Professional Documents
Culture Documents
My contribution to this special issue tries to make up for this oversight by focusing
explicitly on the practices of non-recognition through which relations between
Europeans and non-Europeans have been conducted (see Ringmar 2014). The international society of civilized states as it came to be formed in Europe in the course of the
nineteenth century was possible, I argue, only because non-European states actively were
excluded from it. It is the non-recognition of the non-European that made recognition of
the European possible. To the extent that this logic continues to apply and it does we
can expect continued misunderstandings and more wars. There is a rich, and largely
unexplored, research field here to which we can only hope others will make contributions
(Ringmar 2013, 9093).
Global Discourse
The fact is, of course, that people really do speak about the state in this fashion. The
state-as-body is a metaphor of medieval origin, and in the Renaissance the state came to
be talked about as an actor on the world stage, personified by its ruler or by diplomats
acting in its name. The state-as-it-appears-in-a-story is an actor who deliberates, plans and
emotes. As such, it can be compared to a person. Indeed, for the purposes of the story, it is
a person in exactly the same way that an individual human being is. The state, as Olsson
points out, can indeed be studied in many other ways, and it can be compared to other
things an institution, a coercive machinery, a legal structure, a protection racket
and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these alternative metaphorical
descriptions. As always, the relevance of a particular metaphor is determined by what it
allows us to learn about the world. We are interested in the subjectivity of the state, and
we have chosen our metaphor accordingly.
Reification of self-conceptions
Olsson is also unhappy with what he refers to as the ontological idealism of many of the
contributions to The International Politics of Recognition. What he objects to here is the
way the self-conception of a state is discussed as a matter of ideas, without taking into
account the fact that these conceptions have a history which is highly conflictual and the
result of exercises of power. A states self-conceptions, Olsson says, is either nothing
more than the self-perception of foreign policy elites, or they are homogeneously shared
by larger parts of a politically organized society (Olsson 2014, 2). In the former case, it
is important to understand the structural inequalities that domestically constitute them as
elites with objective/material interests and subjective self-perceptions, and in the latter
case, to understand the material underpinning of the infrastructural power through which
these collective self-perceptions are broadly diffused and disseminated, be it intentionally
or not, throughout the nation. Again, in other words, Olsson calls for more of a focus
on material factors. Claims regarding identities, and questions of international recognition,
are inseparable from objective and at least partly material social structures within states
(and questions of domestic hierarchies).
Accusations of idealism are often bandied about in the social sciences, and always
used as an indictment. No one wants to be called an idealist since the implications are
that idealists make up worlds to fit their own fancy, without proper attention to the way
the world really is and works. Yet Olsson is surely correct to point out that all ideas, and
in this case all self-conceptions, come from somewhere. They are produced by certain
people in certain circumstances, for certain reasons, to serve certain interests, and these
self-conceptions, moreover, are often contested by groups and individuals who advocate
their separate versions, for their separate reasons. Self-conceptions, we have argued
elsewhere, are often the result of rhetorical battles in which traditional power-holders
will try to reaffirm, or reinterpret, the old meanings which have kept them in power, while
challengers will try to recode the established symbols to suit their purposes (Ringmar
2008, 85). As a result of rhetorical battles such as these, a certain conception of the state is
often the result of a hegemonic use of power, of rhetoric and propaganda, or of cultural
preconceptions which are morally dubious or just plain wrong.
All of this is important, and it could, no doubt, have been discussed in more detail in
The International Politics of Recognition. It would indeed, as Olsson suggests, have
deepened and improved the analysis. And yet, this is not the topic which the articles in
the book set out to address. As the title of the book indicates, we are interested in the
international politics of recognition and not primarily in issues of historical and domestic
genesis. Much as when it comes to Duncombes point regarding Western-centric bias, this
relative neglect provides an opportunity and not a challenge. Olsson is certainly correct to
point out that we need to know far more about how concepts of the state are formed. We
need to study the rhetorical battles and the formative moments in which a certain
conception of the collective self came to be established. These are tasks for another
book one to which the historical sociology which Olsson proposes can make crucial
contributions.
Global Discourse
fought, and states in the process of democratizing are often militarily aggressive (Ringmar
2013, 128134; Mansfield and Snyder 1995, 7997).
Yet a theory of recognition is not, and cannot be, a theory which explains the outbreak
of all wars. Instead a theory of recognition is a theory which explains how identities are
created, maintained, defended or lost, and in this process of identity creation, conflicts,
leading to wars, can sometimes take place. This is not to say that all wars are fought for
identity-based reasons (Ringmar 2008, 9091). There are, as already Thomas Hobbes
pointed out, wars fought for competition and diffidence in addition to the wars fought
for glory (Hobbes 1982, 185). To admit that a theory of recognition has limitations is not
to say that it is irrelevant. Once more traditional, interest-based, explanations have done
their job, there are still a sufficient number of cases left for identity-based explanations to
explore. The International Politics of Recognition provides a long list of examples.
The issue which Olsson raises is rather whether the stories told about the state can be
reduced to material factors. If they can, then we can safely dispense with a discussion of
self-conceptions and their reception by others and instead focus on the economic, social
and political changes which states, and the state system, have undergone. Olsson claims
that this can be done, yet we claim that it cannot. This is not to say that the material
context does not matter. All stories, after all, concern the environment in which they place
their protagonists, and this environment is in addition to everything else also material. Yet
material factors are insufficient. What counts as a material factor, what makes it meaningful and what it means for action must always be appropriated by a story. The
environment which matters is always interpreted and emplotted, and only through a
story can we make sense of what is happening. An inevitable feature of each story is an
account of its main protagonists in this case the state. This is why an account of the
identity of the state will come to feature in all explanations of state actions even if, as we
point out, the identity in question is not always put in question.
This holds true also for the examples that Olsson refers to. The rise of the working
class and other potentially disruptive effects of industrialization may certainly be easier to
control if resentments can be directed towards foreigners or wars undertaken for a national
cause. Yet as far as the political implications are concerned, processes of industrialization
mean nothing in themselves and only something as they are made sense of in a public
discourse. Public discourses vary depending not only on material factors but also depending on which stories people come to accept. Consider a contemporary example: the story
of national humiliation which the Chinese Communist Party uses to legitimate its hold on
power is a way to include, however deceptively, the quickly increasing Chinese working
class into the state (Ringmar, forthcoming). The result is a potentially aggressive form of
nationalism which relies heavily on demands that China should be recognized on its own
preferred terms. Yet it is not legitimate to explain the nationalistic rhetoric with the help of
the material changes the country has gone through. Between material changes and
nationalistic rhetoric is a process of identity formation which, far from being epiphenomenal, has its own political logic. As a result, the humiliation-based rhetoric is not the
only option. Other stories can be told about China, stories that describe a quickly
modernizing yet very different kind of country which also has far more amicable relations
with its neighbours. It is this logic of identity formation which a theory of recognition
captures.
As always, the question of causality can only be settled through a historical investigation of each particular case. Material factors cannot by themselves be the causes of wars,
but neither can a particular process of identity formation. It could very well be, for
example, that a story of resentment and revenge was widely entertained in a country
and yet that a particular war was fought for some entirely different reason. Before a story
of resentment and revenge can explain anything it must be entertained by the decisionmakers and be made to matter. To establish whether this is the case to establish a motive
is often a tricky and intricate business, and it requires us to dig deeply into the historical
sources. This is why a theory of recognition often leads to extensive historical investigations. We must study the world as it really exists, but this reality includes mental
constructs.
Note
1.
Lindemann and Ringmar (2011). A paperback edition of the book is due to appear later this
year.
References
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York:
Penguin Books.
Duncombe, C. 2014. The International Politics of Recognition, by Thomas Lindemann and Erik
Ringmar. Non-Recognition in International Relations: Developing New Approaches to Political
Problems. Global Discourse. doi:10.1080/23269995.2014.917036.
Hobbes, T. 1982. Leviathan. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hollis, M. 1985. Of Masks and Men. In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy,
History, edited by M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes, 217233. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hume, D. 1986. A Treatise of Human Nature. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jackson, P. T. 2004. Forum Introduction: Is the State a Person? Why Should We Care? Review of
International Studies 30 (2): 255258. doi:10.1017/S0260210504006047.
Lindemann, T. 2011. Concluding Remarks on the Empirical Study of International Recognition.
In The International Politics of Recognition, edited by T. Lindemann and E. Ringmar, 209225.
Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Lindemann, T., and E. Ringmar, eds. 2011. The International Politics of Recognition. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm.
Mansfield, E. D., and J. Snyder. 1995. Democratization and War. Foreign Affairs 74 (3): 7997.
doi:10.2307/20047125.
Olsson, C. 2014. The International Politics of Recognition, by Thomas Lindemann and Erik
Ringmar. Warfare and Recognition in IR: on the Potential Inputs of the Historical Sociology
of the State. Global Discourse. doi:10.1080/23269995.2014.917037.
Ricur, P. 1996. Soi-Mme Comme Un Autre. Paris: Seuil.
Ringmar, E. 1996. On the Ontological Status of the State. European Journal of International
Relations 2 (4): 439466. doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002.
Ringmar, E. 2006. Inter-Textual Relations: The Quarrel over the Iraq War as a Conflict between
Narrative Types. Cooperation & Conflict 41 (4): 403421. doi:10.1177/0010836706069611.
Ringmar, E. 2008. Identity, Interest and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Swedens Intervention in
the Thirty Years War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringmar, E. 2011. Free Trade by Force: Civilization against Culture in the Great China Debate of
1857. In Culture and External Relations, edited by J. Batora and M. Mokre, 532. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Ringmar, E. 2013. Liberal Barbarism: The European Destruction of the Palace of the Emperor of
China. New York: Palgrave.
Ringmar, E. 2014. Recognition and the Origins of International Society. Global Discourse.
doi:10.1080/23269995.2014.917031.
Ringmar, E. Forthcoming. Ourselves in the Other: Chinas Place in Four Recognition Regimes. In
Recognition in International Relations: Rethinking an Ambivalent Concept in a Global Context,
edited by C. Daase and C. Fehl. New York: Palgrave.
Searle, J. R. 2006. Social Ontology: Some Basic Principles. Anthropological Theory 6 (1): 1229.
doi:10.1177/1463499606061731. http://ant.sagepub.com/content/6/1/12.short.
Global Discourse
Stanghellini, G., and R. Rosfort. 2013. Emotions and Personhood: Exploring Fragility, Making
Sense of Vulnerability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wang, Z. 2008. National Humiliation, History Education, and the Politics of Historical Memory:
Patriotic Education Campaign in China. International Studies Quarterly 52 (4): 783806.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2008.00526.x.
Zuo, Y. 2014. The International Politics of Recognition, by Thomas Lindemann and Erik Ringmar.
On the Empirical Study of International Recognition. Global Discourse. doi:10.1080/
23269995.2014.917035.
Erik Ringmar
Department of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden
erik@ringmar.net
2014, Erik Ringmar
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2014.947069