Http Www.giga-hamburg.de Dl Download.php d= Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers

8/3/2019 Http Www.giga-hamburg.de Dl Download.php d= Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers

1/37www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers

GIGA Research Programme:Transformation in the Process of Globalisation

___________________________

Crises, Hegemony and Changein the International System:A Conceptual Framework

Dirk Nabers

N 50 May 2007


2/37

GIGAWP50/2007

GIGAWorkingPapers

Editedby

GIGA

German

Institute

of

Global

and

Area

Studies

/Leibniz

Institut

fr

Globale

undRegionaleStudien.

TheWorkingPaperSeriesservestodisseminatetheresearchresultsofwork inprogress

priortopublicationtoencouragetheexchangeofideasandacademicdebate.Anobjective

oftheseriesistogetthefindingsoutquickly,evenifthepresentationsarelessthanfully

polished.InclusionofapaperintheWorkingPaperSeriesdoesnotconstitutepublication

andshouldnotlimitpublicationinanyothervenue.Copyrightremainswiththeauthors.

WhenWorkingPapersareeventuallyacceptedbyorpublished inajournalorbook,the

correctcitationreferenceand,ifpossible,thecorrespondinglinkwillthenbeincludedin

theWorking

Papers

website

at:

www.gigahamburg.de/workingpapers.

GIGAresearchunitresponsibleforthis issue:ResearchProgramme3 Transformation in

theProcessofGlobalisation

EditoroftheGIGAWorkingPaperSeries:BertHoffmann

Copyrightforthisissue:DirkNabers

Editorialassistantandproduction:SilviaBckeandVerenaKohler

All GIGA Working Papers are available online and free of charge at the website:

www.gigahamburg.de/workingpapers.WorkingPaperscanalsobeorderedinprint.For

productionandmailinga cover feeof5 is charged.Forordersorany requestsplease

contact:

Email:[email protected]

Phone:

++49

(0)40

428

25

548

GIGAGermanInstituteofGlobalandAreaStudies/

LeibnizInstitutfrGlobaleundRegionaleStudien

NeuerJungfernstieg21

20354Hamburg

Germany

Email:[email protected]

Website:www.giga

hamburg.de


3/37

GIGAWP50/2007

Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternationalSystem:

AConceptual

Framework

Abstract

Thepaper tries toshed lighton theconceptual linkbetween internationalcrises like the

one followingSeptember11,2001, theAsian financialcrisisof1997/1998, theendof the

ColdWarormajorinternationalconflicts,andprocessesofchangeintheinternationalsys

tem.Itarguesthatculturalstructuresrestontheircontinuousinstantiationthroughsocial

practices,therebymakingthemcoterminouswithprocess.Processisconstitutedbymean

ingfulactsofsocialagents,andcanthusonlybegraspedbyanalysingmeaning.Meaningis

transmittedbylanguage.Meaningfullanguageisneverreducibletoindividualspeakers;it

isasocialact.Inthepaper,Icallthisprocessdiscourse.LinkingCriticalDiscourseAnaly

sis(CDA)withthetheoryofhegemonydevelopedbyErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe,

Iwillfinallybeabletoshowhowhegemonicdiscoursesserveasthenexusbetweencrises

and

cultural

structures

and

how

they

make

cultural

change

possible.

Keywords: Crisis,change,discourse,poststructuralism,hegemony,internationalpolitics

Dr.DirkNabers

PDDr.DirkNabersisapoliticalscientistandSeniorResearchFellowatGIGAInstituteof

AsianStudies,specializinginInternationalRelationtheory,security,regionalismandJapans

externalrelationsincomparativeperspective.

Contact:[email protected],website:http://staff.gigahamburg.de/nabers.


4/37

Zusammenfassung

Krise,HegemonieundWandeliminternationalenSystem:EinkonzeptionellerRahmen

DerArtikel

untersucht

den

theoretischen

Zusammenhang

zwischen

internationalen

KrisenwiederAsienkrise,demEndedesKaltenKriegsoderdenFolgendes11.Septem

ber2001undProzessendeskulturellenWandelsinderinternationalenPolitik.DasAus

gangsargument lautet,dasssichkulturelleStrukturen impolitischenProzesspermanent

neubilden;KulturwirddurchdensozialenInteraktionsprozesskonstituiert.DurchSpra

che erzeugteBedeutungverleihtdemProzess seine sozialwissenschaftlichanalysierbare

Substanz.Sprache istniemalsals isolierterAkt,sondern immeralssozialeHandlungzu

verstehen. In demArtikelwird dieser Zusammenhangmit dem Begriff desDiskurses

beschrieben.Als

Analyseraster

werden

Einsichten

der

Kritischen

Diskursanalyse

mit

der

TheoriederHegemonievonErnestoLaclauundChantalMouffeverbunden.


5/37

Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternational

System:AConceptualFramework

DirkNabers

ArticleOutline

1 Introduction

2 TowardsaTheoryofInternationalStructuralChange

2.1 Ideas,CultureandLanguage

2.2 Hegemony,CrisisandChange

2.3 Language,DiscourseandInterpretation

3 CritiqueandthePathtoEmpiricalResearch

1 Introduction

Oneof thewellacceptedclichsofourtimeclaims thatweare living inaworldofmajor

andrapidtransformations(Rosenau1990;Walker1993;Cox1996;Holsti2004).BarryJones

hasalreadydemonstratedmorethantwodecadesagothatchangeofsomesortisaubiqui

tousfeatureofhumanlife(Jones1981).Theacceleratedpaceoftodayschangesdoes,how

ever,seem tobewildermoreandmorepeople,ordinary individualsaswellasacademics.

Disorientation in the fields of international security, economic, environmental or cultural

change stems from theunanswerablenatureofquestionssuchas: Wherearewegoing?,

Howcanweinfluencedevelopments?,andalsoWhoarewe?

Thefollowinganalysisdealswiththesequestions,addressingthemfirstfromatheoretical

perspective, then from amethodological one.Wewill, however,not restrict ourselves to

questioningchange,butwillcriticallyinquireintothenatureofthequestionsposedabove.


6/37

DirkNabers:Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternationalSystem6

Mostcruciallyfortheanalysis,ithastobeclearonwhatkindsofontologicalandepistemo

logical foundations assertions about the likelihood and quality of change aremade. The

studydoesnotargue foracategoricalprimacyofontology,aspostulatedbyColinWight

(2006),butrestsontheassumptionthateveryscientificpositionentailsontologyandepiste

mology,withboth perspectivesmutually instituting the other.While scientific realism, as

proposedbyWightandAlexanderWendt(1999),impliesthatobjectsexistindependentlyof

humanminds,thisdoesnotholdtrueforsocialobjects,asWighthimselfacknowledges:no

people,nosocialobjects(Wight2006:26).Asthisstudyisconcernedwithsocialobjectsand

notwithnaturalones,itaccentuatestheroleofagentsconceptionsofwhattheyaredoingin

theiractivity.Theseconceptionsmustbeexpressedverballytobeanalysable.

Hence,whileHolsti(2004:xiiiviv)deploresawidespreadlackofclaritywithregardstothe

questionofwhatweactuallymeanbychange,thisstudyoffersaverystraightforwardpos

ture:Changewillbe understood as discursive change, leading from one hegemonicdis

coursetoanother.Discoursewillinitsmostgeneralsensebeseenasathestructuraltotality

of articulatorydifferences in a political field (Laclau/Mouffe 1985: 105114).The levelof

analysisofthestudyistheinternationalsystem,withstatesastheprimaryagents(Jackson

2004;Wendt 2004) involved indiscursivepractices.The structure of the system is conse

quentlyalsodiscursive; the social,andwhatwecall thecultureof thesystem,areconsti

tuted

entirely

by

discourse.

International

institutions,

internationally

shared

principles,

norms,and rulesare conceptualised asdiscursivearticulations. If the same reality is re

flectedinthelanguageofallinteractingagents,thisiswhatwecallahegemonicconstella

tion.Differentactorsarecompetingforhegemonybyofferingtheirspecificsystemsofnar

rationasacompensatoryframeworkforovercomingcrisisevents.Hegemony,asthestrate

gictermoftheanalysis,referstoquestionsofhowaparticularpoliticalfieldisconstituted,

whatispossibleandimpossibleinpolitics.

Talkingaboutdiscursive structuredoesnot implya staticorclosedviewof the interna

tionalarchitecture.Onthecontrary,inordertobeabletothinkofchange,wehavetoassumeacertainflexibilityoropennessofstructures,instigatedbymeaningfulinteractionsbe

tweenagents.Meaning, itwillbeargued,doesnotdependon reference to theworld out

thereoronideasaboutanexternalreality.Instead,ideasareconceptualisedasanoffspring

ofthemeaningswelearnandreproduce,nottheirsource;noraretheytheoriginofthelan

guagewe speak.We have no immediate access to theirmeaningwithout analysing the

wordsthatsignifythem.Tobeveryclearaboutthis:Ontologically,itwouldmakenosense

toarguethattheentireworld isdiscourse.AsWightpointsout, [t]hatwecanonlyknow

thingsundercertaindescriptionsdoesnotnegatetheontologicalstatusofthattowhichwe

refer(Wight2006:27).


7/37

DirkNabers:Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternationalSystem 7

However,thisstudylooksforaproperanswertothequestionofhowwecanknowthings.

WithWight,itarguesthatwecanonlyknowtheworldundercertaindescriptions.Conse

quently,itfocusesentirelyonthestudyofthesedescriptionsanddoesnotaskforareality

thatexistsindependentlyofthesedescriptions.InaccordancewithFerdinanddeSaussures

linguistictheory,wewillarguethat,inlanguagethereareonlydifferenceswithoutpositive

terms(Saussure1966:120).Takingmeaningasdifferential,notreferential,simplygiveslan

guagepriorityintheanalysisoftheworld:Iftheworld,thethingsandconceptsweseem

toknow,existedsomewhereoutsidelanguage,wordswouldbethesamefromlanguageto

language,culturetoculture,andnoambiguitieswouldarise.FordeSaussure,meaningex

ists inthesignandonlythere.It is linguisticallyconstructed;peopletalk,writeandargue

theworldintoexistence.Undoubtedlythereisaworldouttherethatexistsindependently

oftheobserversmind,butaswillbearguedlaterinmoredetail,wedonothaveimmediate

accesstoitsmeaningwithoutreferringtolanguage.

Putsimply,weareinterested inhow intersubjectivemeaningschangein internationaldis

courses.The transmissionofmeaning throughdiscourse is thedriving forcebehindsocial

change. International crises are crucial inprocesses of change, as theyproduce a void of

meaning,astructuralgapthathastobefilled,asituationoffragmentationand indetermi

nacyofarticulations.Aswillbeclearerinthecourseofthisarticle,crisisisaconstantpoliti

cal

phenomenon.

Without

crisis,

politics

would

lose

its

substance

and

direction.

Any

politi

caldecision istakenasaresponse tocrisis.Therearebiggerandsmallercrises, triggering

changesofdifferentmagnitude. In internationaldiscourses,differentactorsarecompeting

forhegemonybyofferingtheirspecificsystemsofnarrationasareparatoryframework to

overcomecrisiseventsandclosetheopenstructure.

ThefocusonlanguageasadifferentialsystemseemsjustifiedbythefailureoftraditionalIR

theoriestoaccountforchangeininternationalpolitics ingeneralandchanges inthestruc

tureandorganizationof international institutions inparticular.AsR.B.J.Walkerobserved

severalyearsaftertheendoftheColdWar,[t]hereishardlyatheoreticalorientationinthemodernhumansciencesthathasnotbeenchastisedforitsconservativebias,foritsneglect

ofchangeanditsconsequentreificationofthestatusquo(Walker1993:113).

IRscholarshaveinthepastofferednumerousdifferenttheoriestoexplainthestructureofthe

internationalsystem,mostprominently(neo)realism,(neoliberal)institutionalism,liberalism

and social constructivism.Theapproaches, thoughoccupying awideontological rangebe

tweenrationalismandconstructivism,areneitherexhaustivenormutuallyexclusive.

Structuralrealism,orneorealism,intheversionofferedbyKennethWaltz(1979),offersno

accountofstructuralchangeatall,sinceitisconcernedprimarilywithstructuralcontinuity

(foracritiqueWalker1993:116120;Jones1981:1416;Dessler1989).Thetheoryfocuseson


8/37


theobjectivelydefinedstructureof thesystemand itsconstrainingeffectsonstatebehav

iour.Itconsistsofthreelayers:Firstly,theorderingprincipleoftheinternationalsystemis

anarchy;secondly,statesarelikeunits;andthirdly,thestructureofthesystemisdefined

bythedistributionofpowerbetweentheseunits.Whilethefirsttwolayersarestaticandare

bydefinitionnotapttochange,thedistributionofpower isleftunexplainedbytreatingit

endogenoustotheinternationalsystem(Drulk2001:364).Afterall,statesareconceptual

isedasunitaryrationalactorsontologicallyandasblackboxesepistemologically;processis

seenascontinuous interstate relationsconstrainedby theoverallstructureof thesystem.

DavidDessler (1989)has thereforedescribedWaltzstheoryas positional,withthestruc

tureofthesystemresultingfromthepositioningofontologicallypriorunits,incontrasttoa

transformationalmodel,whichconceptualizesstructureasmaterialsforactionthatchange

asactionunfolds.

Foralongtimethemostseriouschallengetorealistbalanceofpowertheorizingcamefrom

atheorythatisfirmlyrootedintherationalistparadigmaswell.(Neo)Institutionalistargu

ments(Keohane1984;Keohane/Nye2001)alsostartfromtheassumptionofselfinterested

actorsoperating inananarchicstatesystem.Yet, thedogmaticneorealistassumptionsare

somewhat relaxed inneoinstitutionalist accounts.Theyoften soften the relativegainshy

pothesis inadmittingthedesireofstates toachieveabsolutegains inwelfareandsecurity

(Zangl/Zrn

1999).

Institutionalists

maintain

that

growing

internationalinterdependence

makeschangefromuncooperativetocooperativebehaviourandinstitutionalisationpossible,

and thatempiricalevidenceexists tounderline thisargument (Keohane/Nye2001;Schirm

2002). In the classicaldefinitionofKeohanesandNyesPowerand Interdependence, the

conceptofinterdependencereferstoastateofmutualdependence,i.e.asituationinwhich

oneactorisbeingdeterminedorsignificantlyaffectedbytheforcesofanotheractor.Inter

dependentrelationshipsalwaysinvolvecosts,sinceautonomyofchoiceisrestricted.Sucha

situationcaneitherimplymutuallossesorgains.Itistheasymmetriesofinterdependence

thatprovidesourcesofinfluenceforstatesintheirrelationswithotherstatesandcanleadtobehaviouralchange(KeohaneandNye2001:Chapter1).

Institutionalistresearchofthelastthreedecadesprovidedafruitfulwaytothinkaboutin

ternationalinstitutionsashelpfultoolsforstatestoovercomeproblemsofcollectiveaction,

hightransactioncostsorinformationdeficits.Institutionalistsassumethatstatesinitiallyen

gageinprocommunicativeactivitiesforegoisticreasons,e.g.becausestategoalscannotbe

pursuedunilaterally.Theargumentdependsonamechanismoffunctionalinstitutionaleffi

ciencyinordertoaccountforsocialchange.Thefirststepforstatestobetakenonthewayto

create an institution is policy coordination,which requires that the actions of different

statesbebrought intoconformity throughaprocessofnegotiation.This is likely tooccur


9/37


whenonestateconsiderstheactiontakenbyotherstatesasfacilitatingrealizationofitsown

objectives(Keohane1984:5152).

Inthe1980s,itwasKeohanesAfterHegemony(1984)andStephenKrasnerseditedvolume

on internationalregimes(1983)thatcompellinglyshowedhow individuallyrationalaction

by statescould impedemutuallybeneficialcooperation.Moreover, these scholarsargued,

statesthatinteractwitheachotherdevelopnormsthatshapecollectivestandardsofbehav

iour.Keohaneincludedthenotionsof boundedrationalityandnormativeexpectationsin

hiswork;however,healsoneglectedoneimportantquestion:Howcanonethinkofpolicy

coordinationwithoutconsideringthecommunicativeprocessesthatoccurduringthenego

tiationsbetween states? Institutionalist theoriescanonlyexplain initialshortterm,behav

ioralchange, i.e.theimpetusforengaging incommunicativeaction,butfailtoaccountfor

thedevelopmentoflongtermcommunalcollaborationandsystemicchange(foracritique

SterlingFolker2000)since they take theexogenouscharacterof interestsand identitiesas

given.Yet,asIwilllaterargue,inordertoexplainwhatisgoingon,tograsptheintersubjec

tivequalityofconvergentrepresentationsastheconstitutivebasisofinternationalinstitu

tions (Kratochwil/Ruggie1986:764)wehave to lookatmeaningful interactiveprocesses

betweenactors.

Itiswithoutgreatdoubtthattheintegrationofinteractiveprocessesisamajorprerequisite

for

the

analysis

of

structural

change.

One

of

the

first

theorists

to

turn

this

finding

into

a

fruit

ful IR conceptwas Karl Deutsch. A deeper look at hismodel of security communities

(Deutsch1957andDeutsch1970)makesthisclear.Hisobservationsofhalfacenturyagoare

considered particularly relevantbymany theorists of IRbecause of the aforementioned

transformationperiodinIRaswellasinIRtheory,thelatterinvolvingaturnfromrational

choicetosociologicallyorientedtheorizing.WhereasWaltzsRealismassumesthatinterna

tionalpolitics isdeterminedby thedistributionofpower, i.e.apeculiarlyasocialenviron

ment,Deutschsapproachrecognizesthatinternationalrealityisasocialconstructiondriven

by collectiveunderstandings, emerging from social interaction.His explanation of internationalcooperationacknowledgestheexistenceofbothmaterialandnormativegroundsoffor

eignpolicyaction.ItdiffersfromNeoliberalInstitutionalismbecauseinthistheoryaswellas

inRealismcollectiveinterestisassumedaspregivenandhenceexogenoustosocialinterac

tion(e.g.Wendt1994:389;Ruggie1998:118119).

Constructivisttheorists,inparticular,haveattemptedtoresuscitateDeutschsconceptofse

curity community (e.g.Adler and Barnett 1998;Acharya 2001).WhileRealism andNeo

liberal Institutionalism focus onmaterial structure to understand international relations,

Deutschbringstogetherprocessesandinteractions,whicheventuallyleadtodependableex

pectations,theunearthingofnewinterests,andcollectiveidentities.Specifically,Deutschs


10/37


approach addresses the conditionsunderwhich stable,peaceful relations amongnations

are possible and likely (Deutsch 1970: 33). According to Deutschs observations, states

sooner or later have to integrate themselves into some kind of community in order to

achievea long lastingpeace.Asecuritycommunitycanbe consideredtobeagroupwhich

hasbecomeintegrated,whereintegrationisdefinedastheattainmentofasenseofcommu

nity, accompaniedby formal or informal institutions orpractices, sufficiently strong and

widespreadtoassurepeacefulchangeamongmembersofagroupwithreasonablecertainty

overalongperiodoftime(VanWagenen1952:1011,asquotedinDeutsch1970:33).

SecuritycommunitiesinDeutschssenseentailstableexpectationsofpeaceamongthepar

ticipatingunitsorgroups(Deutsch1970:33).Theideathatactorscansharevalues,norms,

andsymbolsthatprovidesocialidentityleadstotheassumptionthatstateswillsettletheir

differencespeacefully.Thebasisoftheconceptisthatcommunicationmakessocialinterac

tionpossible,thatactually[c]ommunicationaloneenablesagrouptothinktogether,tosee

together,andtoacttogether(N.Wiener,ascitedinDeutsch1966:77).

Deutschswork is transactionist rather than constructivist,yetwhatbringshimclose to

constructivismishisfocusonthesociologicalnatureofstateinteractions,especiallyhisem

phasisoncollectiveperceptionsandidentifications.Thatiswhyconstructivism,drawingon

intersubjectivelysharedideas,hasbeenthemaintheoreticalframeworkforthestudyofse

curity

communities

in

recent

years.

Its

influence

can

be

seen

in

three

areas

(Acharya

2001:

3

4):

First,securitycommunitiesareviewedassociallyconstructed,i.e.cooperationamongstates

istobeunderstoodasasocialprocessthatmayredefinetheinterestsofstatesinmattersof

warandpeace;second,certainnormsdelineatestateinterestsandconstitutestateidentities;

and third,by focusingon the social constructionof a community and the constitution of

commonidentities,theimpactofimmaterialforcesinshapinginternationalpoliticsisillus

trated.Yetwhatismissinginmosttraditionalaccountsofsecuritycommunitiesisadiscus

sionofsocialchange.Howdoesagroupofcountriesdevelopintoasecuritycommunityin

the firstplace?Whatare theoriginsof security communities,or, inWendts (1999: ch.6)words,howdoesenmitybetweenstatesturnintostableandfruitfulrivalryorevenfriend

ship?

A look at liberal theories of InternationalRelationprovides answers to ourquestionsby

lookingatdomesticstructuresandprocessestoaccountforforeignpolicychangesofstates

(Czempiel 1981;Moravcsik 1997).Liberals consider institutionbuilding as the result of a

convergenceofbenevolent,cooperationpronenationalinterests,promotedbydomesticcoa

litionsforwhichsuchcooperationmightbringgains(e.g.RisseKappen1995;1996).Choos

inga specialkindof institution then resembles the loyaltyaconsumermightgive to the

storewiththemostcompetitiveratesonitschargedcard.(SterlingFolker2000:102).Anote


11/37


worthybranchofliberalapproaches,whichisbreakingoutoftherationalistutilitarianpara

digm,isthetheoryofdemocraticpeace,originallydevelopedbyImmanuelKant,butnow

anintegralpartofIRtheorizing(esp.Russett1990,1993;Doyle1997;Oneal/Russett2001and

Russett/Oneal 2001).Themain argumentholds thatdemocraciespreferpeace towarbe

causeofpeoplesbasicpreservationinstinctandtheirunwillingnesstomaintaincostlymili

taryarmies(Russett1990,1993).Withrespecttoalliances,democracieshavecertainlybetter

prospectsfordevelopinglonglasting,friendlyrelationships(RisseKappen1995,1996;Starr

1997).NATOandtheEUarethebestexamplesforthisargument.

However,thisapproachasalltheothersthathavebeenexplicatedbeforestopwhereso

cialconstructivisttheoriesstart;whilefocusingonperceptionsofstatesandnormguidedbe

haviour,liberalismaswellasinstitutionalismneglecttheinteractivemomentthatisinherent

inanysocialrelationship,evenontheinterstatelevel.Incontrast,constructivisttheorizing

recognizesthatinternationalrealityisasocialconstructiondrivenbycollectiveunderstand

ingsemergingfromsocialinteraction.Theprincipalqualityofstructure,then,consistsofthe

meaningascribedtoitbytheagentswhosepracticereproducesandchangesit(seeespecially

theversion formulatedbyWendt 1999; alsoAdler 2005). In a similarvein, constructivist

theorizing focuses on intersubjectively shared ideas, or culture. It differs from the ap

proachesmentionedbeforebecause in these theoriescollective interest isassumedaspre

given

and

hence

exogenous

to

social

interaction

(see

the

critique

in

Wendt

1994:

389;

Ruggie

1998: 118119). In contrast,wewill take constructivist arguments as a startingpoint and

maintainthatsocialinteractionultimatelydoeshavetransformativeeffectsoninterestsand

identity,becausecontinuousinteractionislikelytoinfluenceintersubjectivemeanings.1

EspeciallyAlexanderWendt, in his 1999monograph Social Theory of International Politics

(STIP)hasclaimedtopresentatheoryofstructuralchangethatmovesbeyondpreviousat

tempts,mostprominentlyKennethWaltzsstructuralrealism(1979).Severalauthorshave,

however,blamedWendtforconstrictingstructuralchangetoshiftsbetweendifferentkinds

ofsystemicculture (Drulk2001),whatWendtcallsHobbesian,LockeanandKantiancultures(Wendt1999).Hence,thispapertakesWendtsconstructivistinsightsasasourceofan

ontological aswell as epistemologicaldiscussionofwhat internationalpolitics actually is

andhowitcanbestudied.Itwilldosobyreferringtopoststructuralistmethodologicalin

sights. Poststructuralismwill first and foremostbe understood as amethod of reading,

whilepostmodernism isafarmoreambiguousterm,delineatingaparticularhistoricalep

ochormovementinanumberofsocialsciences,philosophy,artsandhistory.Atthecentre

1 The term intersubjectivity, frequentlyusedbyconstructivists, isequivalent to thatof commonknowledge,which is used in everyday language.Both refer to thebeliefsheldby individualsabouteachother.


12/37


ofpoststructuralismstandtheconceptsoftruthandpower.Goingbacktothedifferenttheo

reticalrootsofdeSaussure,Barthes,FoucaultandDerrida,poststructuralistsmaintainthat

bothconceptsare reciprocallyassociated (Walker1993).Acentralargumentholds that lan

guage transports the knowledge and ideas that constitute a culture and thereby exercises

enormouspower.Itspowerbecomesevenmoreapparentwhenweconsiderthatlanguageis

notinanysensepersonalorprivate.Asanindividual,onemighttrytoalterlanguage,butthis

remainsmeaninglessaslongasothersdonotadoptthesechanges(Belsey2002:45).Theques

tionpoststructuralismposesisthen:Whocontrolsmeanings?Whocontrolslanguage?

AnumberofauthorshaveblamedWendt forneglecting the inextricable linkbetween the

role of ideas/culture on the onehand, and language/discourse on the other (Brglez 2001;

Smith2000;Suganami2001;Zehfu1998;Zehfuss2002),and thusofhavingnoconceptof

speechandcommunication.Onthecontrary,poststructuralistsassertthatactors identities

areessentially, thoughnotexclusively, shapedandconstituted linguistically.Theyarear

ticulatedandcommunicatedthrough language(Shapcott2001:13).Inanutshell:Whatex

ists, existsbecauseof language.Poststructuralistsdonotdeny theexistenceofaphysical

world out there (for a critiqueWight 2006).They are,however, interested inhow these

things and others are signified, inwhatgoes on in language and the interfacebetween

wordsandculture.

The

unconditional

priority

of

universal

structures

in

the

sense

of

Claude

Lvi

Strauss

(Bel

sey2002:3942)hasgivenwaytoaconcernwithspatiotemporalprocessinInternational

Relations(Walker1993).Significantinsightshave,however,beenborrowedfromotherdis

ciplines.Asoneprominentexample,NormanFairclough,aBritishlinguist,canbecredited

with conceptualizing political communication as a type of social practice, instantiated

throughdiscourse(Fairclough1989,1992,2003).TogetherwithAustrianlinguistRuthWo

dak,German sociolinguistSiegfriedJger,American linguistRonScollonandDutchdis

coursetheoristTeunvanDijk,Faircloughbelongstoagroupofresearcherswhohaveestab

lishedcriticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA)inthefieldoflinguisticsandbeyond.CDAstudiestheway socialpower abuse,dominance,and inequality areenacted, reproduced,and re

sistedbytextandtalkinthesocialandpoliticalcontext(vanDijk2001:352).

LinkingCDAwiththetheoryofhegemonydevelopedbyErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe

(1985),Iwillaimtoshowhowhegemonicdiscoursesserveasthenexusbetweencrisesand

culturalstructuresandhowtheymakeculturalchangepossible.Afterabriefdiscussionofre

centconstructivistendeavoursinthenextsection,includingWendtsthreeanarchiccultures,

toaccountforstructuralchangeintheinternationalsystem,Iwillgoontopresentaconcep

tualframeworkcombininginsightsfromCDAandthetheoryofhegemony.Finally,Iwillsum

upthemajorfindingsandrecommendationsforempiricalresearchintheconclusion.


13/37


2. TowardsaTheoryofInternationalStructuralChange

2.1 Ideas,CultureandLanguage

Popularconstructivistapproachestothestudyofinternationalpoliticsdefinecultureasthe

totality of intersubjective structures in the international system (for a discussionNabers

2005;2006).Therefore,thesestrandsargue,tounderstandsystemicchange,wehavetoiden

tifychangingintersubjectivestructures.Thisunderstandinghasplayedadominantroleasa

conceptinthegrowingbodyofconstructivistthinkinginrecentyears;thus,itmakessense

toscrutinizethemostimportantcontributionsinthefield.Wearecommencingwithacriti

calappraisalofAlexanderWendtsSTIP,sincehisisnotonlyoneofthemostwidelyproc

essed

and

reviewed

constructivist

works

in

the

field

(for

a

discussion

see

the

volume

edited

byGuzzini/Leander2006),butalsomakesuseofasophisticatedconceptofcultureandises

sentialforgainingaconstructivistunderstandingofcultureandideasininternationalpoli

tics.Wendtstheoryoffersintriguinginsightsintotheontologicalstructureofinternational

politics.Hisbasiclevelofanalysis isthe internationalsystemasanideationalconstruction

thatgivesmeaningtothematerialcapabilitiesofstates.Thestateitselfremainsananalytical

conceptinthatitneverreallybecomesvisible:itconsistsofanaggregationof(governmen

tal)individuals(Wendt1999:810;alsoWendt2004).AccordingtoWendt,thenatureofin

ternationalrelationsisdeterminedbytheideasandbeliefsthatstateshaveabouteachother.Thisdoesnotsuggestthatmaterialpowerandinterestsareirrelevant,butratherthattheir

implicationsandeffectsareconstitutedbythesocialstructureofthesystem.

Stepbystep,Wendtdevelopsatheoryoftheinternationalsystem,ofcooperationandcon

flict.Using institutionalist insights,heassumes that states initiallyengage inprocommu

nicativeactivities foregoistic reasons,e.g.becausestategoalscannotbepursuedunilater

ally.Theargumentdependsonamechanismoffunctionalinstitutionalefficiencyinorderto

accountforsocialchange.Ontheotherhand,hissocialconstructivistmodelmaintainsthat

agentsthemselvesareinprocesswhentheyinteract,whichmeansthattheirveryproperties

ratherthanjustbehavioursareatissue.Interdependence,commonfateandahomogenous

culturewhatWendtcallshismastervariablescaninthissensebeseenasindependent

variables(atermthathecircumvents),goodforinstigatingstatesengagementincommuni

cativeprocesses(Wendt1999:Chapter7).

Thesevariablesservethepurposeofsettingoffastatesengagementincommunicativeproc

esses.Yet,theyseemtobe inadequateforexplainingtheerosionofegoistic identitiesover

timeandthecreationofcollectiveones.Internationalinstitutionsarelikelytobeunstableif

statesareengagedbyanongoingreckoningoverwhethernormconformityservestheirin

dividualinterests.Consequently,Iwillassumeanddevelopmorebroadlylaterthatidenti


14/37


tiesandinterestsareacontinuingoutcomeofinteraction,notjustaninputintothecommu

nicativeprocess,asforexampletheconceptofrhetoricalactionwouldhaveit.2

However,thequestionhowidentitiesandtheircorresponding interestsaretransformedin

theculturalcontext inwhich theyareembeddedcannotbeansweredsatisfactorilybyjust

pointingtotheirendogenouscharacter.Onemorequestionhastobeaskedinthiscontext:

Whatmakesstateschangetheirrespectivestandpointsinthecommunicativecontext?Inter

dependence,commonfateandhomogeneitycanbeefficientcausesofprocommunicative

engagement,whichwilleventuallyleadtoatransformationofstateidentities.Butthisproc

ess canonlydevelop if states canovercome theiranxietyofbeing cheatedby thosewith

whomtheywouldidentify.TheprincipleofreflectedappraisalsintroducedintoIRtheory

byWendtisonlyafirststepthathelpsussolvethisproblem.Ifonestatetreatstheotheras

if itwere a friend, thenby thisprinciple it is likely that this state internalises thatbelief

(Wendt1999:327).Creatingabasicconfidenceisthereforethefundamentalproblemofin

ternational identitybuilding.Wendt describes this process as complex learning (Wendt

1999:330331):Thepoliticalactsof thestates thatcommunicatewitheachotherconstitute

signalsabouttherolethatonewantstoplayandaboutthecorrespondingroleintowhichit

wantstocastitsopponent.IfStateBmodifiesitsideasbecauseofStateAspoliticalaction,

then learninghas takenplace. If this is the case, the actors willget toknow each other,

changing

a

distribution

of

knowledge

that

was

initially

only

privately

held

(a

mere

social

structure)intoonethatisatleastpartlyshared(aculture)(Wendt1999:331).Fromacon

structivist standpoint themarkofa completely internalized culture is thatactors identify

withit,andincludethewishes,ideas,andintentionsofothersintotheirownideas.Ifiden

tityisnothingelsethantohavecertainideasaboutwhooneisinagivensituation,thenthe

senseofbeingpartofagroupisasocialorcollectiveidentitythatgivesactorsaninterestin

thepreservationoftheirculture(Ibid.:337).Certainly,StateAcanalsotaketheroleofan

egoistorcastStateB inaposition tobemanipulated for thesatisfactionof itsownneeds.

ThenthismightthreatenStateBsneeds,whowillprobablyadoptanegoisticidentityhimselfandactaccordingly.

Onthebasisofhisinteractionistmodel,Wendtarguesthatendlessconflictandwar,aspre

dictedbyrealists,isnottheonlylogicoftheinternationalsystemasananarchicstructure.

Eventhetentativeoptimismofliberalsaboutinternationalinstitutionsanddeepeninginter

dependencefacilitating internationalcooperationwithinanarchymightnotgofarenough.

Toillustratethis,Wendtintroducesthreedistinctculturesoftheinternationalsystem,Hob

besian,LockeanandKantian,whichareconstitutedbycertainideasaboutthegeneralcon

2 Whilerhetoricalactionreferstothestrategicuseofarguments,communicativeactionisbestcharacterizedasthenonstrategic,appropriateuseofarguments(Schimmelfennig2004:203).


15/37


ditionofhumanassociation,normsofappropriatebehaviourandspecificrolesconstituting

rivallingorcollectiveidentities,respectively(Wendt1999:ch.6;cf.alsoWendt2003).

Calling himself a positivist (Wendt 1999: 39),Wendtderives three different hypotheses

fromhisthreeculturesofanarchy,referringtodifferenttheoreticalapproachestothestudy

of the international system, and leading to different grand strategies.WithRealism, one

mightexpectthefamiliararmsrace,conflictandwartobethedominatingfeaturesofanarchy;

with institutionalism, onemight expect an independent role for international institutions

and absolute gains seeking;with constructivism, or idealism, actorsmight have awell

developedsenseofcollectiveidentity,eachstateidentifyingwiththefateoftheother.

Obviously,andsomewhatpuzzlingamidthecentralityofideasinhistheory,hisworklacks

alinguisticallyinformedconceptofagency(foracritiquecf.Herborth2004;Zehfuss2002).

Therelationshipbetweenstructureandagencyremainsunclearatsomepoints.Itseemsasif

thecausalpowerofastaticreality(aHobbesian,LockeanorKantianreality)guidesstates

behaviour.AlthoughWendtadvocatesthe ideathathismodel canbereadilyextended to

situationsinwhichculturealreadyexists(Wendt1999:328),someauthorscontendthatthe

underlyingconservativenatureofaculturalstructurerepresentsanimpedimenttochange

(e.g.Svry2001).Giventhiscritique,theleadingquestionsofthispaperbecomepressing:

Howcanactorschangetheiridentitiesinaprocessofcomplexlearningifoneassumesthat

identities

are

embedded

in

pre

existing

cultural

structures?

And

how

can

culture

itself

change?

Wendtargues thatculture isaselffulfillingprophecy,whichmeans thatactorsacton the

basisofsharedideas,andthisinturnstrengthensandreproducestheseideas.However,he

maintainsthatculturestillleavessomepotentialforchange(Wendt1999:42).Heacknowl

edgesthat[d]espitehavingaconservativebias,therefore,cultureisalwayscharacterizedby

more or less contestation among its carriers,which is a constant resource of structural

change(Wendt1999:188).Thisisatentativeintroductionofagencyintoasystemictheory.

Ifweassumethatculturalstructuresalwaysexistthroughprocessbetweenagents,thenwehavetogoastepfurtherandaskwhatprocessactuallyisabout.

In the following, itwillbeargued thatprocess isconstitutedbymeaningfulactsofsocial

agents,andcan thusonlybegraspedbyanalysingmeaning.Thenagain, thequestion re

mainshowmeaningcanbeanalyzedbysocialscientists.Wendtarguesthatsocialrelation

shipsareconstitutedbydiscursivestructures(Wendt1999:84),andthatcontestationoccurs

throughcommunication.Surprisinglythough,hisargumentsoffernoconceptof language,

as themajor or in poststructuralist terms the only source ofmeaning (Zehfu 1998;

Zehfuss2002;seealsoGuzzini/Leander2001).Wendtsmodelof complex learningdoesnot

relyonlanguageanddiscourse,butseemstobereducedtophysicalgestures(Zehfuss2002:48).


16/37


Atacloserlook,however,theversionofscientificrealismthatWendtmakesthebasisofhis

theoryneitherprecludeslinguisticallyinformedepistemology,nordoesitrestrictthechoice

ofmethodologyinanyway.Underhisapproachonemightsubsumebothempiricalrealism,

whichreferstothosematerialfactsthataredirectlyobservable,andlinguisticrealism,refer

ringtowhatispresent(andthusobservable)withindiscourses(Brglez2001;Wolf2003).His

metatheoreticalposition,whichcontradictspoststructuralistviewsbutdoesnotexcludethe

analysisofdiscourses,basicallysaysthat there isaworldout there that is independentof

individualobserversminds(Wendt1999:51).Ifitistruethatwhatwethinkexistshasno

bearingonwhatreallyexists(Wight2006:3),thenwhydoesWendtmaintainthatphenom

enanormallyseenasmaterial,suchaspower,areactuallyconstitutedbyideas:Andthese

ideasexistandhaveeffectsbecauseofthediscursiveforms(norms,institutions,ideologies)

inwhichtheyareembedded[](Wendt2003:495).AtaprominentplaceinhisSocialThe

ory,Wendtevenunderlinestheinextricablelinkbetweenidentities,culture,anddiscourse:

Thinkingdependslogicallyonsocialrelations,notjustcausally.Humanbeingsthink

through culture.And since the structure of sharedbeliefs isultimately a linguistic

phenomenon, thismeans that languagedoesnotmerelymediate thinking, itmakes

thinkingpossible(Wendt1999:175).

Thisisexactlythedominantviewinpoststructuralism,i.e.that language,not ideasorcul

ture,makesthinkingpossibleinthefirstinstance;thatlanguageintervenesbetweenhuman

beingsandtheirworld,andthatideasandculturearetheeffectoflanguage,notviceversa.

Certainly,materialconditions,suchas theexistenceofnuclearcapabilities,havebothcon

strainingandenablingeffectsonactorsbehaviouranddefinethecostsandbenefitsofalter

native actions, asWendt (2000) andWight (2006) have emphasised.However, and here

comesthecrucialaspectforthisstudy,inacknowledgingtheindependenteffectsofmate

rialconditions it isalso importantnotto losesightofthediscursiveconditionsthat invest

themwithmeaning(Wendt2000:166,emphasisinoriginal).Themeaningofnuclearbombs

inthehandofNorthKoreasdictatorKimJongilisdifferentforChinathanforJapandueto

different ideas about self andother.These ideas can onlybe studied as a linguisticphe

nomenon.Thoughpointingout the relevance of ideas,what ismissing inWendts argu

ments isadiscussionofepistemologicalquestions (seealsoKratochwil2000).Howdowe

gettoknow ideas?What is therelationshipbetween ideasand language?Wendtdoesnot

offeraclearideaabouthowtostudytheinternationalsystem,becausehefailstodevelopa

languagebasedresearchagenda.AsHaywardAlkercriticizes,notmuchissaid[inWendts

book]onhowtofillinthelarge,nearlyempty,moreorlessgrey,boxesofhisthreecultural


17/37


ideal typesof anarchic socializationpractices (Alker 2000: 146).3AndPetrDrulk conse

quentlyposesthequestionwhetherWendtsmastervariablesactuallyworkwithoutreflex

ivityandcommunication(Drulk2001:371373).Eventually,itisthecommunicativereflec

tionofagroupofactors thatcreates thewefeelingwhich isnecessary for thedevelop

mentofacollectiveidentity.WhatismissinginWendtsworkisanepistemologicalelabora

tionofthefactthatitislanguagethatconstructssocialreality.Meaningfullanguageisnever

reducibletoindividualspeakers.Itisasocialact.Inthefollowing,Iwillcallthisprocessdis

course.

Studyingdiscoursehasgained rising attention in constructivist thinking.Prominent con

structivistshavealsohintedattheimportanceofstudyinglanguage,yetwithoutfurtherde

tailing a research program for studying international politics. Emanuel Adler, possibly

among thosewhohavegone the farthest towardsdeveloping aprocessbased communi

tarianapproach to international relationsbyconceptualizingcognitiveevolutionascollec

tive learning,emphasises languageasthevehicleforthediffusionand institutionalization

ofideaswithinandbetweencommunities,asanecessaryconditionforthepersistenceover

timeofinstitutionalizedpractices,andasamechanismfortheconstructionofsocialreality.

Headdsthatthecommunitiesaroundwhichknowledgeevolves,whichplayacrucialrole

intheconstructionofsocialreality,areconstitutedbylanguage(Adler2005:13).InAdlers

view,

all

communities

are

communities

of

discourse,

as

they

are

producers

and

subjects

of

discourseatthesametime.Cognitiveevolution,then,delineatessocialchangeastherecon

structionandinstitutionalisationofcollectiveintersubjectivestructures,orwhatAdlercalls

epistemes(Adler2005:21).

WhileWendtat timesoffersamaterialistversionofpower,4Adleraccentuates thepower

inherent in speech acts, hegemonic discourses, dominant normative interpretations and

identities,andmoralauthority(Adler2005:14,25),postulatingaresearchprogramthatre

constructstheprocessofdiscursiveconstruction.Heimplicitlyreferstothethirddimension

ofStevenLukes famousdefinitionofpower.According toLukesclassification,power isexercisedifAcangetBtodosomethingthatBwouldnototherwisedo.Thestresshereison

thestudyofconcrete,observablebehaviour.Itshiftstheattentiononbehaviourinthemak

ingofdecisionsonissuesoverwhichthereisanobservableconflictofsubjectiveinterests.

Theseconddimensionofpowerlooksatthedefactopowerofthememberswithinagroup

3 SeealsoKrasner,2000,whoarguesthatWendtsargumentisunsupportedbyempiricaldata.4 Inorderforaninteractiontosucceed,inthesensethatactorsbringtheirbeliefsenoughintoline

that

they

can

play

the

same

game,

each

side

tries

to

get

the

other

to

see

things

its

way.

[]

This

abilitywillvaryfromcasetocaseanddyadtodyad.NotallOthersaresignificantOthers.Butwherethereisanimbalanceofrelevantmaterialcapabilitysocialactswilltendtoevolveinthedirectionfavoredbythemorepowerful(Wendt1999:331).


18/37


inthedecisionmakingprocess.Lukesmaintainsthattheruleswithinanydecisionmaking

system naturallybias themobilization of resources for competing for agenda formation

againstsomeindividualsandgroupsversusothers.Also,becauseinmostcasesonlyasmall

numberofissuescanbehandledonanyagendaatthesametime,manyitemssimplynever

makeitontheagenda.Thisdimensionofpowerthereforeincorporatescoercion,influence,

authority, force andmanipulation.Onemethod ofpersuasion couldbe, for example, the

threattodevelopingcountriestoloseaccesstotrade.Third,AmayexercisepoweroverBby

gettinghimtodowhathedoesnotwanttodo,buthealsoexercisespoweroverhimbyin

fluencing,shapingordetermininghiswants,beliefsandunderstandingsabouttheworld.In

modernsocietiesthistakesplacethroughthecontrolofinformation,throughthemassme

dia,and through theprocessof socialisation.This thirddimensionwhich isentirelyne

glectedbyrationalistapproachestothestudyofIRreferstoaprocessofwhatwewould

henceforthcalldiscursivehegemony.

Regrettably,methodologicalquestionsofhowtostudytheprocessoffixingmeaningsindis

coursesthatproducesocialpracticesareconspicuouslyabsentfromAdlersaswellasmany

otherconstructivistaccounts.Thisisallthemoresurprisingsinceconstructivistthinkingfits

very well with languagecentred epistemologies. Discourse theoristJonathan Potter has

maintained that the scientific realists furniture argument see this [bangs on a table];

youre

not

telling

me

thats

a

social

construction

can

be

accepted

as

such,

as

constructivist

argumentsarenotaimedatdenyingmaterialreality,butatdetectingthenumerouswaysin

whichmaterialandsocialrealityislinguisticallyconstructedorundermined.IRasasocial

scienceisnotaboutwhetheronecaneatnuclearweapons(Wight2006:153),butaboutthe

meaning of thesenuclearweapons for internationalpolitics.The question thenbecomes:

Howaredescriptionsmadetoseemliteralandfactual?(Potter1996:7).

It is exactly this question that is at the centre of the theory of hegemony, developedby

ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe(1985).Onthebasisoftheirvaluableinsights,Iwillturn

totheroleofdiscourseandhegemonyintheprocessofculturalchangeinthenexttwosections.Changewillprimarilybeseenascausedbytexts,inparticulardiscourses,sincethey

transportmeaningsandalterourknowledgeabouttheworld.Consequently,thisstudywill

concentrateonthepartofsocialrealitythatistextuallyconstructed,sincetextsconveymuch

ofthemeaningthesocialworldentails.

2.2 Hegemony,CrisisandChange

IntheirseminalworkHegemonyandSocialistStrategy(1985),ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffereformulatedAntonioGramscisnotionofhegemony inawaythattakes language


19/37


asconstitutiveforpolitics.Inhisresearch,especiallyLaclaureconstructsMichelFoucaults

work inordertoeliminateall thenondiscursiveelementsthatareconstitutiveforthe lat

terstheory.ButhealsousesJacquesDerridasinsightsintodeconstruction,combiningit

atfirstsight illogicallywithdiscourseanalysis.Eventually, theoutcomeofonebecomes

theinputoftheother(Andersen2003:56).

LaclauandMouffestartbydefiningthesocialasadiscursivespaceandtakeastrictstand

point contra thepositivist ornaturalistparadigm.According to the theory ofhegemony,

there is nothing societal that is determined outside the discursive (Laclau 1977; La

clau/Mouffe1985:107;foradiscussionalsoNorval2004),whichindicatesthatthesocialper

seisdiscourse.Asaresult,anydistinctionbetweenalinguisticandabehaviouralelementof

sociallifeisrejected.TakingpoststructuralistthoughtinthetraditionofJacquesLacanand

JacquesDerridaas theirstartingpoint, theyargue that thesocial ispervadedbyundecid

ablesratherthangovernedbystructuraldetermination.Theincompletenessofsocialstruc

turesmakepoliticalarticulationspossibleinthefirstplace;interestsareentirelyproducedin

thearticulatorypoliticalprocess,infactpoliticohegemonicarticulationsretroactivelycreate

theintereststheyclaimtorepresent(Laclau/Mouffe1985,PrefacetotheSecondEdition:xi).

ReferringtoHegelsmodernity(indetailalsoButler2000),identityisconceptualizedasa

precariouslynegativeterm,neverclosedinitself,butephemeralincharacterandrelyingon

the

constant

movement

of

differential

relationships

(Laclau/Mouffe

1985:

95).

All

identity

ithastobestressedisrelational,formedbysocialpracticesthatlinktogetheraseriesofin

terrelated signifying elements.Allprinciples andvalues, therefore, receive theirmeaning

from relationshipsofdifference andopposition.LaclauandMouffeuse the terms subject

andsubjectpositionwithinadiscursivestructuretodescribethisphenomenon.Thesubject

isseenasanattempt to fillstructuralgaps,orsubjectpositions,withinastructure.Hence

Laclaus(2000:58)differentiationbetweenidentityandidentification,unveilingabasicam

biguityat theheartof identity.The individualcannotcompletely identifywith thesubject

positionthediscoursesupplies,butisforcedintofillingthestructuralgapsthroughidentification(Andersen2003:52).Correspondingtopoststructuralisttraditions,subjectscannot

be theveryoriginofmeaning insocialrelations,because theyaresituated inadiscursive

spaceandcertainconditionsofpossibility.Astothesystemorstructurethatevolvesfrom

thesemultidirectionalcorrelationsbetweensubjectpositions,LaclauandMouffe(1985:106)

explicate:

Whoever says system saysarrangementor conformityofparts ina structurewhich

transcendsandexplains itselements.Everything is sonecessary in it thatmodifica

tionsofthewholeandofthedetailsreciprocallyconditiononeanother.


20/37


Thismeansthatsystemandstructureare inconstantmovement,anddifferentialpositions

arenevereternallyfixed.Anyparticularsubjectpositionwithinademocraticpolityisneces

sarilyincomplete,andidentityisthereforeneverabletoachieveabsolutedetermination.Be

ingtiedtoaspecificcontent,suchasgender,race,ethnicity,religion,history,nationorre

gion,anidentitybecomeswhatitisbyvirtueofitsrelativepositioninanopenstructureof

differentialrelationships.Thismeansitisconstitutedbyitsdifferencefromaninfinitenum

berofotheridentities(Laclau1996;Butler2000).

Theincompletenessofagentsidentitiesiswhatliesattheheartofanyhegemonicprocess.

Temporarily though, theconstellation bywhichacertainparticularityassumes therepre

sentationofauniversalityentirelyincommensurablewithit,iswhatwecallahegemonicre

lation (Laclau/Mouffe1985,Preface to theSecondEdition:xiii).The tensionbetweenuni

versalityandparticularityremainsunresolvable; it ishighlypolitical (Laclau2000;Norval

2004),never totalandalways reversible. In that sense,hegemonyhas tobedistinguished

fromdomination,whichdenotesthe(oftenjuridical)commandthatisexercisedbyastateor

government(Laclau2000:47).Yet,thesuggestedimpossibilityofclosureentailsanimpossi

bilityofsociety(Laclau/Mouffe1985:122),callingintoquestiontheveryfoundationofclas

sicalstructuralism.

On the other hand, if subject positions and identities are indeed purely differential, the

whole

system

of

differences

is

related

to

any

single

act

of

signification,

which

in

turn

re

quiresustothinkofthesystemasaclosedone.Putdifferently,theverynotionofparticular

itypresupposestheexistenceofatotality.Otherwisethestructureofthesystemwouldbe

infinitelydispersedwithno significationpossible at all.Logically,however, a totality re

quireslimits.Thequestioniswhatliesbeyondthelimit,whichcanonlybeonemorediffer

ence.Thenagain,thelimitbetweeninternalandexternalstructurewouldbecomeimpossi

ble to identify.LaclauandMouffe thereforemaintain thatdominant interpretative frame

worksresultfromthespecificdialecticrelationshipbetweenwhattheycallthelogicsofan

tagonismandequivalence(Laclau/Mouffe1985:chapter3;Laclaun.y.).Theyseeawayoutofthelogicaldilemmabyclaimingthatthenatureoftherelationshipbeyondthelimitofthe

systemisoneofexclusion:itisnotjustonemoreelementinastructureofdifferences,but

oneinanantagonisticrelationshiptotheinside.Whatfollowsfromthisisthattherearerela

tions of equivalencebetween ingroup actors,which create antagonisms to other social

groups.The simplicityof thisconjecture isexemplifiedby theverdict tobe something is

alwaysnottobesomethingelse(Laclau/Mouffe1985:128),whichalsoimpliesthatequiva

lenceisnotsynonymouswithidentity:equivalencepresupposesdifference,butcaneventu

allyleadtotheformationofcollectiveidentities.Thus,inLaclausandMouffesview,con

tradictory forces form society. These forces construct social reality in different ways.


21/37


Whereasthelogicofantagonismaccentuatesdifference,thelogicofequivalencesubvertsit

(Laclau/Mouffe1985:122,127).Antagonismsareexternaltosociety;theymarkthelimitsof

objectivesociety,therebypreventingafullyclosedculturalstructure.Anyformofconsensus

amongst themembersofan institution is, inotherwords, the resultofa temporaryhege

monicconstellationrelyingonthesetwologics.

Inlinguisticterms,theincompletionofanysubjectformationislinkedtoapoliticalcontes

tationoversignifiers.WithLaclauandMouffe, [t]hestructuredtotalityresulting fromthe

articulatorypractice,wewillcalldiscourse(Laclau/Mouffe1985:105).Discourseisdefined

asastructure,butthestructureneverreachesfullclosure.Politicsexistsbecausestructures

arenevercomplete;ifastructurewasfullyclosed,politicswouldhavefounditsfinaldesig

nation.Everyobject,everysubjectpositionisconstitutedbydiscourseanddependsonspe

cificdiscursiveconditionsofpossibility.Discourseconstitutesculture,whichconsistsofthe

meaningsitssubjectsproduceandreproduce.TalkingaboutEuropeorAsia,forexample,

presupposesarelationofequivalence,whichisnotinstitutedoutsidesomediscursivesocial

space,butasarealforcewhichcontributestothemouldingandconstitutionofsocialrela

tions(Laclau/Mouffe1985:110;Laclau2000:55).Anyidentityremainspurelyrelational,is

notselfdefined,andbyrelyingonanexternalantagonistitcanneverbeclosedorfullycon

stitutedinitself.Inarguingthatbothafullyconstitutedselfandafullyconstitutedotheris

impossible,

Laclau

and

Mouffe

implicitly

reiterate

the

common

poststructuralist

argument

thatultimatemeaningsareunattainable,whileatthesametimeacknowledgingthepossibil

ity of partial fixations.Without these, the verymeaning of difference, antagonism and

equivalencewouldbecome futile.Hegemony rests on the assumption that anydiscourse

tries todominate the fieldofdiscursivity.Referring toLacan,LaclauandMouffe call the

temporary fixationofmeanings, theconstructionofadiscursivecentre,nodalpoints (La

clau/Mouffe1985:112).Nodalpointsarepartial fixations,neverconclusivelyarresting the

flowofdifferences.Summingup theirargument, theymaintain (Laclau/Mouffe1985:113,

emphasisinoriginal):

The practice of articulation, therefore, consists in the construction of nodal points

whichpartially fixmeaning;and thepartialcharacterof this fixationproceeds from

theopennessofthesocial,aresult,initsturn,oftheconstantoverflowingofeverydis

coursebytheinfinitudeofthefieldofdiscursivity.

Structureisheredefinedasdiscourse;thesocialandcultureareconstitutedentirelywithin

discourse.WhatthisbringsaboutisalogicaldifferencetothethinkingofMichelFoucault,

asanydistinctionbetweendiscursiveandnondiscursivepracticesortheestablishmentofathought/realitydichotomyhastobecalledintoquestion.WhileFoucaultassumesadualism


22/37


ofdiscourseandreality,overlookingthefactthatevenhouses,streetsandcarsonlyexistas

longastheyareandcontinuetobeembeddedindiscourses(foracritiqueJger2001;Potter

1996:8788),principles,norms,institutions,andtechniquesofproductionareconceptualised

asdiscursivearticulations in thetheoryofhegemony;theoppositionbetweenrealismand

idealismthatisadvocatedbyWendt(1999)becomesblurred.TheterroristattacksonNew

YorkandWashingtonon11September2001havebeenvisibleandaudibletoaTVaudience

allover theworld; theyexistedasevents, independentlyof the spectatorswill.However,

whethertheyareconstructedasevildeeds,acrimeagainsthumanity,Godswilloran

actofwardependeduponthenatureofthediscoursethatwastriggeredbytheseevents.

Objectsliketheseareentirelyconstitutedbydiscursivepractices.Moreover,humanbeings,

the human subject, manand woman,areconstructeddifferently indifferent religious,

ideologicalorconstitutionaldiscourses.Finally,anyteleologicaldriveofthesystemremains

elusive.WhileWendt seesaworld stateas inevitablebutconfesses that the speedwith

which this onewillbe realized is historically contingent (Wendt 2003: 491), Laclau and

Mouffedisputean inherent finalistic logic,accentuating instead thediscursiveprocessby

whichcertainregularitiesestablishdifferentialpositions(Laclau/Mouffe1985:109).

Anypositioninthissystemofdifferentialpositionscanbecomethelocusofanantagonistic

relationship, creating,on the otherhand,numerous chains of equivalence.On thatbasis,

structural

change

becomes

possible,

or

more

bluntly,

change

is

a

constantly

working

mecha

nismdeeply ingrained inany society,asno identity isclosed in itselfbut issubmitted to

continuousdisplacementsintermsofcombinationsandsubstitutions.

Atthebeginning,hegemonicprojectsarecharacterizedbyarticulatorypractices(elements)

thathavenotbecomedifferentialpositions (moments) inadiscourse(Laclau/Mouffe1985:

105;134).Hegemony,then,canbeseenasaresponsetoanorganiccrisis(atermborrowed

fromGramsci),[a]conjuncturewherethereisageneralizedweakeningoftherelationalsys

temdefiningtheidentitiesofagivensocialorpoliticalspace,andwhere,asaresultthereis

aproliferationoffloatingelements(Laclau/Mouffe1985:136).Anemptyorfloatingsignifierisoftendefinedasonewithahighlyvariable,indistinctornonexistentsignified.Iflan

guageasasystemofarticulatoryrelationsisseenasincomplete,thiswouldentailthatsigni

fiersandthesignifiedwouldnotconclusivelybeattachedtoeachother.Instead,Nielsker

strmAndersenshows,referringtoLacan,howtheslidingofthesignifieracrossthesignified

forcesthesignifiertostepinto,ordownonto,thelevelofthesignifed(Andersen2003:53).By

influencing that which they signify, signifiers exercise enormous power. This happens

when,forexample,NorthKoreaannouncesithastestedanucleardevice.Thesignifiersteps

downintothesignifiedbygivingtheeventamuchbroadermeaning:NorthKoreasnuclear

bombcomestosignifytheenslavementoftheinternationalcommunitybysocalledrogue


23/37


24/37


weakendominantdiscourses, i.eprevailingperceptionsof reality,openingupcultural

borders.

(2)Alternative discourses start to compete in their interpretation of the crisis. Sooner or

later,onepredominant interpretationwill evolve,which institutes the framework that

determineswhatactionisappropriateandwhataction isinappropriatetoendthepre

dicament(Laclau1990:64).

(3)Oldidentitiestendtodissolvewiththeconstructionofnewlyestablisheddominantin

terpretativeframeworks.5

(4) The new cultural structurewill thengeneratenewkinds ofpolitical action along the

linesofthedominantinterpretativeframework(cf.alsoLaclau1977).Again,ithastobe

notedherethattheevolvingsocietalstructureisneverfullyconstitutedandhegemonic

interventionsarepossibleatanytime.

Thebattlebetweendiscoursestobecometheleadinginterpretativestructureactuallytends

to reveal the configurationofpower relations inagivenhistoricalmoment.Power isun

even,6notstableorstatic,butisrearticulatedcontinuously,andnewconceptualperspectives

areopenedupbysubversivepractices(Smith1998:57;Butler2000:14).ErnestoLaclauar

guesthatonceadiscoursereachesthestageofestablishingadominantperceptionofreality

forallthoseparticipatinginthecommunicativeprocess,itrevealsalotaboutthecourseof

actionincollectiveidentityformation.Ifthesame realityisreflectedinthespeechactsofall interacting agents,one can call it a shared culture. Specific cultural forms likenorms,

rules,(political)institutions,conventions,ideologies,customs,andlawsareallinfluencedby

thisprocess.Differentactorsarecompetingforhegemonybyofferingtheirspecificsystems

ofnarrationasacompensatoryframework(Laclau1977:103),tryingtofixthemeaningof

social relations.Hegemony therefore reproduces our daily life; it starts tobe hegemonic

when our everydayunderstanding of social relations and theworld as awhole starts to

changeaccording to the framework that is setby thehegemonicdiscourse. It isanactof

powerbecauseitmakestheworldintelligible.

ReferringtoStevenLukes(1974)work,anactorexercisespoweroveranotheractorby in

fluencing,shapingordetermininghiswants,beliefsandunderstandingsabouttheworld.It

canbelegitimatelyarguedthatasuccessfulhegemonicprojectmustbebasedonthisthird

dimensionofpower.Powerhas tobe internalized in the intersubjectiverepresentationsof

5 Wendtatonepoint(Wendt1999:264)introducestheconceptofthetippingpoint,whichhecon

siders

to

be

the

threshold

beyond

which

structural

change

becomes

possible.

At

this

point,

accord

ingtoWendt,therepresentationsofindividualactorstakethelogicofthesystem,makingstructuralchangepossible.ForacritiqueseealsoDrulk2001:369.

6 AsLaclau(2000:54)aptlyputit:Apowerwhichistotalisnopoweratall.


25/37


relevantotheractors.Eventually,thisisthebasisofthehegemonicprojectandthepremise

forsuccessfulcollaborationbetweenthehegemonandhisfollowers.ItistoLaclausmeritto

havereintroducedthetermhegemonyincontemporarydebatesconcerningproblemsofpo

liticalpower,authority,andculture. Inanutshell,hegemonymeansnothingmorebut the

discursivestrugglebetweenpoliticalactorsovertheassertionoftheirparticularrepresenta

tionsoftheworldashavingauniversalsignificance.

Thisviewofpolitics stands in stark contrast toJrgenHabermassmodelof deliberative

democracy,most elegantlydeveloped inhis twovolume TheoryofCommunicativeAc

tion (Theorie desKommunikativenHandelns) (Habermas 1995a, 1995b).Whileboth ap

proachesclaimtopresentaparticularversionofradicaldemocracy,avoidreducingthepo

liticalprocesstotheexpressionofexogenouslyformedinterestsandidentities,andhighlight

their constitution and reconstitution through debate in the public sphere, Laclau and

MouffecontraHabermasmaintainthatanyfinalreconciliation,intermsofcompletera

tionality,isunattainable.Instead,theyarguethatconflictanddivisionareessentialelements

ofafunctioningdemocracy;to thinkotherwisewouldputthewholedemocraticprojectat

risk.Anyformofconsensus,thus,hastobeseenastheresultofahegemonicarticulation,

whichisnevertotalandalwaysthreatenedbyanoutside,antagonisticsocialforce.Conse

quently,Laclau, incompanywithJudithButlerandSlavoyiek,distanceshimself from

Habermass

conjecture

of

universality

as

a

premise

of

the

speech

act

and

his

assumption

that

politicsisconstitutedbyrationalactors(Butler/Laclau/iek2000:3).

Astodeconstruction,Laclauactuallyaimstocombineitwithdiscourseanalysis.Whilede

constructionisaboutretractingdifferencesbydemonstratingthattheyareinvalid,discourse

analysisprovidesdeconstructionwithdifferences tobedeconstructed;on theotherhand,

deconstructionservesasthebasisforhegemonicdiscourses:

Hegemonyrequiresdeconstruction:withouttheradicalstructuralundecidabilitythat

thedeconstructiveinterventionbringsabout,manystrataofsocialrelationsappearas

essentiallylinkedbynecessarylogicsandtherewouldbenothingtohegemonies.But

deconstructionalso requireshegemony, that is,a theoryof thedecision taken inan

undecidableterrain:withoutatheoryofdecision,thatdistancebetweenstructuralun

decidabilityandactualitywouldremainuntheorised(Laclau1996:5960).

Wewillnowhave toconsider theway inwhichhegemonic interventionsarediscursively

constructed. Inconcurrencewith the theoryofhegemonypresentedhere,weneed toput

emphasisonarticulationsinstitutingrelationsbetweenactorsandmodifyingtheiridentities.

At thecentreof the followingmethodologicaldiscussionofdiscursivechangewillbe theapproach that isknown asCriticalDiscourseAnalysis (CDA),mainly referring to the in


26/37


sightsofNormanFaircloughandSiegfriedJger,whohaveargued that the theoryofhe

gemonycouldbeoperationalised for textualanalysisand todeepenourunderstandingof

socialchange.

2.3 Language,DiscourseandInterpretation

Thefocusofthefollowingmethodologicaldiscussionwillbeonlanguageandformsoflan

guageuse,stayingtotallyclearofanyrelationshiptowhatpeoplereallythink.[Theanaly

sisis]notinterestedininnermotives,ininterestsorbeliefs;itstudiessomethingpublic,that

is howmeaning is generated and structured [] (Waever 1995: 254).The speaker is no

morethanwhathesaysataparticularmoment,or, insemiologistRolandBartheswords:

Linguistically,theauthorisnevermorethantheinstancewriting,justasIisnothingotherthantheinstancesayingI(Barthes1977:145).

Itis,however,possibletogeneratebroadermeaningsofwhatissaidbyreferringtomethods

suchasintertextualandcontextualanalysis.Inthepoststructuralisttradition,wewill,forex

ample,beconcernedwithunderstandingwhatispresentbyaskingwhatisnotpresentintexts

(Potter1996:70).CDA, thestrandofdiscourseanalysis thatprobablycomesclosest toboth

thispostulateandtoLaclausandMouffestheory,andprovidesafruitfulgroundforameth

odologicalextensionoftheirthinking,understandsdiscourseasanelementofsociallifewhich

iscloselyinterconnectedwithotherelements(Fairclough2003:3).Althoughvariousstrandsof

CDAexist,FaircloughandWodak(1997:271280)summarizeeightimportantfeatures:

1. Thefocusliesonsocialproblems;

2. Powerrelationsarediscursive;

3. Societyandcultureareconstitutedbydiscourse;

4. Discoursetransportsactorsideologies;

5. Discourseishistorical;

6. Thelinkbetweentextandsocietyismediated;7. Discourseanalysisisinterpretativeandexplanatory;

8. Discourseisaformofsocialaction.

Overall,languageisseenassocialpractice,andaparticularinterestisgiventotherelation

shipbetweenlanguageandpower(Wodak2001:12).Empirically,theapproachofCDAis

concernedwithstructuralrelationshipsofdominance,discrimination,socialinequalityand

controlasconveyedbylanguage.Itacceptstheclaimofanultimateimpossibilityoffixing

meaningsbyspeechandrecognizestheroleofhegemonyasaprocessoftemporalfixation.

Moreover, it highlightsdiscursive differences (Wodak 2001: 11). In that sense, it concurs

withthetheoryofhegemony,andsometheoristsdirectlybuildontheinsightsgainedfrom


27/37


LaclauandMouffe,extendingtheirtheorybylinkingdiscourseanalysiswithtextanalysis.

SiegfriedJger followsLaclau indenyinganysocial reality that isdeterminedoutside the

discursive (Jger2001),andNormanFairclough likewise claims that every socialpractice

hasasemioticelement(Fairclough2001,2003).WhilesomestrandsofCDAdonotentirely

focuson texts, spokenorwritten,asobjectsof inquiry,othersemphasize thecharacterof

discoursesassuigenerismaterialrealities(Jger2001:36).Inessence,weonlymakethings

into thingsby providing themwithmeaning. Evenmaterialisations like street, house,

car,butalsopresident,primeministerandmemberofparliamentareconsequencesof

pastspeechand/orprecedingdiscoursesandareassuchmaterializationsofhumanthought.

Wheneveradiscoursechanges,thesematerialisationsnotonlylosetheirpriormeanings,but

theirwhole identitychanges.Differencesandalterations inpowerarethemselvesencoded

anddeterminedbydiscourse:languageindexespower,expressespower,isinvolvedwhere

thereiscontentionoverandachallengetopower(Wodak2001:11).

Inthatsense,itsuppliestheresearcherwithasophisticatedmeansforunveilingdifferences

inpowerinsocialhierarchicalstructures.ThenotionofcontextthatseemscrucialforCDAis

misleadinginthisregard,asitsuggeststhatsociopsychological,political,institutionaland

ideologicalfactorsaresomehowsituatedoutsidethediscursive.Theyarenot.Tomakethis

clear,Jger,criticisingFoucault,drawsacirclebetweendiscourseandreality,thatgivesthe

former

clear

priority:

Ihavetheimpressionthatthedifficultiesinthedeterminationofthedispositivearerelatedtoafailuretodeterminethemediationbetweendiscourse(whatissaid/whathasbeensaid),nondiscursivepractices (activities)andmanifestations(products/objects).If I [] regard thesemanifestations asmaterializations/activities of knowledge (discourse)andnondiscursivepracticesastheactiveimplementationofknowledge,acontextcanbeproducedthatwillprobablysolvemanyoftheproblems(Jger2001:4546).7

Whenpeoplecommunicatewitheachother,theynegotiateaboutmeanings.Throughtheir

communication,

they

produce

and

reproduce

reality.

Fundamental

to

this

approach

dis

coursemustessentiallybeunderstoodasconstitutingthesocial.Mosthelpfulinthisregard

is theworkofSiegfriedJger (1999,2001)andNormanFairclough (esp.1989,1992,2003).

Jger(1999)conceptualisesdiscourseastheflowoftextandspeechthroughtimeandoffers

averydetailed researchprogramme thatallows foraproperempiricalanalysis inseveral

steps.Fairclough,ontheotherhand,offersanindepthanalysisofsocialchange.Textsare,

accordingtoFairclough,sensitivebarometersofsocialprocesses,movementanddiversity,

and textualanalysiscanprovideparticularlygood indicatorsofsocialchange(Fairclough

7 Thedispositive,asdefinedbyMichelFoucault,coversdiscourses,institutions,architecturalinstitutions, reglemented decisions, laws, administrativemeasures, scientific statements, philosophical,moralorphilantropicteachings,inbrief,whatissaidandwhatisnotsaid(Foucault1978:119120).


28/37


29/37


Fig.1: Conclusion,argumentandclosingrule

Argument Conclusion

closing rule

The logicalrelationshipbetweenargumentandconclusion isoftengeneratedbymeansof

binaryconstructions.ItisonlybyreferencetoanoutsideOther,thatidentityconstructions

oftheSelfbecomeachievable.DavidDomke(2004)quiteintriguinglyexemplifiesthepower

of suchbinary constructions in theAmerican antiterrordiscourse, referring to thepresi

dentsuseofthetermsgoodvs.evilandsecurityvs.peril.Implicitconnotations,e.g.headscarfasasymbol for Islam,serve thesame task.On thatbasis itbecomespossible tocon

struct a ropeladderofdifferences andpredications (fig. 2),withbinary constructions lo

catedonthehorizontalaxis(Nabers2005;2006).

Fig.2: Ropeladderofdifferencesandpredications

different

A B

predication

X not A

good evil

civilised barbaric

contradictory

The initial termsgoodvs.evilaredenotedbyachainof furtherpredications.Relationsof

differenceinadiscourseresemblearopeladder,whichmakesitpossibletocapturebroader

meaningsofdiscourses,i.e.discursivemacrostructures.AccordingtoFairclough(2003:412),

there are several ways in which texts potentially deal with difference in Laclaus and

Mouffessense,referringto

thediscoveryofdifferenceintermsofdialoguewithothers;

theemphasisofdifferencethroughconflictandanopenstruggleovermeanings,norms

andpower;

theefforttoresolveorsurmountdifference;


30/37


abracketingofdifferencebyfocussingoncommonality,solidarityandidentity,andfinally

thenormalizationandrecognitionofdifferencethroughconsensus.

InconcurrencewithLaclau,Faircloughisinterestedinthequestionofhowparticularsina

discourse come to signify universals, in particular how divergent identities come tobe

claimedascollective.On thatbasis,wewillask the followingquestions (seealsoJackson

2005;Fairclough1992;Jger2001):

Whatassumptionsunderliethelanguageinthetext?

Howareelementsofothertextsintertextuallyincorporatedandinterpreted?

Howstableandinternallyconsistentaretheexaminedtexts?

Howarenewdominantinterpretativeframeworksgenerated?

Whileananalysisofadomesticdiscourse(e.g.Larsen1997)onaparticulartopicfacesthe

problemofaboundlessamountofavailableactorsandsources,thepoolismucheasierto

surveyiflimitedtogovernments.Thestudyconcentratesontypicalspeechactsoftopgov

ernmentofficials,representativedeclarationsandcommuniqus.The textualsamplesused

in theempiricalanalysiswillprimarilyserve toanswer thequestionsraisedabove, rather

thanbeingsubjecttodetailedtextualanalysisinthesenseofCDA,whichwouldincludea

detailedanalysisofsyntaxandgrammar.8Theanalysiswillinsteadputemphasisonargu

mentation

and

focus

on

discourse

strategies

in

dialogue

between

different

governments

on

issuesofidentityformation.

That isthetaskwearefacing intheempiricalanalysisof internationalpolitics,whichwill

putpoliticaldiscourseundercriticalscrutinywithregardstoitsimpactonhowparticulars

come toassumeuniversalmeanings.Whilst themethodcanbeemployed forallkindsof

processes in internationalpolitics, it isnot limited toanyparticular levelofanalysis.That

thisstudyprioritises the levelof the internationalsystemdoesnotmean thatdomesticor

transnationalchangecannotbeanalysedwithintheframework.

WhileCDAmustessentiallybeseenasanopenendedresearchprocess(Fairclough1996),aparticularempiricalanalysis is completeandofferssignificantscientificresultswhen the

analysis of new linguistic devices reveal no new findings (Jger 2001;Meyer 2001; Fair

clough 2003). This requires detailed documentation. The empirical analysiswillbe con

ducted in themodeofahermeneuticcircle themeaningof textualsampleswillonlybe

comprehensible in thecontextofthewholediscourse,whilethediscoursecanonlybeap

proachedfromitssingle,intertextuallyconnectedcomponents.

8

Van

Dijk

(2001)

suggests

that

the

analysis

should

concentrate

on

linguistic

markers

such

as

stress

and intonation,word order, lexical style, coherence, local semanticmoves such asdisclaimers,topic choice, schematicorganisation, rhetorical figures, syntactic structures,propositional structures,turntakings,repairsandhesitation.


31/37


3Critiqueandthepathtoempiricalresearch

Thekey insights intothemutualentanglementofuniversalityandparticularityofferedby

the

theory

of

hegemony

can

be

useful

in

answering

some

of

the

questions

related

to

change

intheinternationalsystem,beitintheeconomic,security,environmental,economicorso

cial realm. The concept of hegemony shows thatmany of the traditional IR concepts

power,system,structureandsovereigntycanbeofuseiftheirimplicationsareclear.They

acquiretheirmeaninginparticularrelationalcontextsandarealwayslimitedbyother,often

contradictory logics.Noneof them isabsolutelyvalid,not even themilitaryoreconomic

preponderanceoftheUnitedStatesaftertheendoftheColdWar.Quitethereverseistrue:

superiormaterialcapabilities,assuggestedbyrealisttheories,havenointrinsiclogic.Atthe

endoftheday,[i]tisonlythroughnegativity,divisionandantagonismthataformationcanconstituteitselfasatotalizinghorizon(Laclau/Mouffe1985:144);onlyunderthesecircum

stancescanachainofequivalencesgainhegemoniccharacter.

Inanempiricalinvestigationofcollectiveidentityformationwewouldhavetobreakdown

theconceptsemployedbythetheoryofhegemony.Crucialfortheempiricalinvestigationis

Laclausargumentthatthenotionofthepoliticalistheinstitutingmomentofsociety,which

bringswith it the incompletion of all acts ofpolitical institutionalization. In that context,

ieksanalogyofthestateisintriguing:Henotonlysuggeststhatthestatepersecannever

achievetotalidentity,butthatitwouldratherbeareligiouscommunitythanastate(iek

1999:177).Inotherwords:Institutionalization,be itonanationaloraregional level, isan

ongoing process; no identity is fully closed and hence apt to hegemonic interventions.

Theseinterventionsarelikelytobesuccessfulwhenpreviouspoliticallogicshavebeenput

intoquestionbyacrisis. Inconsequence,hegemony represents theneverendingeffort to

generatefixationsofadiscourse.

Theframeworkisabletoprovideontologicalaswellasepistemologicalandmethodological

insightsintoprocessesofidentitybuildingininternationalaffairs.Forthistobecomepossi

bleananthropomorphisationofagentsisrequired,sinceotherwisetheanalysiswouldsuffer

fromalackofagency.Themostsuitableagentforourtaskseemstobethestate,sincestates,

asWendt(1999:10)hasargued,areindeedrealagents.Withoutattributingcorporateagency

tothestate,analysesof internationalpoliticswouldbeperdefinitionemimpossible.Using

theframeworkprovidedinthispaperasastartingpoint,itispossibletoconceptualisethe

stateasaspeakingagentinanempiricalanalysisofcrisisandchangeininternationalpolitics.


32/37


References

Acharya,Amitav (2001)Constructing a SecurityCommunity in SoutheastAsia. London and

NewYork:Routledge.

Adler,Emanuel (2005)Communitarian InternationalRelations.The epistemicfoundationsof In

ternationalRelations.London/NewYork:Routledge.

Adler,EmmanuelandMichaelBarnett,(eds.)(1998)SecurityCommunities.Cambridge:Cam

bridgeUniversityPress.

Andersen,Nielskerstrm (2003)DiscursiveAnalytical Strategies.Understanding Foucault,

Koselleck,Laclau,Luhmann.Bristol:ThePolicyPress.

Barthes,Roland(1977)ImageMusicText.London:FontanaPaperbacks.

Belsey,Catherine(2002)Poststructuralism.AVeryShortIntroduction.Oxford:OxfordUniver

sityPress.

Butler,Judith/Laclau,Ernesto/iek,Slavoy(2000)Contingency,Hegemony,Universality.Con

temporaryDialoguesontheLeft.London/NewYork:Verso.

Czempiel,ErnstOtto(1981)InternationaleBeziehungen.EinKonfliktmodell.Mnchen:UTB.

Dessler,David(1989)WhatsatStakeintheAgentStructureDebate?InternationalOrgani

zation43(3),pp.441473.

Deutsch,KarlW.(1957)PoliticalCommunityandtheNorthAtlanticArea.Princeton:Princeton

UniversityPress.

Deutsch,KarlW.(1966)TheNervesofGovernment.NewYork:TheFreePress.

Deutsch,KarlW. (1970)PoliticalCommunityat the InternationalLevel.Problems ofDefinition

andMeasurement.Hamden,CT:ArchonBooks.

Doyle,MichaelW.(1997)WaysofWarandPeace.Realism.Liberalism,andSocialism.NewYork

andLondon:W.W.Norton.

Drulk,Petr(2001)TheProblemofStructuralChangeinAlexanderWendtsSocialTheoryof

InternationalPolitics,JournalofInternationalRelationsandDevelopment4,4,pp.363379.

Fairclough,Norman(1989)LanguageandPower.London:Longman.

Fairclough,Norman(1992)DiscourseandSocialChange.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Fairclough,Norman (1996) A reply toHenryWiddowsons discourse analysis: a critical

view,LanguageandLiterature5,pp.18.

Fairclough,Norman(1999)LinguisticandIntertextualAnalysiswithinDiscourseAnalysis,

Jaworski,Adam/Coupland,Nikolas(eds.)TheDiscourseReader.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge,pp.181211.


33/37


Faircclough,Norman (2001) Criticaldiscourseanalysisasamethod insocialscientific re

search,Wodak,Ruth/Meyer,Michael(eds.)MethodsofCriticalDiscourseAnalysis.Lon

don:Sage,pp.121138.

Fairclough,Norman (2003)AnalysingDiscourse.Textual analysisfor social research.London/

NewYork:Routledge.

Fairclough,Norman (2005) Blairs contribution toelaboratinganew doctrineof interna

tionalcommunity,JournalofLanguageandPolitics4(1),pp.4163.

Fairclough,Norman/Wodak,Ruth(1997)CriticalDiscourseAnalysis,vanDijk,Teun(ed.)

DiscourseStudies:AMultidisciplinaryIntroduction.Vol.2,London:Sage:pp.258284.

Foucault,Michel(1978)WahrheitundMacht,InterviewmitMichelFoucaultvonAlessandro

Fontana und Pasquale Pasquino, Foucault,Michel (ed.)Dispositive derMacht.MichelFoucaultberSexualitt,WissenundWahrheit.

Grieco,JosephM.(1990)CooperationamongNations.Europe,America,andNonTariffBarriersto

Trade.Ithaca(NY):CornellUniversityPress.

Guzzini,Stefano/Leander,Anna (2006)Constructivism and InternationalRelations:Alexander

WendtandhisCritics.London/NewYork:Routledge.

Habermas,Jrgen (1995a)Theorie des kommunikativenHandelns.Bd.1:Handlungsrationalitt

und

gesellschaftliche

Rationalisierung.

Frankfurt

a.M.:

Suhrkamp

Taschenbuch.

Habermas,Jrgen(1995b)TheoriedeskommunikativenHandelns.Bd.2:ZurKritikderfunktiona

listischenVernunft.Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampTaschenbuch.

Holsti,K.J. (2004)Taming the Sovereigns: InstitutionalChange in InternationalPolitics.Cam

bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Jackson,Richard(2005)WritingtheWaronTerrorism:Language,PoliticsandCounterterrorism.

Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Jger,

Siegfried

(1999)Kritische

Diskursanalyse.

Eine

Einfhrung.

2nd,

revised

and

enlarged

ed.

Duisburg:DISS.

Jger,Siegfried(2001)Discourseandknowledge:Theoreticalandmethodologicalaspectsof

acriticaldiscourseanddispositiveanalysis,Wodak,Ruth/Meyer,Michael(eds.)Meth

odsofCriticalDiscourseAnalysis.London:Sage,pp.3262.

Jones, R.J. Barry (1981) Concepts andModels of Change in International Relations, in:

Buzan,Barry/Jones,R.J.Barry (eds.)Changeand theStudyof InternationalRelations:The

EvadedDimension.London:FrancesPinter,pp.1129.

Keohane,RobertO.(1984)AfterHegemony:CooperationandDiscordintheWorldPoliticalEcon

omy.Princeton(NJ):PrincetonUniversityPress.


34/37


Keohane,RobertO.(1989)TheTheoryofHegemonicStabilityandChangesinInternational

EconomicRegimes, 19671977,Keohane,RobertO. International Institutions and State

Power:EssaysinInternationalRelationsTheory.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.,pp.74100.

Keohane,RobertO.andNye,JosephS.(2001)PowerandInterdependence.NewYork:Longman.

Krasner,StephenD.(1983)InternationalRegimes.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.

Krasner, Stephen D. (1985) Structural Conflict: The ThirdWorldAgainst Global Liberalism.

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Kratochwil,FriedrichandRuggie,JohnGerard(1986)InternationalOrganization:astateof

theartonanartofthestate,InternationalOrganization40,S.753775.

Laclau,Ernesto (1977)Politics and Ideology inMarxistTheory:Capitalism,Fascism,Populism.

London:Verso.

Laclau,Ernesto(1990)NewReflectionsoftheRevolutionofOurTime.London:Verso.

Laclau,Ernesto (1996) Deconstruction,pragmatism,hegemony,Mouffe,Chantal (ed.)De

constructionandpragmatism.London:Routledge,pp.4767.

Laclau, Ernesto/Mouffe,Chantal (1985)Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical

DemocraticPolitics.London:Verso.

Larsen,Henrik (1997)ForeignPolicyandDiscourseAnalysis:France,BritainandEurope.Lon

don/NewYork:Routledge.

Lukes,Steven(1974)Power:ARadicalView.Basingstoke:MacmillanEducation.

Moravcsik,Andrew(1997)TakingPreferencesSeriously:ALiberalTheoryofInternational

Politics,in:InternationalOrganization51,4,pp.513553.

Nabers,Dirk(2005)AllianzgegendenTerror.Deutschland,JapanunddieUSAnachdem11.Sep

tember2001.Wiesbaden:VSVerlagfrSozialwissenschaften.

Nabers,Dirk(2006) CultureandCollectiveAction:Japan,GermanyandtheUnitedStates

after11September2001,CooperationandConflict41,3,pp.305326.

Norval,Aletta(2004)Hegemonyafterdeconstruction:theconsequencesofundecidability,

JournalofPoliticalIdeologies9(2),pp.139157.

Oneal,John R./Russett, Bruce (2001) Clear and Clean: The Fixed Effects of the Liberal

Peace,in:InternationalOrganization55,2,pp.469485.

RisseKappen,Thomas (1995)CooperationAmongDemocracies.TheEuropean InfluenceonUS

ForeignPolicy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.


35/37


RisseKappen,Thomas(1996)CollectiveIdentityinaDemocraticCommunity:TheCaseof

NATO,PeterJ.Katzenstein(ed.)TheCultureofNationalSecurity:NormsandIdentity in

WorldPolitics(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress),pp.357399.

Rosenau,JamesN. (1990) Turbulence inWorld Politics:A Theory ofChange andContinuity.

Http Www.giga-hamburg.de Dl Download.php d= Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers

Documents

Transcript of Http Www.giga-hamburg.de Dl Download.php d= Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers