Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2013
National diplomacy is challenged by the rise of non-state actors from transnational companies to non-governmental organisations. In trying to explain these challenges, scholars tend to either focus on a specific new actor or argue that states will remain the dominant diplomatic players. This article develops an alternative Bourdieu-inspired framework addressing symbolic power. It conceptualises diplomacy in terms of a social field with agents (field incumbents and newcomers alike) who co-construct and reproduce the field by struggling for dominant positions. The framework is applied to the EU's new diplomatic service (the European External Action Service, EEAS), which is one of the most important foreign policy inventions in Europe to date. I show that the EEAS does not challenge national diplomacy in a material sense – but at a symbolic level. The EEAS questions the state's meta-capital, that is, its monopoly of symbolic power and this explains the counter-strategies adopted by national foreign services. The struggles to define the ‘genuine’ diplomat reveal a rupture in the European diplomatic field, pointing towards a transformation of European statehood and the emergence of a hybrid form of diplomacy. A focus on symbolic power opens up new avenues for the study of transformations of authority in world politics.
1 Bull, H., The Anarchical Society (Houndsmills: Palgrave, 1977), p. 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Constantinou, C. M. and Derian, J. Der, ‘Introduction’, in Constantinou, C. M. and Derian, J. Der (eds), Sustainable Diplomacies (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, J. C., ‘“Globalization” as Collective Representation: The New Dream of a Cosmopolitan Civil Sphere’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 19:1–2 (2005), pp. 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 EuopeAid is still under the control of the Commission.
4 TEU art. 10A.
5 Radtke, K., ‘The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) after the Lisbon Treaty: Supranational Revolution or Adherence to Intergovernmental Pattern?’, in Laursen, F. (eds), The EU's Lisbon Treaty: Institutional Choices and Implementation (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), p. 163Google Scholar.
6 Mearsheimer, J., ‘A Realist Reply’, International Security, 20:1 (1995), pp. 82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hyde-Price, A., ‘A “tragic actor”? A realist perspective on “ethical power Europe”’, International Affairs, 84 (2008), pp. 29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Manners, I., ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2 (2002), pp. 235–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 For a discussion of the Kissinger telephone myth, see Bickerton, C., ‘Towards a Social Theory of EU Foreign and Security Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 49:1 (2011), pp. 171–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Stetter, S., ‘Cross-Pillar Politics: Functional Unity and Institutional Fragmentation of EU Foreign Policies’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4:11 (2004), pp. 720–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, M. E., Europe's Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Bátora, J., ‘Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 1:12 (2005), pp. 44–66Google Scholar; Diez, T., Manners, I., and Whitman, R., ‘The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe: The Challenge of the European Union’, Journal of European Integration, 33:2 (2011), pp. 117–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 But see Mérand, F., European Defence Policy Beyond the Nation State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.
11 For important and valuable exceptions, see Neumann, I. B., ‘“A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand for”, or: Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New’, International Political Sociology, 2:1 (2007), pp. 183200Google Scholar; Neumann, I. B. and Leira, H., Aktiv og avventende: Utenrikstjenestens liv 1905–2005 (Oslo: Pax Forlag, 2005)Google Scholar; Neumann, I. B., At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry (Cornell University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.
12 Watson, A., Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (London: Eyre Methuen, 1982), p. 10Google Scholar.
13 I. B. Neumann, At Home with the Diplomats, p. 7.
14 See, for example, F. Mérand, European Defence Policy; Neumann, I. B. and Pouliot, V., ‘Untimely Russia: Hysteresis in Russian-Western Relations over the Past Millennium’, Security Studies, 20:1 (2011), pp. 105–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 F. Mérand European Defence Policy, p. 6.
16 Bourdieu, P., Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity, 1992), p. 229Google Scholar.
17 Bourdieu, P., Raisons practiques. Sur la théorie de la raison (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1994), p. 163Google Scholar.
18 P. Bourdieu, Raisons practiques.
19 De Clerq, D. and Voronov, M., ‘The Role of Domination in Newcomers' Legitimation as Entrepreneurs’, Organization, 16:6 (2009), p. 804Google Scholar.
20 I. B. Neumann and V. Pouliot, ‘Untimely Russia’, p. 105.
21 Ibid., ‘Untimely Russia’, p. 111.
22 P. Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, for an interesting analysis of symbolic power in international trade politics, see Eagleton-Pierce, M., Symbolic Power in the World Trade Organization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.
23 Stuvøy, K., ‘Symbolic Power and (In)Security: The Marginalization of Women's Security in Northwest Russia’, International Political Sociology, 4:4 (2010), p. 403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Bourdieu, P., ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power’, Sociological Theory, 7:1 (1989), p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 P. Bourdieu, La Noblesse d'Etat.
26 Chopra, R., ‘Neoliberalism As Doxa: Bourdieu's Theory of the State and the Contemporary Indian Discourse on Globalization and Liberalization’, Cultural Studies, 3/4:17 (2003), p. 429Google Scholar.
27 Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L., An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago: Chicago University Press 1992), p. 114Google Scholar.
28 R. Chopra, ‘Neoliberalism As Doxa’, p. 430.
29 I. B. Neumann, At Home with the Diplomats, p. 53.
30 Cooper, A. F. and Hocking, B., ‘Governments, NonGovernmental Organizations and the Recalibration of Diplomacy’, Global Society, 14:3 (2000), pp. 361–7Google Scholar.
31 See, for example, Spence, D., ‘The Evolving Role of Foreign Ministries in the Conduct of European Union Affairs’, in Hocking, B. and Spence, D. (eds), Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (New York: Palgrave, 2005), pp. 18–36Google Scholar.
32 In a longer historical perspective, of course, non-state diplomatic actors are by no means a new phenomenon. For instance it was custom that major corporations acted as foreign policy organs of their home state in many of the imperial adventures.
33 Adler-Nissen, R., ‘Late Sovereign Diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 4:2 (2009), pp. 121–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 F. Mérand, European Defence Policy, p. 89.
35 Ibid.
36 Mérand, F., ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the Birth of European Defense’, Security Studies, 19 (2010), pp. 342–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Smith, K. E., European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008), pp. 3–9Google Scholar.
38 From a legal perspective, the EEAS is an institutional hybrid, which, in coming years, is likely to grow into a supranational diplomatic service – much like a Commission DG; Van Vooren, B., ‘A Legal-Institutional Perspective on the European External Action Service’, Common Market Law Review, 48 (2011), pp. 457–502Google Scholar.
39 Manners, I., ‘Symbolism in European Integration’, Comparative European Politics, 9:3 (2011), pp. 243–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Part of this analysis is also covered in Adler-Nissen, R., ‘European diplomats: State Nobility and the Invention of a New Social Group’, in Kauppi, N. and Madsen, M. R. (eds), Transnational Power Elites: The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security (London, Routledge, 2013), pp. 65–80Google Scholar.
41 Ashton, C., Proposal for the European External Action Service, Speech by EUHR Ashton (Brussels: European Commission, 2010)Google Scholar, emphasis added.
42 See Bátora, J., ‘The “Mitrailleuse Effect”: The EEAS as an Interstitial Organization and the Dynamics of Innovation in Diplomacy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 51:4 (2013), p. 608CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Ashton, quoted in S. O'Connor, ‘The Accidental Diplomat’, E!Sharp (January–February 2010), p. 14.
45 Wouters, J. and Duquet, S., ‘The EU and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons?’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7:1 (2012), p. 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Bourdieu, P., ‘The Historical Genesis of a Pure Aesthetics’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (1987), p. 203Google Scholar
47 Interview, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 5 November 2012.
48 See Bogandy, A., ‘The European Constitution and European Identity: Text and subtext of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 3:(2–3) (2005), pp. 295–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Final report of WG VII, fn. 1.
50 Art I–27; K. Radtke, ‘The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy’, p. 147.
51 WG VII, WD 55, by I. M. de Vigo, p. 6.
52 For an overview of the debates in the different members states, see ‘Reviewing Member States’ Commitment to the European External Action Service’, EPIN Working Paper, no. 34 (2012).
53 LexisNexis search for ‘European External Action Service’ and ‘Union Foreign Minister’ in all (English-language) news stories from 2002–9.
54 Declaration 13.
55 See WG VII, WD 40 by P. Hain.
56 In particular the Council Decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (2010/427/UE).
57 Petrov, P., Pomorska, K., and Vanhoonacker, S., ‘Introduction: The Emerging EU Diplomatic System: Opportunities and Challenges after Lisbon’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7 (2012), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 See R. Balfour and K. Raik (eds), The European External Action Service and National Diplomacies, EPC Issue Paper, no. 73 (March 2013); see also Emerson, M.et al., Upgrading the EU's role as a global actor, Institutions, Law and the Restructuring of European Diplomacy (Brussels: CEPS, 2011)Google Scholar.
59 Allen, D. and Smith, M., ‘Relations with the Rest of the World’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Annual Review, 49 (2011), pp. 209–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 The EU's predecessor, the European Coal and Steel Community, opened its first mission in London in 1955, three years after non-EU countries began to accredit their missions in Brussels to the Community. Since then, the number of delegations has grown in numbers and tasks.
61 See Fernández, A. M., ‘Consular Affairs in the EU: Visa Policy As a Catalyst for Integration?’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 1:3 (2008), p. 27Google Scholar. According to the Vienna Convention on consular relations of 1963 the functions of consular protection and assistance are the exclusive responsibility of states. See also the European Commission's communication Consular protection for EU citizens in third countries: State of play and way forward (COM(2011) 149).
62 Art 20, TEC.
63 K Raik, ‘Serving the citizens? Consular role of the EEAS grows in small steps’, EPC Policy Brief (30 April 2013); Interview EEAS HQ, 14 May 2013; Interview, EU Delegation, 2 June 2013.
64 Art. 5–10.
65 Interview, EEAS HQ, 14 May 2013.
66 Emerson et al., Upgrading the EU's role as a global actor.
67 See also Manners, I. and Williams, R. (eds), The Foreign Policies of the European Union Member States (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), p. 262Google Scholar.
68 A Rettmann, ‘France keen for EU diplomats to beef up security, consular services’, EUObserver (20 March 2013); Interview, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 13 May 2013; see also K Raik, ‘Serving the citizens?’.
69 House of Lords, Main Chamber Debates 25 January 2010, No. 716: Part No. 31 (2010).
70 E. Delaney, ‘Changes abroad will now reinvent diplomacy here’, The Independent (13 November 2011).
71 Moynihan quoted in Loeffler, J. C., ‘The Architecture of Diplomacy: Heyday of the United States Embassy-Building Program, 1954–1960’, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (1990), pp. 251–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 J. Leone, ‘Divergent views over Van Rompuy and Ashton seem largely negative in Italy’, EU-27 Watch, No. 9 (2010), available at: {www.EU-27watch.org}, accessed 20 November 2012.
73 Field notes.
74 Field notes, Interviews, EEAS HQ, 14 May 2013; EU Delegation, 10 June 2013.
75 M. Labaki, ‘Steven Vanackere critique Catherine Ashton’, Le Soir (4 May 2011).
76 See Bátora, The ‘Mitrailleuse Effect’, p. 608.
77 Interview, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 August 2011.
78 Interview, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6 May 2011; Interview, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2011.
79 Guzzini, S., ‘Power’, in Adler-Nissen, R. (ed.), Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 83Google Scholar.
80 {http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/201203/20120321_nonpaperfms_en.pdf} accessed 20 November 2012.
81 Field notes.
82 DeClercq and Voronov, The Role of Domination, p. 800.
83 D. Spence, ‘The Early Days of the European External Action Service’, p. 116.
84 The nomination took place on 17 February 2010.
85 T. Vogel, ‘Swedish Minister Criticises Washington Appointment’, European Voice (22 February 2010).
86 The Almeida incident reflects Neumann's observation (‘To Be a Diplomat’, International Studies Perspectives, 6 (2005), pp. 72–93 that there is a status hierarchy between the ‘hero script’ and the ‘bureaucratic script’ in diplomacy. The hero is the active diplomat, making a difference abroad, while the bureaucrat is a civil servant in a dusty office ‘back home’.
87 Interview, EEAS HQ, 14 May 2013.
88 D. Milliband and C. Bildt, letter to Baroness Ashton, 3 March 2010.
89 R. Formuszewicz and J. Kumoc, ‘The Practice of Appointing the Heads of EU Delegations in the Wake of Council Decision on the European External Action Service’, Report of the Polish Institute of International Affairs (2010), p. 27.
90 ‘High Representative Catherine Ashton appoints 17 new Heads and Deputy Heads of Delegation’, 16 May 2012, A 228/12
91 Karyagin, V., ‘The Diplomatic Service: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, International Affairs, 12:40 (1994), pp. 32–44Google Scholar.
92 P. Bourdieu, La Noblesse d'Etat.
93 Respective webpages of the mentioned MFAs, Interview, German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 15 May 2013.
94 Cross, M. K., ‘Building A European Diplomacy: Recruitment and Training to the EEAS’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 16:4 (2011)Google Scholar.
95 F. Mérand, European Defence Policy Beyond the Nation State.
96 Interview, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6 May 2011; Interview French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2011.
97 R. Balfour and K. Raik (eds), The European External Action Service and National Diplomacies, p. 170.
98 House of Lords, Main Chamber Debates 25 January 2010.
99 Interview, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 13 November 2011; Interview, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 May 2011.
100 J. Quatremer, ‘The European Foreign Office’, Libération (14 January 2011).
101 A. Rettman, ‘Germany attacks UK over EU diplomatic service’, EUobserver (1 March 2010).
102 Ibid.
103 Interview, Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 March 2011.
104 Commission official, quoted in D. Spence, ‘The Early Days of the European External Action Service’, p. 120.
105 Interview, EU Delegation, 2 June 2013.
106 Ibid., 4 June 2013
107 Interview, EEAS HQ, 31 October 2011.
108 P. Bourdieu and L. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, p. 114.
109 ‘The European External Action Service: a look into EU diplomat training’, European View, 9:2 (2010), pp. 219–27.
110 Interview, EU delegation, 10 June 2013.
111 Interview, EEAS HQ, 21 October 2011.
112 Ibid., 4 September 2011.
113 Presidency, ‘Presidency Report’.
114 Interview, Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen, 14 April 2010.
115 C. Ashton, Proposal for the European External Action Service.
116 Interview, EEAS HQ, 8 May 2012.
117 See Duke, S., ‘Diplomatic Training and the Challenges Facing the EEAS’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7:1 (2012), pp. 95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
118 Bourdieu, P., ‘Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field’, in Steinmetz, G. (ed.), State/Culture: State Formation after the Cultural Turn (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.
119 Bátora, ‘The “Mitrailleuse Effect”’.
120 DeClercq and Voronov, The Role of Domination.
121 Sharp, P. and Wiseman, G., ‘Conclusion: The Diplomatic Corps' Role in Constituting International Society’, in Sharp, P. and Wiseman, G. (eds), The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society (Houndsmills: Palgrave, 2007), p. 276Google Scholar.
122 See, for example, Neumann, I. B., ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy’, Millennium, 31:3 (2002), p. 639CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, E. and Pouliot, V., ‘International Practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), pp. 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pouliot, V., International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
123 Duvall, R. and Chowdhury, A., ‘Practices of Theory’, in Adler, E. and Pouliot, V. (eds), International Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011), p. 348Google Scholar.
