the article discusses how, with the advent of nationalism, there is an inversion. If ethnicity was imposed on subaltern groups, then European empires attempted to deny nationalism to such groups by insisting that they did not have the history to deserve it. Once again, security concerns played a key role, for as rightly seen by empires, nationhood could be an important anti-colonial resource. The paper ends by noting how nationalism invariably underlines the vitality of the Self, and juxtaposes it with the decrepitude of Others. With reference to present-day Russia, I note how the use of such organic metaphors in and of themselves securitize the relationship between nations, for the implication is that the old should disappear for the new to live, and that highlights security concerns on both sides of the relationship.