Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:40:07.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Identity Formation in Constructivist Security Studies: A Suggestive Essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2012

YOUNG CHUL CHO
YOUNG CHUL CHO*
Affiliation:
Jindal School of International Affairs of O.P. Jindal Global University, Indiayoungchul.cho@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although any typology of constructivism might be arbitrary, there are, broadly speaking, two distinctive constructivist approaches in security studies as well as International Relations (IR) according to their different meta-theoretical stances: conventional constructivism, on the one hand, and critical constructivism on the other. Indeed, regarding how to understand state identity which is integral to national security, there has meta-theoretically been fierce contention between conventional and critical constructivist security studies. In not ignoring but slightly toning down this contention operating at the abstract level, this article aims to present a pragmatic application of the two different (or conflicting) constructivisms to capturing a more complete picture of state identity formation in substantive empirical research of constructivist security studies. The pragmatic approach is that, without being immersed heavily in the meta-theoretical strife between the two seemingly conflicting constructivist camps, both constructivisms should be treated as different analytical frameworks for examining different (internal and external) faces of state identity formation: the external construction of state identity can be well addressed by conventional constructivism, while the internal one by critical constructivism. In this sense, the relationship between conventional and critical constructivism can be understood as not conflicting but complementary in empirical research, as both constructivisms enrich and deepen our understanding of state identity formation in different ways.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 299 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Emanuel (1997), ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3): 319–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Emanuel (2002), ‘Constructivism in International Relations’, in Carlsnaes, Walter (ed.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. (2000), ‘On Learning from Wendt’, Review of International Studies, 26 (1): 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Benedict (1991), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael (2005), ‘Social Constructivism’, in Baylis, John and Smith, Steve, with the assistance of Owens, Patricia (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 251–70.Google Scholar
Buszynski, Leszek (2004), Asia Pacific Security – Values and Identity, London: RoutledgeCurzon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, William A. (2004), Contingent States: Greater China and Transnational Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David (1998), Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David (2001), ‘International Engagements: The Politics of North American International Relations Theory’, Political Theory, 29 (3): 432–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1998), ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory’, World Politics, 50 (2): 324–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2008), ‘Constructivism and Foreign Policy’, in Smith, Steve, Hadfield, Amelia, and Dunne, Tim (eds.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–82.Google Scholar
Cho, Young Chul (2009), ‘Conventional and Critical Constructivist Approaches to National Security: An Analytical Survey’, The Korean Journal of International Relations, 49 (3): 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crotty, Michael (1998), The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Delanty, Gerard (2005), Social Science: Philosophical and Methodological Foundations, Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Devetak, Richard (2005), ‘Postmodernism’, in Burchill, Scott, Linklater, Andrew, Devetak, Richard, Donnelly, Jack, Paterson, Matthew, Reus-Smit, Christian, and True, Jacqui (eds.), Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 161–87.Google Scholar
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1996), Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North–South Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (2000), ‘Desire All the Way Down’, Review of International Studies, 26 (1): 137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Theo (2002), ‘Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program’, International Studies Review, 4 (1): 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fierke, K.M. (2007), ‘Constructivism’, in Dunne, Tim, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 164–84.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (2001), ‘Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 4 (1): 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Jim (1994), Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O. (1993), ‘Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework’, in Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O. (eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Colin (2002), Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, John M. (2000), The State and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopf, Ted (1998), ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, 23 (1): 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopf, Ted (2002), Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jepperson, Ronald L., Wendt, Alexander, and Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996), ‘Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, in Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 33–75.Google Scholar
Kahl, Colin H. (1998/9), ‘Constructing a Separate Peace: Constructivism, Collective Liberal Identity, and Democratic Peace’, Security Studies, 8 (2/3): 94–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996), ‘Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security’, in Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.) (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., Keohane, Robert O., and Krasner, Stephen (1998), ‘International Organization and the Study of World Politics’, International Organization, 52 (4): 645–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (1986), ‘Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics’, in Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (1988), ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32 (4): 379–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (2000), ‘Ideas Part-way Down’, Review of International Studies, 26 (1): 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, Audie (2009), ‘Introduction’, in Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa (eds.), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Klotz, Audie and Lynch, Cecelia (2007), Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Kowert, Paul A. (1998/9), ‘National Identity: Inside and Out’, Security Studies, 8 (2/3): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. (2000), ‘Wars, Hotel Fires, and Planes Crashes’, Review of International Studies, 26 (1): 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubalkova, Vendulka, Onuf, Nicholas, and Kowert, Paul (1998a), ‘Preface’, in Kubalkova, Vendulka, Onuf, Nicholas, and Kowert, Paul (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World, London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. ix–xii.Google Scholar
Kubalkova, Vendulka, Onuf, Nicholas, and Kowert, Paul (1998b), ‘Constructing Constructivism’, in Kubalkova, Vendulka, Onuf, Nicholas, and Kowert, Paul (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World, London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. (1988), ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism’, World Politics, 40 (2): 235–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palan, Ronen (2000), ‘A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 26 (4): 575–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patomaki, Heikki and Wight, Colin (2000), ‘After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism’, International Studies Quarterly, 44 (2): 213–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettman, Ralph (2001), ‘Commonsense Constructivism and Foreign Policy: A Critique of Rule-Oriented Constructivism’, in Kubalkova, Vendulka (ed.), Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, London: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 249–65.Google Scholar
Price, Richard and Reus-Smit, Christian (2000), ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism’, in Linklater, Andrew (ed.), International Relations: Critical Concepts and Political Science, London: Routledge, pp. 1784–816.Google Scholar
Rengger, Nicholas and Thirkell-White, Ben (2007), ‘Introduction: Still Critical after All These Years? The Past, Present, and Future of Critical Theory in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 33 (S1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard (1998), Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra and Katzenstein, Peter J. (2010), Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve (2000a), ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (3): 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve (2000b), ‘Wendt's World’, Review of International Studies, 26 (1): 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve (2001), ‘Foreign Policy Is What States Make of It: Social Construction and International Relations Theory’, in Kubalkova, Vendulka (ed.), Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 38–55.Google Scholar
Smith, Steve (2007), ‘Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory’, in Dunne, Tim, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Smith, Steve and Owens, Patricia (2005), ‘Alternative Approaches to International Theory’, in Baylis, John and Smith, Steve, with the assistance of Owens, Patricia (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271–93.Google Scholar
Steans, Jill and Pettiford, Lloyd, with Diez, Thomas (2005), Introduction to International Relations: Perspectives and Themes, Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2006), ‘Making Sense of International Relations Theory’, in Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (ed.), Making Sense of International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole (1996), ‘The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate’, in Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waever, Ole (1998), ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization, 52 (4): 687–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waever, Ole (2007), ‘Still a Discipline after All These Debates?’, in Dunne, Tim, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 288–308.Google Scholar
Walker, R.B.J. (1997), ‘The Subject of Security’, in Krause, Keith and Williams, Michael C. (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, London: UCL Press, pp. 61–81.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. (1998), ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, 110 (Spring): 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth (1979), Theory of International Politics, Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Weber, Cynthia (1998), ‘Performative States’, Millennium, 27 (1): 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Cynthia (2005), International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weldes, Jutta, Laffey, Mark, Gusterson, Hugh, and Duvall, Raymond (1999), ‘Introduction: Constructing Insecurity’, in Weldes, Jutta, Laffey, Mark, Gusterson, Hugh, and Duvall, Raymond(eds.), Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Weldes, Jutta, Laffey, Mark, Gusterson, Hugh, and Duvall, Raymond (eds.) (1999), Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander (1992), ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander (1995), ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, 20 (1): 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander (2000), ‘On the Via Media: A Response to the Critics’, Review of International Studies, 26 (1): 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Colin (2002), ‘Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations’, in Carlsnaes, Walter (ed.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Michael C. and Krause, Keith (1997), ‘Preface: Toward Critical Security Studies’, in Krause, Keith and Williams, Michael C. (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, London: UCL Press Limited, pp. vii–xxi.Google Scholar
Yosef, Lapid (1989), ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (3): 235–54.Google Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja (2001), ‘Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison’, European Journal of International Relations, 7 (3): 315–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja (2002), Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar