HTTP WWW - Giga-Hamburg - de DL Download - PHP D Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers

GIGA Research Programme: Transformation in the Process of Globalisation
___________________________
Crises, Hegemony and Change in the International System: A Conceptual Framework Dirk Nabers
N 50 May 2007
www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers
GIGAWP50/2007
GIGAWorkingPapers
EditedbyGIGAGermanInstituteofGlobalandAreaStudies/LeibnizInstitutfrGlobale undRegionaleStudien. TheWorkingPaperSeriesservestodisseminatetheresearchresultsofworkinprogress priortopublicationtoencouragetheexchangeofideasandacademicdebate.Anobjective oftheseriesistogetthefindingsoutquickly,evenifthepresentationsarelessthanfully polished.InclusionofapaperintheWorkingPaperSeriesdoesnotconstitutepublication andshouldnotlimitpublicationinanyothervenue.Copyrightremainswiththeauthors. WhenWorkingPapersareeventuallyacceptedbyorpublishedinajournalorbook,the correctcitationreferenceand,ifpossible,thecorrespondinglinkwillthenbeincludedin theWorkingPaperswebsiteat: www.gigahamburg.de/workingpapers. GIGAresearchunitresponsibleforthisissue:ResearchProgramme3Transformationin theProcessofGlobalisation EditoroftheGIGAWorkingPaperSeries:BertHoffmann<hoffmann@gigahamburg.de> Copyrightforthisissue:DirkNabers Editorialassistantandproduction:SilviaBckeandVerenaKohler All GIGA Working Papers are available online and free of charge at the website: www.gigahamburg.de/workingpapers.WorkingPaperscanalsobeorderedinprint.For production and mailing a cover fee of 5 is charged. For orders or any requests please contact: Email:workingpapers@gigahamburg.de Phone:++49(0)4042825548 GIGAGermanInstituteofGlobalandAreaStudies/ LeibnizInstitutfrGlobaleundRegionaleStudien NeuerJungfernstieg21 20354Hamburg Germany Email:info@gigahamburg.de Website:www.gigahamburg.de
GIGAWP50/2007
Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternationalSystem: AConceptualFramework
Abstract The paper tries to shed light on the conceptual link between international crises like the one following September 11, 2001, the Asian financial crisis of 1997/1998, the end of the ColdWarormajorinternationalconflicts,andprocessesofchangeintheinternationalsys tem.Itarguesthatculturalstructuresrestontheircontinuousinstantiationthroughsocial practices,therebymakingthemcoterminouswithprocess.Processisconstitutedbymean ingfulactsofsocialagents,andcanthusonlybegraspedbyanalysingmeaning.Meaningis transmittedbylanguage.Meaningfullanguageisneverreducibletoindividualspeakers;it isasocialact.Inthepaper,Icallthisprocessdiscourse.LinkingCriticalDiscourseAnaly sis(CDA)withthetheoryofhegemonydevelopedbyErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe, Iwillfinallybeabletoshowhowhegemonicdiscoursesserveasthenexusbetweencrises andculturalstructuresandhowtheymakeculturalchangepossible. Keywords: Crisis,change,discourse,poststructuralism,hegemony,internationalpolitics Dr.DirkNabers PDDr.DirkNabersisapoliticalscientistandSeniorResearchFellowatGIGAInstituteof AsianStudies,specializinginInternationalRelationtheory,security,regionalismandJapans externalrelationsincomparativeperspective. Contact:nabers@gigahamburg.de,website:http://staff.gigahamburg.de/nabers.
Zusammenfassung Krise,HegemonieundWandeliminternationalenSystem:EinkonzeptionellerRahmen Der Artikel untersucht den theoretischen Zusammenhang zwischen internationalen KrisenwiederAsienkrise,demEndedesKaltenKriegsoderdenFolgendes11.Septem ber2001undProzessendeskulturellenWandelsinderinternationalenPolitik.DasAus gangsargument lautet, dass sich kulturelle Strukturen im politischen Prozess permanent neubilden;KulturwirddurchdensozialenInteraktionsprozesskonstituiert.DurchSpra che erzeugte Bedeutung verleiht dem Prozess seine sozialwissenschaftlich analysierbare Substanz. Sprache ist niemals als isolierter Akt, sondern immer als soziale Handlung zu verstehen. In dem Artikel wird dieser Zusammenhang mit dem Begriff des Diskurses beschrieben. Als Analyseraster werden Einsichten der Kritischen Diskursanalyse mit der TheoriederHegemonievonErnestoLaclauundChantalMouffeverbunden.
Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternational System:AConceptualFramework
DirkNabers
ArticleOutline 1 2 Introduction TowardsaTheoryofInternationalStructuralChange
2.1 Ideas,CultureandLanguage 2.2 Hegemony,CrisisandChange 2.3 Language,DiscourseandInterpretation 3 CritiqueandthePathtoEmpiricalResearch
1 Introduction One of the well accepted clichs of our time claims that we are living in a world of major andrapidtransformations(Rosenau1990;Walker1993;Cox1996;Holsti2004).BarryJones hasalreadydemonstratedmorethantwodecadesagothatchangeofsomesortisaubiqui tousfeatureofhumanlife(Jones1981).Theacceleratedpaceoftodayschangesdoes,how ever, seem to bewilder more and more people, ordinary individuals as well as academics. Disorientation in the fields of international security, economic, environmental or cultural change stems from the unanswerable nature of questions such as: Where are we going?, Howcanweinfluencedevelopments?,andalsoWhoarewe? Thefollowinganalysisdealswiththesequestions,addressingthemfirstfromatheoretical perspective, then from a methodological one. We will, however, not restrict ourselves to questioningchange,butwillcriticallyinquireintothenatureofthequestionsposedabove.
DirkNabers:Crises,HegemonyandChangeintheInternationalSystem
Mostcruciallyfortheanalysis,ithastobeclearonwhatkindsofontologicalandepistemo logical foundations assertions about the likelihood and quality of change are made. The study does not argue for a categorical primacy of ontology, as postulated by Colin Wight (2006),butrestsontheassumptionthateveryscientificpositionentailsontologyandepiste mology, with both perspectives mutually 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: Change will be understood as discursive change, leading from one hegemonic dis coursetoanother.Discoursewillinitsmostgeneralsensebeseenasathestructuraltotality of articulatory differences in a political field (Laclau/Mouffe 1985: 105114). The levelof analysisofthestudyistheinternationalsystem,withstatesastheprimaryagents(Jackson 2004; Wendt 2004) involved in discursive practices. The structure of the system is conse quently also discursive; the social, and what we call the culture of the system, are consti tuted entirely by discourse. International institutions, internationally shared principles, norms, and rules are conceptualised as discursive articulations. If the same reality is re flectedinthelanguageofallinteractingagents,thisiswhatwecallahegemonicconstella tion.Differentactorsarecompetingforhegemonybyofferingtheirspecificsystemsofnar rationasacompensatoryframeworkforovercomingcrisisevents.Hegemony,asthestrate gictermoftheanalysis,referstoquestionsofhowaparticularpoliticalfieldisconstituted, whatispossibleandimpossibleinpolitics. Talking about discursive structure does not imply a static or closed view of the interna tionalarchitecture.Onthecontrary,inordertobeabletothinkofchange,wehavetoas sumeacertainflexibilityoropennessofstructures,instigatedbymeaningfulinteractionsbe tween agents. Meaning, it will be argued, does not depend on reference to the world out thereoronideasaboutanexternalreality.Instead,ideasareconceptualisedasanoffspring ofthemeaningswelearnandreproduce,nottheirsource;noraretheytheoriginofthelan guage we speak. We have no immediate access to their meaning without analysing the wordsthatsignifythem.Tobeveryclearaboutthis:Ontologically,itwouldmakenosense toarguethattheentireworldisdiscourse.As Wightpointsout,[t]hatwecanonlyknow thingsundercertaindescriptionsdoesnotnegatetheontologicalstatusofthattowhichwe refer(Wight2006:27).
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 istsinthesignandonlythere.Itislinguisticallyconstructed;peopletalk,writeandargue theworldintoexistence.Undoubtedlythereisaworldouttherethatexistsindependently oftheobserversmind,butaswillbearguedlaterinmoredetail,wedonothaveimmediate accesstoitsmeaningwithoutreferringtolanguage. Putsimply,weareinterestedinhowintersubjectivemeaningschangeininternationaldis courses. The transmission of meaning through discourse is the driving force behind social change. International crises are crucial in processes of change, as they produce a void of meaning,astructuralgapthathastobefilled,asituationoffragmentationandindetermi nacyofarticulations.Aswillbeclearerinthecourseofthisarticle,crisisisaconstantpoliti calphenomenon.Withoutcrisis,politicswouldloseitssubstanceanddirection.Anypoliti cal decision is taken as a response to crisis. There are bigger and smaller crises, triggering changes of different magnitude. In international discourses, different actors are competing for hegemony by offering their specific systems of narration as a reparatory framework to overcomecrisiseventsandclosetheopenstructure. ThefocusonlanguageasadifferentialsystemseemsjustifiedbythefailureoftraditionalIR theoriestoaccountforchangeininternationalpoliticsingeneralandchangesinthestruc ture and organization of international institutions in particular. As R.B.J. Walker observed severalyearsaftertheendoftheColdWar,[t]hereishardlyatheoreticalorientationinthe modernhumansciencesthathasnotbeenchastisedforitsconservativebias,foritsneglect ofchangeanditsconsequentreificationofthestatusquo(Walker1993:113). IRscholarshaveinthepastofferednumerousdifferenttheoriestoexplainthestructureofthe internationalsystem,mostprominently(neo)realism,(neoliberal)institutionalism,liberalism and social constructivism. The approaches, though occupying a wide ontological range be tweenrationalismandconstructivism,areneitherexhaustivenormutuallyexclusive. Structuralrealism,orneorealism,intheversionofferedbyKennethWaltz(1979),offersno accountofstructuralchangeatall,sinceitisconcernedprimarilywithstructuralcontinuity (foracritiqueWalker1993:116120;Jones1981:1416;Dessler1989).Thetheoryfocuseson
the objectively defined structure of the system and its constraining effects on state behav iour.Itconsistsofthreelayers:Firstly,theorderingprincipleoftheinternationalsystemis anarchy;secondly,statesarelikeunits;andthirdly,thestructureofthesystemisdefined bythedistributionofpowerbetweentheseunits.Whilethefirsttwolayersarestaticandare bydefinitionnotapttochange,thedistributionofpowerisleftunexplainedbytreatingit endogenoustotheinternationalsystem(Drulk2001:364).Afterall,statesareconceptual isedasunitaryrationalactorsontologicallyandasblackboxesepistemologically;processis seen as continuous interstate relations constrained by the overall structure of the system. David Dessler (1989)has thereforedescribed Waltzs theory as positional, with the struc tureofthesystemresultingfromthepositioningofontologicallypriorunits,incontrasttoa transformationalmodel,whichconceptualizesstructureasmaterialsforactionthatchange asactionunfolds. Foralongtimethemostseriouschallengetorealistbalanceofpowertheorizingcamefrom atheorythatisfirmlyrootedintherationalistparadigmaswell.(Neo)Institutionalistargu ments(Keohane1984;Keohane/Nye2001)alsostartfromtheassumptionofselfinterested actors operating in an anarchic state system. Yet, the dogmatic neorealist assumptions are somewhat relaxed in neoinstitutionalist accounts. They often soften the relative gains hy pothesis in admitting the desire of states to achieve absolute gains in welfare and security (Zangl/Zrn 1999). Institutionalists maintain that growing international interdependence makeschangefromuncooperativetocooperativebehaviourandinstitutionalisationpossible, and that empirical evidence exists to underline this argument (Keohane/Nye 2001; Schirm 2002). In the classical definition of Keohanes and Nyes Power and Interdependence, the conceptofinterdependencereferstoastateofmutualdependence,i.e.asituationinwhich oneactorisbeingdeterminedorsignificantlyaffectedbytheforcesofanotheractor.Inter dependentrelationshipsalwaysinvolvecosts,sinceautonomyofchoiceisrestricted.Sucha situationcaneitherimplymutuallossesorgains.Itistheasymmetriesofinterdependence thatprovidesourcesofinfluenceforstatesintheirrelationswithotherstatesandcanleadto behaviouralchange(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 states be brought into conformity through a process of negotiation. This is likely to occur
whenonestateconsiderstheactiontakenbyotherstatesasfacilitatingrealizationofitsown objectives(Keohane1984:5152). Inthe1980s,itwasKeohanesAfterHegemony(1984)andStephenKrasnerseditedvolume oninternationalregimes(1983)thatcompellinglyshowedhowindividuallyrationalaction by states could impede mutually beneficial cooperation. Moreover, these scholars argued, statesthatinteractwitheachotherdevelopnormsthatshapecollectivestandardsofbehav iour.Keohaneincludedthenotionsofboundedrationalityandnormativeexpectationsin hiswork;however,healsoneglectedoneimportantquestion:Howcanonethinkofpolicy coordinationwithoutconsideringthecommunicativeprocessesthatoccurduringthenego tiations between states? Institutionalist theories can only explain initial shortterm, behav ioralchange,i.e.theimpetusforengagingincommunicativeaction,butfailtoaccountfor thedevelopmentoflongtermcommunalcollaborationandsystemicchange(foracritique SterlingFolker 2000) since they take the exogenous character of interests and identities as given.Yet,asIwilllaterargue,inordertoexplainwhatisgoingon,tograsptheintersubjec tivequalityofconvergentrepresentationsastheconstitutivebasisofinternationalinstitu tions (Kratochwil/Ruggie 1986: 764) we have to look at meaningful interactive processes betweenactors. Itiswithoutgreatdoubtthattheintegrationofinteractiveprocessesisamajorprerequisite fortheanalysisofstructuralchange.Oneofthefirsttheoriststoturnthisfindingintoafruit ful IR concept was Karl Deutsch. A deeper look at his model of security communities (Deutsch1957andDeutsch1970)makesthisclear.Hisobservationsofhalfacenturyagoare considered particularly relevant by many theorists of IR because of the aforementioned transformationperiodinIRaswellasinIRtheory,thelatterinvolvingaturnfromrational choicetosociologicallyorientedtheorizing.WhereasWaltzsRealismassumesthatinterna tional politics is determined by the distribution of power, i.e. a peculiarly asocial environ ment,Deutschsapproachrecognizesthatinternationalrealityisasocialconstructiondriven by collective understandings, emerging from social interaction. His explanation of interna tionalcooperationacknowledgestheexistenceofbothmaterialandnormativegroundsoffor eignpolicyaction.ItdiffersfromNeoliberalInstitutionalismbecauseinthistheoryaswellas inRealismcollectiveinterestisassumedaspregivenandhenceexogenoustosocialinterac tion(e.g.Wendt1994:389;Ruggie1998:118119). Constructivisttheorists,inparticular,haveattemptedtoresuscitateDeutschsconceptofse curity community (e.g. Adler and Barnett 1998; Acharya 2001). While Realism and Neo liberal Institutionalism focus on material structure to understand international relations, Deutschbringstogetherprocessesandinteractions,whicheventuallyleadtodependableex pectations,theunearthingofnewinterests,andcollectiveidentities.Specifically,Deutschs
10
approach addresses the conditions under which stable, peaceful relations among nations 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 achievealonglastingpeace.Asecuritycommunitycanbeconsideredtobeagroupwhich hasbecomeintegrated,whereintegrationisdefinedastheattainmentofasenseofcommu nity, accompanied by formal or informal institutions or practices, 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). Deutschs work is transactionist rather than constructivist, yet what brings him close to constructivismishisfocusonthesociologicalnatureofstateinteractions,especiallyhisem phasisoncollectiveperceptionsandidentifications.Thatiswhyconstructivism,drawingon intersubjectivelysharedideas,hasbeenthemaintheoreticalframeworkforthestudyofse curitycommunitiesinrecentyears.Itsinfluencecanbeseeninthreeareas(Acharya2001:34): First,securitycommunitiesareviewedassociallyconstructed,i.e.cooperationamongstates istobeunderstoodasasocialprocessthatmayredefinetheinterestsofstatesinmattersof warandpeace;second,certainnormsdelineatestateinterestsandconstitutestateidentities; and third, by focusing on the social construction of a community and the constitution of commonidentities,theimpactofimmaterialforcesinshapinginternationalpoliticsisillus trated.Yetwhatismissinginmosttraditionalaccountsofsecuritycommunitiesisadiscus sionofsocialchange.Howdoesagroupofcountriesdevelopintoasecuritycommunityin the first place? What are the origins of security communities, or, in Wendts (1999: ch. 6) words,howdoesenmitybetweenstatesturnintostableandfruitfulrivalryorevenfriend ship? A look at liberal theories of International Relation provides answers to our questions by lookingatdomesticstructuresandprocessestoaccountforforeignpolicychangesofstates (Czempiel 1981; Moravcsik 1997). Liberals consider institutionbuilding as the result of a convergenceofbenevolent,cooperationpronenationalinterests,promotedbydomesticcoa litionsforwhichsuchcooperationmightbringgains(e.g.RisseKappen1995;1996).Choos ing a special kind of institution then resembles the loyalty a consumer might give to the storewiththemostcompetitiveratesonitschargedcard.(SterlingFolker2000:102).Anote
11
worthybranchofliberalapproaches,whichisbreakingoutoftherationalistutilitarianpara digm,isthetheoryofdemocraticpeace,originallydevelopedbyImmanuelKant,butnow anintegralpartofIRtheorizing(esp.Russett1990,1993;Doyle1997;Oneal/Russett2001and Russett/Oneal 2001). The main argument holds that democracies prefer peace to war be 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 the version formulated by Wendt 1999; also Adler 2005). In a similar vein, constructivist theorizing focuses on intersubjectively shared ideas, or culture. It differs from the ap proaches mentioned before because in these theories collective interest is assumed as pre givenandhenceexogenoustosocialinteraction(seethecritiqueinWendt1994:389;Ruggie 1998: 118119). In contrast, we will take constructivist arguments as a starting point and maintainthatsocialinteractionultimatelydoeshavetransformativeeffectsoninterestsand identity,becausecontinuousinteractionislikelytoinfluenceintersubjectivemeanings.1 Especially Alexander Wendt, in his 1999 monograph Social Theory of International Politics (STIP)hasclaimedtopresentatheoryofstructuralchangethatmovesbeyondpreviousat tempts,mostprominentlyKennethWaltzsstructuralrealism(1979).Severalauthorshave, however,blamedWendtforconstrictingstructuralchangetoshiftsbetweendifferentkinds of systemic culture (Drulk 2001), what Wendt calls Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian cul tures(Wendt1999).Hence,thispapertakesWendtsconstructivistinsightsasasourceofan ontological as well as epistemological discussion of what international politics actually is andhowitcanbestudied.Itwilldosobyreferringtopoststructuralistmethodologicalin sights. Poststructuralism will first and foremost be understood as a method of reading, whilepostmodernismisafarmoreambiguousterm,delineatingaparticularhistoricalep ochormovementinanumberofsocialsciences,philosophy,artsandhistory.Atthecentre
The term intersubjectivity, frequently used by constructivists, is equivalent to that of common knowledge, which is used in everyday language. Both refer to the beliefs held by individuals abouteachother.
12
ofpoststructuralismstandtheconceptsoftruthandpower.Goingbacktothedifferenttheo reticalrootsofdeSaussure,Barthes,FoucaultandDerrida,poststructuralistsmaintainthat both concepts are reciprocally associated (Walker 1993). A central argument holds 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? A number of authors have blamed Wendt for neglecting the inextricable link between the role of ideas/culture on the one hand, and language/discourse on the other (Brglez 2001; Smith2000;Suganami2001;Zehfu1998;Zehfuss2002),andthusofhavingnoconceptof speechandcommunication.Onthecontrary,poststructuralistsassertthatactorsidentities are essentially, though not exclusively, shaped and constituted linguistically. They are ar ticulatedandcommunicatedthroughlanguage(Shapcott2001:13).Inanutshell:Whatex ists, exists because of language. Poststructuralists do not deny the existence of a physical world out there (for a critique Wight 2006). They are, however, interested in how these things and others are signified, in what goes on in language and the interface between wordsandculture. TheunconditionalpriorityofuniversalstructuresinthesenseofClaudeLviStrauss(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 sociolinguist Siegfried Jger, American linguist Ron Scollon and Dutch dis coursetheoristTeunvanDijk,Faircloughbelongstoagroupofresearcherswhohaveestab lishedcriticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA)inthefieldoflinguisticsandbeyond.CDAstudies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and re sistedbytextandtalkinthesocialandpoliticalcontext(vanDijk2001:352). LinkingCDAwiththetheoryofhegemonydevelopedbyErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe (1985),Iwillaimtoshowhowhegemonicdiscoursesserveasthenexusbetweencrisesand culturalstructuresandhowtheymakeculturalchangepossible.Afterabriefdiscussionofre centconstructivistendeavoursinthenextsection,includingWendtsthreeanarchiccultures, toaccountforstructuralchangeintheinternationalsystem,Iwillgoontopresentaconcep tualframeworkcombininginsightsfromCDAandthetheoryofhegemony.Finally,Iwillsum upthemajorfindingsandrecommendationsforempiricalresearchintheconclusion.
13
2. TowardsaTheoryofInternationalStructuralChange 2.1 Ideas,CultureandLanguage Popularconstructivistapproachestothestudyofinternationalpoliticsdefinecultureasthe totality of intersubjective structures in the international system (for a discussion Nabers 2005;2006).Therefore,thesestrandsargue,tounderstandsystemicchange,wehavetoiden tifychangingintersubjectivestructures.Thisunderstandinghasplayedadominantroleasa conceptinthegrowingbodyofconstructivistthinkinginrecentyears;thus,itmakessense toscrutinizethemostimportantcontributionsinthefield.Wearecommencingwithacriti calappraisalofAlexanderWendtsSTIP,sincehisisnotonlyoneofthemostwidelyproc essedandreviewedconstructivistworksinthefield(foradiscussionseethevolumeedited byGuzzini/Leander2006),butalsomakesuseofasophisticatedconceptofcultureandises sentialforgainingaconstructivistunderstandingofcultureandideasininternationalpoli tics.Wendtstheoryoffersintriguinginsightsintotheontologicalstructureofinternational politics.Hisbasiclevelofanalysisistheinternationalsystemasanideationalconstruction thatgivesmeaningtothematerialcapabilitiesofstates.Thestateitselfremainsananalytical conceptinthatitneverreallybecomesvisible:itconsistsofanaggregationof(governmen tal)individuals(Wendt1999:810;alsoWendt2004).AccordingtoWendt,thenatureofin ternationalrelationsisdeterminedbytheideasandbeliefsthatstateshaveabouteachother. Thisdoesnotsuggestthatmaterialpowerandinterestsareirrelevant,butratherthattheir implicationsandeffectsareconstitutedbythesocialstructureofthesystem. Stepbystep,Wendtdevelopsatheoryoftheinternationalsystem,ofcooperationandcon flict. Using institutionalist insights, he assumes that states initially engage in procommu nicative activities for egoistic reasons, e.g. because state goals cannot be pursued unilater ally.Theargumentdependsonamechanismoffunctionalinstitutionalefficiencyinorderto accountforsocialchange.Ontheotherhand,hissocialconstructivistmodelmaintainsthat agentsthemselvesareinprocesswhentheyinteract,whichmeansthattheirveryproperties ratherthanjustbehavioursareatissue.Interdependence,commonfateandahomogenous culturewhatWendtcallshismastervariablescaninthissensebeseenasindependent variables(atermthathecircumvents),goodforinstigatingstatesengagementincommuni cativeprocesses(Wendt1999:Chapter7). Thesevariablesservethepurposeofsettingoffastatesengagementincommunicativeproc esses.Yet,theyseemtobeinadequateforexplainingtheerosionofegoisticidentitiesover timeandthecreationofcollectiveones.Internationalinstitutionsarelikelytobeunstableif statesareengagedbyanongoingreckoningoverwhethernormconformityservestheirin dividualinterests.Consequently,Iwillassumeanddevelopmorebroadlylaterthatidenti
14
tiesandinterestsareacontinuingoutcomeofinteraction,notjustaninputintothecommu nicativeprocess,asforexampletheconceptofrhetoricalactionwouldhaveit.2 However,thequestionhowidentitiesandtheircorrespondinginterestsaretransformedin the cultural context in which they are embedded cannot be answered satisfactorily by just pointingtotheirendogenouscharacter.Onemorequestionhastobeaskedinthiscontext: Whatmakesstateschangetheirrespectivestandpointsinthecommunicativecontext?Inter dependence,commonfateandhomogeneitycanbeefficientcausesofprocommunicative engagement,whichwilleventuallyleadtoatransformationofstateidentities.Butthisproc ess can only develop if states can overcome their anxiety of being cheated by those with whomtheywouldidentify.TheprincipleofreflectedappraisalsintroducedintoIRtheory byWendtisonlyafirststepthathelpsussolvethisproblem.Ifonestatetreatstheotheras if it were a friend, then by this principle it is likely that this state internalises that belief (Wendt1999:327).Creatingabasicconfidenceisthereforethefundamentalproblemofin ternational identitybuilding. Wendt describes this process as complex learning (Wendt 1999: 330331): The political acts of the states that communicate with each other constitute signalsabouttherolethatonewantstoplayandaboutthecorrespondingroleintowhichit wantstocastitsopponent.IfStateBmodifiesitsideasbecauseofStateAspoliticalaction, then learning has taken place. If this is the case, the actors will get to know each other, changing a distribution of knowledge that was initially only privately held (a mere social structure)intoonethatisatleastpartlyshared(aculture)(Wendt1999:331).Fromacon structivist standpoint the mark of a completely internalized culture is that actors identify withit,andincludethewishes,ideas,andintentionsofothersintotheirownideas.Ifiden tityisnothingelsethantohavecertainideasaboutwhooneisinagivensituation,thenthe senseofbeingpartofagroupisasocialorcollectiveidentitythatgivesactorsaninterestin thepreservationoftheirculture(Ibid.:337).Certainly,StateAcanalsotaketheroleofan egoist or cast State B in a position to be manipulated for the satisfaction of its own needs. ThenthismightthreatenStateBsneeds,whowillprobablyadoptanegoisticidentityhim selfandactaccordingly. Onthebasisofhisinteractionistmodel,Wendtarguesthatendlessconflictandwar,aspre dictedbyrealists,isnottheonlylogicoftheinternationalsystemasananarchicstructure. Eventhetentativeoptimismofliberalsaboutinternationalinstitutionsanddeepeninginter dependencefacilitatinginternationalcooperationwithinanarchymightnotgofarenough. Toillustratethis,Wendtintroducesthreedistinctculturesoftheinternationalsystem,Hob besian,LockeanandKantian,whichareconstitutedbycertainideasaboutthegeneralcon
2
Whilerhetoricalactionreferstothestrategicuseofarguments,communicativeactionisbestchar acterizedasthenonstrategic,appropriateuseofarguments(Schimmelfennig2004:203).
15
ditionofhumanassociation,normsofappropriatebehaviourandspecificrolesconstituting rivallingorcollectiveidentities,respectively(Wendt1999:ch.6;cf.alsoWendt2003). Calling himself a positivist (Wendt 1999: 39), Wendt derives three different hypotheses fromhisthreeculturesofanarchy,referringtodifferenttheoreticalapproachestothestudy of the international system, and leading to different grand strategies. With Realism, one mightexpectthefamiliararmsrace,conflictandwartobethedominatingfeaturesofanarchy; with institutionalism, one might expect an independent role for international institutions and absolute gains seeking; with constructivism, or idealism, actors might have a well developedsenseofcollectiveidentity,eachstateidentifyingwiththefateoftheother. Obviously,andsomewhatpuzzlingamidthecentralityofideasinhistheory,hisworklacks alinguisticallyinformedconceptofagency(foracritiquecf.Herborth2004;Zehfuss2002). Therelationshipbetweenstructureandagencyremainsunclearatsomepoints.Itseemsasif thecausalpowerofastaticreality(aHobbesian,LockeanorKantianreality)guidesstates behaviour. Although Wendtadvocatestheideathathismodelcanbereadilyextendedto situationsinwhichculturealreadyexists(Wendt1999:328),someauthorscontendthatthe underlyingconservativenatureofaculturalstructurerepresentsanimpedimenttochange (e.g.Svry2001).Giventhiscritique,theleadingquestionsofthispaperbecomepressing: Howcanactorschangetheiridentitiesinaprocessofcomplexlearningifoneassumesthat identities are embedded in preexisting cultural structures? And how can culture itself change? Wendt argues that culture is a selffulfilling prophecy, which means that actors act on 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,thenwe havetogoastepfurtherandaskwhatprocessactuallyisabout. In the following, it will be argued that process is constituted by meaningful acts of social agents, and can thus only be grasped by analysing meaning. Then again, the question re mainshowmeaningcanbeanalyzedbysocialscientists.Wendtarguesthatsocialrelation shipsareconstitutedbydiscursivestructures(Wendt1999:84),andthatcontestationoccurs throughcommunication.Surprisinglythough,hisargumentsoffernoconceptoflanguage, as the major or in poststructuralist terms the only source of meaning (Zehfu 1998; Zehfuss 2002; see also Guzzini/Leander 2001). Wendts model of complex learning does not relyonlanguageanddiscourse,butseemstobereducedtophysicalgestures(Zehfuss2002:48).
16
Atacloserlook,however,theversionofscientificrealismthatWendtmakesthebasisofhis theoryneitherprecludeslinguisticallyinformedepistemology,nordoesitrestrictthechoice ofmethodologyinanyway.Underhisapproachonemightsubsumebothempiricalrealism, whichreferstothosematerialfactsthataredirectlyobservable,andlinguisticrealism,refer ringtowhatispresent(andthusobservable)withindiscourses(Brglez2001;Wolf2003).His metatheoreticalposition,whichcontradictspoststructuralistviewsbutdoesnotexcludethe analysis ofdiscourses, basically says that there is a world out there that is independent of 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 shared beliefs is ultimately a linguistic phenomenon, this means that language does not merely mediate thinking, it makes thinkingpossible(Wendt1999:175). Thisisexactlythedominantviewinpoststructuralism,i.e.thatlanguage,notideasorcul ture,makesthinkingpossibleinthefirstinstance;thatlanguageintervenesbetweenhuman beingsandtheirworld,andthatideasandculturearetheeffectoflanguage,notviceversa. Certainly,material conditions, such as the existence ofnuclear capabilities, have both con strainingandenablingeffectsonactorsbehaviouranddefinethecostsandbenefitsofalter native actions, as Wendt (2000) and Wight (2006) have emphasised. However, and here comesthecrucialaspectforthisstudy,inacknowledgingtheindependenteffectsofmate rialconditionsitisalsoimportantnottolosesightofthediscursiveconditionsthatinvest themwithmeaning(Wendt2000:166,emphasisinoriginal).Themeaningofnuclearbombs inthehandofNorthKoreasdictatorKimJongilisdifferentforChinathanforJapandueto different ideas about self and other. These ideas can only be studied as a linguistic phe nomenon. Though pointing out the relevance of ideas, what is missing in Wendts argu ments is a discussion of epistemological questions (see also Kratochwil 2000). How do we gettoknowideas?Whatistherelationshipbetweenideasandlanguage?Wendt doesnot offeraclearideaabouthowtostudytheinternationalsystem,becausehefailstodevelopa languagebasedresearchagenda.AsHaywardAlkercriticizes,notmuchissaid[inWendts book]onhowtofillinthelarge,nearlyempty,moreorlessgrey,boxesofhisthreecultural
17
ideal types of anarchic socialization practices (Alker 2000: 146).3 And Petr Drulk conse quentlyposesthequestionwhetherWendtsmastervariablesactuallyworkwithoutreflex ivityandcommunication(Drulk2001:371373).Eventually,itisthecommunicativereflec tion of a group of actors that creates the wefeeling which is necessary for the develop mentofacollectiveidentity.WhatismissinginWendtsworkisanepistemologicalelabora tionofthefactthatitislanguagethatconstructssocialreality.Meaningfullanguageisnever reducibletoindividualspeakers.Itisasocialact.Inthefollowing,Iwillcallthisprocessdis course. Studying discourse has gained rising attention in constructivist thinking. Prominent con structivistshavealsohintedattheimportanceofstudyinglanguage,yetwithoutfurtherde tailing a research program for studying international politics. Emanuel Adler, possibly among those who have gone the farthest towards developing a processbased communi tarian approach to international relations by conceptualizing cognitive evolution as collec tivelearning,emphasiseslanguageasthevehicleforthediffusionandinstitutionalization ofideaswithinandbetweencommunities,asanecessaryconditionforthepersistenceover timeofinstitutionalizedpractices,andasamechanismfortheconstructionofsocialreality. Headdsthatthecommunitiesaroundwhichknowledgeevolves,whichplayacrucialrole intheconstructionofsocialreality,areconstitutedbylanguage(Adler2005:13).InAdlers view,allcommunitiesarecommunitiesofdiscourse,astheyareproducersandsubjectsof discourseatthesametime.Cognitiveevolution,then,delineatessocialchangeastherecon structionandinstitutionalisationofcollectiveintersubjectivestructures,orwhatAdlercalls epistemes(Adler2005:21). While Wendt at times offers a materialist version of power,4 Adler accentuates the power inherent in speech acts, hegemonic discourses, dominant normative interpretations and identities,andmoralauthority(Adler2005:14,25),postulatingaresearchprogramthatre constructstheprocessofdiscursiveconstruction.Heimplicitlyreferstothethirddimension of Steven Lukes famous definition of power. According to Lukes classification, power is exercisedifAcangetBtodosomethingthatBwouldnototherwisedo.Thestresshereison thestudyofconcrete,observablebehaviour.Itshiftstheattentiononbehaviourinthemak ingofdecisionsonissuesoverwhichthereisanobservableconflictofsubjectiveinterests. Theseconddimensionofpowerlooksatthedefactopowerofthememberswithinagroup
3 4
SeealsoKrasner,2000,whoarguesthatWendtsargumentisunsupportedbyempiricaldata. Inorderforaninteractiontosucceed,inthesensethatactorsbringtheirbeliefsenoughintoline thattheycanplaythesamegame,eachsidetriestogettheothertoseethingsitsway.[]This abilitywillvaryfromcasetocaseanddyadtodyad.NotallOthersaresignificantOthers.But wherethereisanimbalanceofrelevantmaterialcapabilitysocialactswilltendtoevolveinthedi rectionfavoredbythemorepowerful(Wendt1999:331).
18
inthedecisionmakingprocess.Lukesmaintainsthattheruleswithinanydecisionmaking system naturally bias the mobilization of resources for competing for agenda formation againstsomeindividualsandgroupsversusothers.Also,becauseinmostcasesonlyasmall numberofissuescanbehandledonanyagendaatthesametime,manyitemssimplynever makeitontheagenda.Thisdimensionofpowerthereforeincorporatescoercion,influence, authority, force and manipulation. One method of persuasion could be, for example, the threattodevelopingcountriestoloseaccesstotrade.Third,AmayexercisepoweroverBby gettinghimtodowhathedoesnotwanttodo,buthealsoexercisespoweroverhimbyin fluencing,shapingordetermininghiswants,beliefsandunderstandingsabouttheworld.In modernsocietiesthistakesplacethroughthecontrolofinformation,throughthemassme dia, and through the process of socialisation. This third dimension which is entirely ne glectedbyrationalistapproachestothestudyofIRreferstoaprocessofwhatwewould henceforthcalldiscursivehegemony. Regrettably,methodologicalquestionsofhowtostudytheprocessoffixingmeaningsindis coursesthatproducesocialpracticesareconspicuouslyabsentfromAdlersaswellasmany otherconstructivistaccounts.Thisisallthemoresurprisingsinceconstructivistthinkingfits very well with languagecentred epistemologies. Discourse theorist Jonathan Potter has maintained that the scientific realists furniture argument see this [bangs on a table]; yourenottellingmethatsasocialconstructioncanbeacceptedassuch,asconstructivist argumentsarenotaimedatdenyingmaterialreality,butatdetectingthenumerouswaysin whichmaterialandsocialrealityislinguisticallyconstructedorundermined.IRasasocial scienceisnotaboutwhetheronecaneatnuclearweapons(Wight2006:153),butaboutthe meaning of these nuclear weapons for international politics. The question then becomes: Howaredescriptionsmadetoseemliteralandfactual?(Potter1996:7). It is exactly this question that is at the centre of the theory of hegemony, developed by ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe(1985).Onthebasisoftheirvaluableinsights,Iwillturn totheroleofdiscourseandhegemonyintheprocessofculturalchangeinthenexttwosec tions.Changewillprimarilybeseenascausedbytexts,inparticulardiscourses,sincethey transportmeaningsandalterourknowledgeabouttheworld.Consequently,thisstudywill concentrateonthepartofsocialrealitythatistextuallyconstructed,sincetextsconveymuch ofthemeaningthesocialworldentails. 2.2 Hegemony,CrisisandChange IntheirseminalworkHegemonyandSocialistStrategy(1985),ErnestoLaclauandChantal MouffereformulatedAntonioGramscisnotionofhegemonyinawaythattakeslanguage
19
asconstitutiveforpolitics.Inhisresearch,especiallyLaclaureconstructsMichelFoucaults work in order to eliminate all the nondiscursive elements that are constitutive for the lat terstheory.ButhealsousesJacquesDerridasinsightsintodeconstruction,combiningit atfirstsightillogicallywithdiscourseanalysis.Eventually,theoutcomeofonebecomes theinputoftheother(Andersen2003:56). LaclauandMouffestartbydefiningthesocialasadiscursivespaceandtakeastrictstand point contra the positivist or naturalist paradigm. According to the theory of hegemony, there is nothing societal that is determined outside the discursive (Laclau 1977; La clau/Mouffe1985:107;foradiscussionalsoNorval2004),whichindicatesthatthesocialper seisdiscourse.Asaresult,anydistinctionbetweenalinguisticandabehaviouralelementof sociallifeisrejected.TakingpoststructuralistthoughtinthetraditionofJacquesLacanand Jacques Derrida as their starting point, they argue that the social is pervaded by undecid ablesratherthangovernedbystructuraldetermination.Theincompletenessofsocialstruc turesmakepoliticalarticulationspossibleinthefirstplace;interestsareentirelyproducedin thearticulatorypoliticalprocess,infactpoliticohegemonicarticulationsretroactivelycreate theintereststheyclaimtorepresent(Laclau/Mouffe1985,PrefacetotheSecondEdition:xi). ReferringtoHegelsmodernity(indetailalsoButler2000),identityisconceptualizedasa precariouslynegativeterm,neverclosedinitself,butephemeralincharacterandrelyingon theconstantmovementofdifferentialrelationships(Laclau/Mouffe1985:95).Allidentity ithastobestressedisrelational,formedbysocialpracticesthatlinktogetheraseriesofin terrelated signifying elements. All principles and values, therefore, receive their meaning from relationships of difference and opposition. Laclau and Mouffe use the terms subject andsubjectpositionwithinadiscursivestructuretodescribethisphenomenon.Thesubject is seen as an attempt to fill structural gaps, or subject positions, within a structure. Hence Laclaus(2000:58)differentiationbetweenidentityandidentification,unveilingabasicam biguity at the heart of identity. The individual cannot completely identify with the subject positionthediscoursesupplies,butisforcedintofillingthestructuralgapsthroughidenti fication(Andersen2003:52).Correspondingtopoststructuralisttraditions,subjectscannot be the very origin of meaning in social relations, because they are situated in a discursive spaceandcertainconditionsofpossibility.Astothesystemorstructurethatevolvesfrom thesemultidirectionalcorrelationsbetweensubjectpositions,LaclauandMouffe(1985:106) explicate: Whoever says system says arrangement or conformity of parts in a structure which transcends and explains its elements. Everything is so necessary in it that modifica tionsofthewholeandofthedetailsreciprocallyconditiononeanother.
20
Thismeansthatsystemandstructureareinconstantmovement,anddifferentialpositions arenevereternallyfixed.Anyparticularsubjectpositionwithinademocraticpolityisneces sarilyincomplete,andidentityisthereforeneverabletoachieveabsolutedetermination.Be ingtiedtoaspecificcontent,suchasgender,race,ethnicity,religion,history,nationorre gion,anidentitybecomeswhatitisbyvirtueofitsrelativepositioninanopenstructureof differentialrelationships.Thismeansitisconstitutedbyitsdifferencefromaninfinitenum berofotheridentities(Laclau1996;Butler2000). Theincompletenessofagentsidentitiesiswhatliesattheheartofanyhegemonicprocess. Temporarily though, the constellation by which a certain particularity assumes the repre sentationofauniversalityentirelyincommensurablewithit,iswhatwecallahegemonicre lation (Laclau/Mouffe 1985, Preface to the Second Edition: xiii). The tension between uni versality and particularity remains unresolvable; it is highly political (Laclau 2000; Norval 2004), never total and always reversible. In that sense, hegemony has to be distinguished 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 infinitely dispersed with no signification possible at all. Logically, however, a totality re quireslimits.Thequestioniswhatliesbeyondthelimit,whichcanonlybeonemorediffer ence.Thenagain,thelimitbetweeninternalandexternalstructurewouldbecomeimpossi ble to identify. Laclau and Mouffe therefore maintain that dominant interpretative frame worksresultfromthespecificdialecticrelationshipbetweenwhattheycallthelogicsofan tagonismandequivalence(Laclau/Mouffe1985:chapter3;Laclaun.y.).Theyseeawayout ofthelogicaldilemmabyclaimingthatthenatureoftherelationshipbeyondthelimitofthe systemisoneofexclusion:itisnotjustonemoreelementinastructureofdifferences,but oneinanantagonisticrelationshiptotheinside.Whatfollowsfromthisisthattherearerela tions of equivalence between ingroup actors, which create antagonisms to other social groups. The simplicity of this conjecture is exemplified by the verdict to be 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
Whereasthelogicofantagonismaccentuatesdifference,thelogicofequivalencesubvertsit (Laclau/Mouffe1985:122,127).Antagonismsareexternaltosociety;theymarkthelimitsof objectivesociety,therebypreventingafullyclosedculturalstructure.Anyformofconsensus amongst the members of an institution is, in other words, the result of a temporary hege monicconstellationrelyingonthesetwologics. Inlinguisticterms,theincompletionofanysubjectformationislinkedtoapoliticalcontes tationover signifiers.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 very meaning of difference, antagonism and equivalence would become futile. Hegemony rests on the assumption that any discourse tries to dominate the field of discursivity. Referring to Lacan, Laclau and Mouffe call the temporary fixation of meanings, the construction of a discursive centre, nodal points (La clau/Mouffe 1985: 112). Nodal points are partial fixations, never conclusively arresting the flow of differences. Summing up their argument, they maintain (Laclau/Mouffe 1985: 113, emphasisinoriginal): The practice of articulation, therefore, consists in the construction of nodal points which partially fix meaning; and the partial character of this fixation proceeds from theopennessofthesocial,aresult,initsturn,oftheconstantoverflowingofeverydis coursebytheinfinitudeofthefieldofdiscursivity. Structureisheredefinedasdiscourse;thesocialandcultureareconstitutedentirelywithin discourse.WhatthisbringsaboutisalogicaldifferencetothethinkingofMichelFoucault, asanydistinctionbetweendiscursiveandnondiscursivepracticesortheestablishmentofa thought/realitydichotomyhastobecalledintoquestion.WhileFoucaultassumesadualism
22
ofdiscourseandreality,overlookingthefactthatevenhouses,streetsandcarsonlyexistas longastheyareandcontinuetobeembeddedindiscourses(foracritiqueJger2001;Potter 1996:8788),principles,norms,institutions,andtechniquesofproductionareconceptualised as discursive articulations in the theory of hegemony; theopposition between realism and idealismthatisadvocatedbyWendt(1999)becomesblurred.TheterroristattacksonNew YorkandWashingtonon11September2001havebeenvisibleandaudibletoaTVaudience all over the world; they existed as events, independently of the spectators will. However, whethertheyareconstructedasevildeeds,acrimeagainsthumanity,Godswilloran actofwardependeduponthenatureofthediscoursethatwastriggeredbytheseevents. Objectsliketheseareentirelyconstitutedbydiscursivepractices.Moreover,humanbeings, the human subject, man and woman, are constructed differently in different religious, ideologicalorconstitutionaldiscourses.Finally,anyteleologicaldriveofthesystemremains elusive. While Wendt sees a world state as inevitable but confesses that the speed with which this one will be realized is historically contingent (Wendt 2003: 491), Laclau and Mouffe dispute an inherent finalistic logic, accentuating instead the discursive process by whichcertainregularitiesestablishdifferentialpositions(Laclau/Mouffe1985:109). Anypositioninthissystemofdifferentialpositionscanbecomethelocusofanantagonistic relationship, creating, on the other hand, numerous chains of equivalence. On that basis, structuralchangebecomespossible,ormorebluntly,changeisaconstantlyworkingmecha nism deeply ingrained in any society, as no identity is closed in itself but is submitted to continuousdisplacementsintermsofcombinationsandsubstitutions. Atthebeginning,hegemonicprojectsarecharacterizedbyarticulatorypractices(elements) thathave not become differential positions (moments) in adiscourse (Laclau/Mouffe 1985: 105;134).Hegemony,then,canbeseenasaresponsetoanorganiccrisis(atermborrowed fromGramsci),[a]conjuncturewherethereisageneralizedweakeningoftherelationalsys temdefiningtheidentitiesofagivensocialorpoliticalspace,andwhere,asaresultthereis aproliferationoffloatingelements(Laclau/Mouffe1985:136).Anemptyorfloatingsigni fierisoftendefinedasonewithahighlyvariable,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
states,thedefectsoftheNonproliferationTreaty(NPT)andthecollectivesecuritysystemof theUnitedNationsingeneral. Floating signifiers may also mean different things to different people: they may stand for variousorevenanysignified;andtheymayrepresentwhatevertheirauthorswantthemto represent. A good example for this process is the language of the war on terror, where emptysignifierssuchasfreedom,libertyandwaronterrorstructurethediscursivefield and make political decisions thinkable (Laclau 2000: 5658; Nabers 2006). Empty signifiers aimtouniversaliseparticularmeanings,therebydesignatinganemptyplace,avoidwhich canbefilledonlybytheparticular,butwhich,throughitsveryemptiness,producesaseries of crucial effects in the structuration/destructuration of social relations (Laclau 2000: 58; emphasisinoriginal).Discursivehegemonythereforeresemblesabattleoverwhichsignifi ersaretiedtowhichsignified.Floatingoremptysignifiersplayacrucialroleinthisgame. Theyaretheonlysignifierscapableofclosingthegapsinanarticulatorystructure.Themore specificthecontentofasignifierbecomes,themoreitwillbecontested,whichleadstothe failure of a hegemonic project. The failure to fill the empty space, the breakdown of the hegemonic constellation, provides the basis for the fullness of a community as a future promise: identitybuilding, in consequence, resembles an openended hegemonic struggle (Butler2000;Laclau2000).Powerandtheabilitytorulewillthusdependonanactorsskill to present his own particular worldview as compatible with the communal aims. Pure emptysignifiersareimpossible,sincetotalcoincidenceoftheuniversalwiththeparticular isunattainable.This,however,isthenucleusofthedemocraticproject:Althoughnoagent canlogicallyclaimtospeakforthewholesociety,doingsoliesattheheartofallpoliticsand canbeseenastheessenceofthehegemonicodiscursiveoperation(Laclau2000). Thisprocessworksbestinasituationofdisintegrationandindeterminacyofarticulationsof different identities (Laclau/Mouffe 1985: 7, 13; Laclau 1977: 103). Previous political logics havebeenputintoquestionbyacrisis,whilemoreandmoreactorsopenthemselvesupfor innovative discourses, and hegemonic strategies can be successful. The old political struc ture is dislocated, and the subject has no positive identity. The network of existing social structuresisincreasinglyconsideredanobstacleonthepathtoonestrueself;theevolving hegemonicdiscourse,ontheotherhand,reinforcesaspecificactorsidentitycrisisbyoffer ingalternativeidentityconcepts.Thistransitionisahighlycomplexventure,encompassing a fundamental reconstruction of existing subject positions. As an ideal type, it can be summedupasfollows: (1) Atthebeginningthereisthecrisis,anexternalcatastrophelikeamajorwar,agravefi nancial or economic crisis, humanitarian catastrophe or terrorist assault, that might
24
weaken dominant discourses, i.e prevailing perceptions of reality, opening up cultural borders. (2) Alternative discourses start to compete in their interpretation of the crisis. Sooner or later, one predominant interpretation will evolve, which institutes the framework that determineswhatactionisappropriateandwhatactionisinappropriatetoendthepre dicament(Laclau1990:64). (3) Oldidentitiestendtodissolvewiththeconstructionofnewlyestablisheddominantin terpretativeframeworks.5 (4) The new cultural structure will then generate new kinds of political action along the linesofthedominantinterpretativeframework(cf.alsoLaclau1977).Again,ithastobe notedherethattheevolvingsocietalstructureisneverfullyconstitutedandhegemonic interventionsarepossibleatanytime. Thebattlebetweendiscoursestobecometheleadinginterpretativestructureactuallytends to reveal the configuration of power relations in a given historical moment. Power is un even,6notstableorstatic,butisrearticulatedcontinuously,andnewconceptualperspectives areopenedupbysubversivepractices(Smith1998:57;Butler2000:14).ErnestoLaclauar guesthatonceadiscoursereachesthestageofestablishingadominantperceptionofreality forallthoseparticipatinginthecommunicativeprocess,itrevealsalotaboutthecourseof actionincollectiveidentityformation.Ifthesamerealityisreflectedinthespeechactsof all interacting agents, one can call it a shared culture. Specific cultural forms like norms, rules,(political)institutions,conventions,ideologies,customs,andlawsareallinfluencedby thisprocess.Differentactorsarecompetingforhegemonybyofferingtheirspecificsystems ofnarrationasacompensatoryframework(Laclau1977:103),tryingtofixthemeaningof social relations. Hegemony therefore reproduces our daily life; it starts to be hegemonic when our everyday understanding of social relations and the world as a whole starts to change according to the framework that is set by the hegemonic discourse. It is an act of powerbecauseitmakestheworldintelligible. ReferringtoStevenLukes(1974)work,anactorexercisespoweroveranotheractorbyin fluencing,shapingordetermininghiswants,beliefsandunderstandingsabouttheworld.It canbelegitimatelyarguedthatasuccessfulhegemonicprojectmustbebasedonthisthird dimension of power. Power has to be internalized in the intersubjective representations of
Wendtatonepoint(Wendt1999:264)introducestheconceptofthetippingpoint,whichhecon siderstobethethresholdbeyondwhichstructuralchangebecomespossible.Atthispoint,accord ingtoWendt,therepresentationsofindividualactorstakethelogicofthesystem,makingstruc turalchangepossible.ForacritiqueseealsoDrulk2001:369. 6 AsLaclau(2000:54)aptlyputit:Apowerwhichistotalisnopoweratall.

5
25
relevantotheractors.Eventually,thisisthebasisofthehegemonicprojectandthepremise forsuccessfulcollaborationbetweenthehegemonandhisfollowers.ItistoLaclausmeritto havereintroducedthetermhegemonyincontemporarydebatesconcerningproblemsofpo litical power, authority, and culture. Inanutshell, hegemony meansnothing more but the discursivestrugglebetweenpoliticalactorsovertheassertionoftheirparticularrepresenta tionsoftheworldashavingauniversalsignificance. This view of politics stands in stark contrast to Jrgen Habermass model of deliberative democracy, most elegantly developed in his twovolume Theory of Communicative Ac tion (Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns) (Habermas 1995a, 1995b). While both ap proachesclaimtopresentaparticularversionofradicaldemocracy,avoidreducingthepo liticalprocesstotheexpressionofexogenouslyformedinterestsandidentities,andhighlight their constitution and reconstitution through debate in the public sphere, Laclau and MouffecontraHabermasmaintainthatanyfinalreconciliation,intermsofcompletera tionality,isunattainable.Instead,theyarguethatconflictanddivisionareessentialelements ofafunctioningdemocracy;tothinkotherwisewouldputthewholedemocraticprojectat risk.Anyformofconsensus,thus,hastobeseenastheresultofahegemonicarticulation, whichisnevertotalandalwaysthreatenedbyanoutside,antagonisticsocialforce.Conse quently, Laclau, in company with Judith Butler and Slavoy iek, distances himself from Habermassconjectureofuniversalityasapremiseofthespeechactandhisassumptionthat politicsisconstitutedbyrationalactors(Butler/Laclau/iek2000:3). Astodeconstruction,Laclauactuallyaimstocombineitwithdiscourseanalysis.Whilede constructionisaboutretractingdifferencesbydemonstratingthattheyareinvalid,discourse analysis provides deconstruction with differences to be deconstructed; on the other hand, deconstructionservesasthebasisforhegemonicdiscourses: Hegemonyrequiresdeconstruction:withouttheradicalstructuralundecidabilitythat thedeconstructiveinterventionbringsabout,manystrataofsocialrelationsappearas essentiallylinkedbynecessarylogicsandtherewouldbenothingtohegemonies.But deconstruction also requires hegemony, that is, a theory of the decision taken in an undecidableterrain:withoutatheoryofdecision,thatdistancebetweenstructuralun decidabilityandactualitywouldremainuntheorised(Laclau1996:5960). We will now have to consider the way in which hegemonic interventions are discursively constructed. In concurrence with the theory of hegemony presented here, we need to put emphasisonarticulationsinstitutingrelationsbetweenactorsandmodifyingtheiridentities. At the centre of the following methodological discussion of discursive change will be the approach that is known as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), mainly referring to the in
26
sights of Norman Fairclough and Siegfried Jger, who have argued that the theory of he gemony could be operationalised for textual analysis and to deepen our understanding of socialchange. 2.3 Language,DiscourseandInterpretation Thefocusofthefollowingmethodologicaldiscussionwillbeonlanguageandformsoflan guageuse,stayingtotallyclearofanyrelationshiptowhatpeoplereallythink.[Theanaly sisis]notinterestedininnermotives,ininterestsorbeliefs;itstudiessomethingpublic,that is how meaning is generated and structured [] (Waever 1995: 254). The speaker is no morethanwhathesaysataparticularmoment,or,insemiologistRolandBartheswords: Linguistically,theauthorisnevermorethantheinstancewriting,justasIisnothingother thantheinstancesayingI(Barthes1977:145). Itis,however,possibletogeneratebroadermeaningsofwhatissaidbyreferringtomethods suchasintertextualandcontextualanalysis.Inthepoststructuralisttradition,wewill,forex ample,beconcernedwithunderstandingwhatispresentbyaskingwhatisnotpresentintexts (Potter 1996: 70). CDA, the strand of discourse analysis that probably comes closest to both 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 highlights discursive differences (Wodak 2001: 11). In that sense, it concurs withthetheoryofhegemony,andsometheoristsdirectlybuildontheinsightsgainedfrom
27
LaclauandMouffe,extendingtheirtheorybylinkingdiscourseanalysiswithtextanalysis. Siegfried Jger follows Laclau in denying any social reality that is determined outside the discursive (Jger 2001), and Norman Fairclough likewise claims that every social practice hasasemioticelement(Fairclough2001,2003).WhilesomestrandsofCDAdonotentirely focus on texts, spoken or written, as objects of inquiry, others emphasize the character of discoursesassuigenerismaterialrealities(Jger2001:36).Inessence,weonlymakethings into things by providing them with meaning. Even materialisations like street, house, car,butalsopresident,primeministerandmemberofparliamentareconsequencesof pastspeechand/orprecedingdiscoursesandareassuchmaterializationsofhumanthought. Wheneveradiscoursechanges,thesematerialisationsnotonlylosetheirpriormeanings,but theirwholeidentitychanges.Differencesandalterationsinpowerarethemselvesencoded anddeterminedbydiscourse:languageindexespower,expressespower,isinvolvedwhere thereiscontentionoverandachallengetopower(Wodak2001:11). Inthatsense,itsuppliestheresearcherwithasophisticatedmeansforunveilingdifferences inpowerinsocialhierarchicalstructures.ThenotionofcontextthatseemscrucialforCDAis misleadinginthisregard,asitsuggeststhatsociopsychological,political,institutionaland ideologicalfactorsaresomehowsituatedoutsidethediscursive.Theyarenot.Tomakethis clear,Jger,criticisingFoucault,drawsacirclebetweendiscourseandreality,thatgivesthe formerclearpriority: Ihavetheimpressionthatthedifficultiesinthedeterminationofthedispositivearere latedtoafailuretodeterminethemediationbetweendiscourse(whatissaid/whathas been said),nondiscursive practices (activities) and manifestations (products/objects). If I [] regard these manifestations as materializations/activities of knowledge (dis course)andnondiscursivepracticesastheactiveimplementationofknowledge,acon textcanbeproducedthatwillprobablysolvemanyoftheproblems(Jger2001:4546).7 Whenpeoplecommunicatewitheachother,theynegotiateaboutmeanings.Throughtheir communication, they produce and reproduce reality. Fundamental to this approach dis coursemustessentiallybeunderstoodasconstitutingthesocial.Mosthelpfulinthisregard is the work of Siegfried Jger (1999, 2001) and Norman Fairclough (esp. 1989, 1992, 2003). Jger(1999)conceptualisesdiscourseastheflowoftextandspeechthroughtimeandoffers a very detailed research programme that allows for a proper empirical analysis in several steps.Fairclough,ontheotherhand,offersanindepthanalysisofsocialchange.Textsare, accordingtoFairclough,sensitivebarometersofsocialprocesses,movementanddiversity, and textual analysis can provide particularly good indicators of social change (Fairclough
7
Thedispositive,asdefinedbyMichelFoucault,coversdiscourses,institutions,architecturalinstitu tions, reglemented decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moralorphilantropicteachings,inbrief,whatissaidandwhatisnotsaid(Foucault1978:119120).
28
1999: 204). Emphasizing the social character of texts, methodologically the dimension of theirexternalrelationswillbeofprimaryconcern,i.e.thequestionofhowelementsofother texts are intertextually incorporated and interpreted, how other texts are alluded to, as sumed and dialogued with (Fairclough 2003: 36, 47). The basic idea behind this methodo logyliesinthepoststructuralistideathatargumentsdonotoriginateinthethoughtsofin dividualpeople.Speakersdonotcreatetheirthoughtsinthefirstinstance,butareembed dedinacomplexsociolinguistichistory.Texts,inanutshell,arealwayspartofabiggerpicture. Intertextualanalysisshedslightontheinterrelationoftextswithpresentandpastdiscourses, but at the same time draws attention to how texts may transform society (Fairclough 1999: 184185).Significantinitialquestionstobeansweredrefertothetextsandvoicesincludedin thetextstobeanalyzedandtonotableabsences.Furthermore,themostapparentassumptions of the textual body shall be identified. Assumptions comprise forms of implicitness such as presuppositions, logical implications or entailments, and implicatures (Fairclough 2003: 40). Theyareanimportantissuewithrespecttoexpressingfellowship,communityandsolidarity inagroupofcountries.Allthesenotionsdependuponmeaningswhichareshared,andthe progressofhegemonicrelationshipsincludethecapacityofcertainactorstoshapetheirnature andcontent.Indetail,threemaintypesofassumptionswillbedifferentiated(Fairclough2003: 5556):existentialassumptions,referringtoassumptionsaboutwhatexists,propositionalas sumptions, designating assumptionsaboutwhatisor can beorwillbethecase,andfinally valueassumptions,denotingwhatisgoodordesirable. Thiswillmakeitpossibletoidentifyrelationsofequivalenceanddifferenceinthetextstobe usedfortheanalysis.FaircloughhasarguedthatLaclausconceptualizationofhegemonyand hislogicsofequivalenceanddifferencecanbeoperationalizedforcriticaldiscourseanalysis (Fairclough 2003: 8889, 100103). Equivalence and difference correspond to the concepts of combinationandsubstitutioninlinguistictheories.Whilerelationsofequivalencearelikelyto besemanticrelationsofaddition,elaboration,synonymyandsubordination(hyponymy),re lationsofdifferencearesetupassemanticrelationsofcontrast.Criticallinguistsalsocallthis mechanismoverlexicalization,meaningthatantagonistsarelexicalizedinvariousways. Anexampleforthispracticeisthetermevil,whichisemployedintheAmericanantiterror discourse to label the enemy, whilst its origin lies in Christian vocabulary. Concepts like theseaddressknowledgestructuresofrecipientsinordertounveilcausalrelationships,spa tiotemporal attributions und specific thematic correlations. Any vocalization may include attributes or refer to circumstances which are implied, but are not made explicit (Linke/Nubaumer/Portmann 1994: 233). It is therefore possible to differentiate between a claimed statement (conclusion) and a presupposed statement (argument). Both statements arelinkedthroughaclosingrule(fig.1).
29
Fig.1: Conclusion,argumentandclosingrule
Argument
Conclusion
closing rule
The logical relationship between argument and conclusion is often generated by means of binaryconstructions.ItisonlybyreferencetoanoutsideOther,thatidentityconstructions oftheSelfbecomeachievable.DavidDomke(2004)quiteintriguinglyexemplifiesthepower of such binary constructions in the American antiterror discourse, referring to the presi dentsuseofthetermsgoodvs.evilandsecurityvs.peril.Implicitconnotations,e.g.head scarf as a symbol for Islam, serve the same task. On that basis it becomes possible to con struct a ropeladder of differences and predications (fig. 2), with binary constructions lo catedonthehorizontalaxis(Nabers2005;2006). Fig.2: Ropeladderofdifferencesandpredications
different A predication X not A civilised barbaric B good evil
contradictory The initial terms good vs. evil are denoted by a chain of further predications. Relations of 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
abracketingofdifferencebyfocussingoncommonality,solidarityandidentity,andfinally thenormalizationandrecognitionofdifferencethroughconsensus. InconcurrencewithLaclau,Faircloughisinterestedinthequestionofhowparticularsina discourse come to signify universals, in particular how divergent identities come to be claimed as collective. On that basis, we will ask the following questions (see also Jackson 2005;Fairclough1992;Jger2001): Whatassumptionsunderliethelanguageinthetext? Howareelementsofothertextsintertextuallyincorporatedandinterpreted? Howstableandinternallyconsistentaretheexaminedtexts? Howarenewdominantinterpretativeframeworksgenerated? Whileananalysisofadomesticdiscourse(e.g.Larsen1997)onaparticulartopicfacesthe problemofaboundlessamountofavailableactorsandsources,thepoolismucheasierto surveyiflimitedtogovernments.Thestudyconcentratesontypicalspeechactsoftopgov ernment officials, representative declarations and communiqus. The textual samples used in the empirical analysis will primarily serve to answer the questions raised above, rather thanbeingsubjecttodetailedtextualanalysisinthesenseofCDA,whichwouldincludea detailedanalysisofsyntaxandgrammar.8Theanalysiswillinsteadputemphasisonargu mentationandfocusondiscoursestrategiesindialoguebetweendifferentgovernmentson issuesofidentityformation. Thatisthetaskwearefacingintheempiricalanalysisofinternationalpolitics,whichwill putpoliticaldiscourseundercriticalscrutinywithregardstoitsimpactonhowparticulars come to assume universal meanings. Whilst the method can be employed for all kinds of processes in international politics, it is not limited to any particular levelofanalysis. That this study prioritises the level of the international system does not mean that domestic or transnationalchangecannotbeanalysedwithintheframework. WhileCDAmustessentiallybeseenasanopenendedresearchprocess(Fairclough1996),a particular empirical analysis is complete and offers significant scientific results when the analysis of new linguistic devices reveal no new findings (Jger 2001; Meyer 2001; Fair clough 2003). This requires detailed documentation. The empirical analysis will be con ducted in the mode of a hermeneutic circle the meaning of textual samples will only be comprehensible in the context of the whole discourse, while the discourse can only be ap proachedfromitssingle,intertextuallyconnectedcomponents.
8
VanDijk(2001)suggeststhattheanalysisshouldconcentrateonlinguisticmarkerssuchasstress and intonation, word order, lexical style, coherence, local semantic moves such as disclaimers, topic choice, schematic organisation, rhetorical figures, syntactic structures, propositional struc tures,turntakings,repairsandhesitation.
31
3Critiqueandthepathtoempiricalresearch Thekeyinsightsintothemutualentanglementofuniversalityandparticularityofferedby thetheoryofhegemonycanbeusefulinansweringsomeofthequestionsrelatedtochange intheinternationalsystem,beitintheeconomic,security,environmental,economicorso cial realm. The concept of hegemony shows that many of the traditional IR concepts power,system,structureandsovereigntycanbeofuseiftheirimplicationsareclear.They acquiretheirmeaninginparticularrelationalcontextsandarealwayslimitedbyother,often contradictory logics. None of them is absolutely valid, not even the military or economic preponderanceoftheUnitedStatesaftertheendoftheColdWar.Quitethereverseistrue: superiormaterialcapabilities,assuggestedbyrealisttheories,havenointrinsiclogic.Atthe endoftheday,[i]tisonlythroughnegativity,divisionandantagonismthataformationcan constituteitselfasatotalizinghorizon(Laclau/Mouffe1985:144);onlyunderthesecircum stancescanachainofequivalencesgainhegemoniccharacter. Inanempiricalinvestigationofcollectiveidentityformationwewouldhavetobreakdown theconceptsemployedbythetheoryofhegemony.Crucialfortheempiricalinvestigationis Laclausargumentthatthenotionofthepoliticalistheinstitutingmomentofsociety,which brings with it the incompletion of all acts of political institutionalization. In that context, ieksanalogyofthestateisintriguing:Henotonlysuggeststhatthestatepersecannever achievetotalidentity,butthatitwouldratherbeareligiouscommunitythanastate(iek 1999:177).Inotherwords:Institutionalization,beitonanationaloraregionallevel,isan ongoing process; no identity is fully closed and hence apt to hegemonic interventions. Theseinterventionsarelikelytobesuccessfulwhenpreviouspoliticallogicshavebeenput into question by a crisis. In consequence, hegemony represents the never ending effort to generatefixationsofadiscourse. Theframeworkisabletoprovideontologicalaswellasepistemologicalandmethodological insightsintoprocessesofidentitybuildingininternationalaffairs.Forthistobecomepossi bleananthropomorphisationofagentsisrequired,sinceotherwisetheanalysiswouldsuffer fromalackofagency.Themostsuitableagentforourtaskseemstobethestate,sincestates, asWendt(1999:10)hasargued,areindeedrealagents.Withoutattributingcorporateagency tothestate,analysesofinternationalpoliticswouldbeperdefinitionemimpossible.Using theframeworkprovidedinthispaperasastartingpoint,itispossibletoconceptualisethe stateasaspeakingagentinanempiricalanalysisofcrisisandchangeininternationalpolitics.
32
References Acharya, Amitav (2001) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia. London and NewYork:Routledge. Adler, Emanuel (2005) Communitarian International Relations. The epistemic foundations of In ternationalRelations.London/NewYork:Routledge. Adler,EmmanuelandMichaelBarnett,(eds.)(1998)SecurityCommunities.Cambridge:Cam bridgeUniversityPress. Andersen, Niels kerstrm (2003) Discursive Analytical 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, Karl W. (1970) Political Community at the International Level. Problems of Definition 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 to Henry Widdowsons discourse analysis: a critical view,LanguageandLiterature5,pp.18. Fairclough,Norman(1999)LinguisticandIntertextualAnalysiswithinDiscourseAnalysis, Jaworski,Adam/Coupland,Nikolas(eds.)TheDiscourseReader.LondonandNewYork: Routledge,pp.181211.
33
Faircclough, Norman (2001) Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific re search,Wodak,Ruth/Meyer,Michael(eds.)Methodsof Critical Discourse Analysis.Lon don:Sage,pp.121138. Fairclough, Norman (2003) Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London/ NewYork:Routledge. Fairclough, Norman (2005) Blairs contribution to elaborating a new doctrine of 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 der Macht. Michel FoucaultberSexualitt,WissenundWahrheit. Grieco,JosephM.(1990)CooperationamongNations.Europe,America,andNonTariffBarriersto Trade.Ithaca(NY):CornellUniversityPress. Guzzini, Stefano/Leander, Anna (2006) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander WendtandhisCritics.London/NewYork:Routledge. Habermas, Jrgen (1995a) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1: Handlungsrationalitt undgesellschaftlicheRationalisierung.Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampTaschenbuch. Habermas,Jrgen(1995b)TheoriedeskommunikativenHandelns.Bd.2:ZurKritikderfunktiona listischenVernunft.Frankfurta.M.:SuhrkampTaschenbuch. Holsti, K.J. (2004) Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cam bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Jackson,Richard(2005)WritingtheWaronTerrorism:Language,PoliticsandCounterterrorism. Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress. Jger,Siegfried(1999)KritischeDiskursanalyse.EineEinfhrung.2nd,revisedandenlargeded. 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 and Models of Change in International Relations, in: Buzan, Barry/Jones, R.J. Barry (eds.) Change and the Study of International Relations: The EvadedDimension.London:FrancesPinter,pp.1129. Keohane,RobertO.(1984)AfterHegemony:CooperationandDiscordintheWorldPoliticalEcon omy.Princeton(NJ):PrincetonUniversityPress.
34
Keohane,RobertO.(1989)TheTheoryofHegemonicStabilityandChangesinInternational Economic Regimes, 19671977, Keohane, Robert O. 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 Third World Against Global Liberalism. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Kratochwil,FriedrichandRuggie,JohnGerard(1986)InternationalOrganization:astateof theartonanartofthestate,InternationalOrganization40,S.753775. Laclau, Ernesto (1977) Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: 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) Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis: France, Britain and Europe. 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) Cooperation Among Democracies. The European Influence on US ForeignPolicy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
35
RisseKappen,Thomas(1996)CollectiveIdentityinaDemocraticCommunity:TheCaseof NATO,PeterJ.Katzenstein(ed.)TheCultureofNationalSecurity:NormsandIdentityin WorldPolitics(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress),pp.357399. Rosenau, James N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Ruggie,JohnGerard(1998)ConstructingtheWorldPolity:EssaysonInternationalInstitutionali zation.London/NewYork:Routledge. Russett, Bruce (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace. Pronciples for a PostCold War World. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Russett,BruceandOneal,JohnR.(2001)TriangulatingPeace:Democracy,Interdependence,and InternationalOrganizations.NewYork:W.W.Norton. Saussure,Ferdinandde(1966)CourseinGeneralLinguistics.NewYork:McGrawHill. Schirm,StefanA.(2002)GlobalizationandtheNewRegionalism.GlobalMarkets,DomesticPoli ticsandRegionalCooperation.Cambridge:Polity. Shapcott, Richard (2001) Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations. Cam bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Simmons, Beth A./Martin, Lisa L. (2002) International Organizations and Institutions, Carlsnaes, Walter/Risse, Thomas/Simmons, Beth A. (eds.) (2002) Handbook of Interna tionalRelations.London:Sage,pp.192211. Smith, Anna Marie (1998) Laclau and Mouffe. The radical democratic imaginary. London/New York:Routledge. Starr, Harvey (1997) Democracy and Integration. Why Democracies Dont Fight Each Other,JournalofPeaceResearch34,2,pp.153162. SterlingFolker,Jennifer(2000)CompetingParadigmsorBirdsofaFeather?Constructivism andNeoliberalInstitutionalismCompared,InternationalStudiesQuarterly44,pp.97119. vanDijk,TeunA.(2001)MultidisciplinaryCDA:apleafordiversity,Wodak,Ruth/Meyer, Michael(eds.)MethodsofCriticalDiscourseAnalysis.London:Sage,pp.95120. Walker, R.B.J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Waltz,KennethN.(1979)TheoryofInternationalPolitics.NewYork:RandomHouse. Wendt,Alexander(1994)Collectiveidentityformationandtheinternationalstate,American PoliticalScienceReview88,S.384396. Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni versityPress.
36
Wendt, Alexander (2000) On the Via Media. A Response to the Critics, Review of Interna tionalStudies26,1,S.165180. Wight, Colin (2006) Agents, Structures and International Relations. Politics as Ontology. Cam bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Wodak,Ruth(1996)DisordersofDiscourse.London:Longman. Zangl, Bernhard/Zrn, Michael (1999) Interessen in der internationalen Politik: Der ak teursorientierteInstitutionalismusalsBrckezwischeninteresseorientiertenundnorm orientiertenHandlungstheorien,ZeitschriftfrPolitikwissenschaft9,3,pp.923950. Zehfuss, Maja (2002) Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cam bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. iek,Slavoy(1999)TheTicklishSubject:TheAbsentCentreofPoliticalOntology.London/New York:Verso.
Recent issues:
No 49 No 48 No 47 No 46 No 45 No 44 No 43 No 42 No 41 No 40 No 39 No 38 Dirk Kohnert: African Migration to Europe: Obscured Responsibilities and Common Misconceptions; May 2007 Jann Lay, George Michuki MMukaria and Toman Omar Mahmoud: Boda-bodas Rule: Nonagricultural Activities and Their Inequality Implications in Western Kenya; April 2007 Bert Hoffmann: Why Reform Fails: The Politics of Policies in Costa Rican Telecommunications Liberalization; April 2007 Sonja Bartsch and Lars Kohlmorgen: The Role of Southern Actors in Global Governance: The Fight against HIV/AIDS; March 2007 Gero Erdmann: Ethnicity, Voter Alignment and Political Party Affiliation an African Case: Zambia; March 2007 Andreas Ufen: Political Party and Party System Institutionalisation in Southeast Asia: A Comparison of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand; March 2007 Alexander Stroh: Crafting Political Institutions in Africa. Electoral Systems and Systems of Government in Rwanda and Zambia Compared; March 2007 Gnter Schucher: The EUs Foreign Policy after the Fifth Enlargement: Any Change in Its Taiwan Policy?; February 2007 Henriette Dose: Securing Household Income among Small-scale Farmers in Kakamega District: Possibilities and Limitations of Diversification; February 2007 Gero Erdmann and Matthias Basedau: Problems of Categorizing and Explaining Party Systems in Africa; January 2007 Jutta Hebel and Gnter Schucher: The Emergence of a New Socialist Market Labour Regime in China; December 2006 Barbara Fritz and Laurissa Mhlich: Regional Monetary Integration among Developing Countries: New Opportunities for Macroeconomic Stability beyond the Theory of Optimum Currency Areas?; December 2006 Andreas Ufen: Political Parties in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Between politik aliran and Philippinisation; December 2006 Juliane Brach: Ten Years after: Achievements and Challenges of the Euro-Mediterranean Economic and Financial Partnership; December 2006
No 37 No 36
All GIGA Working Papers are available free of charge at www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers. For any requests please contact: workingpapers@giga-hamburg.de. Editor of the Working Paper Series: Bert Hoffmann.
GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies / Leibniz-Institut fr Globale und Regionale Studien Neuer Jungfernstieg 21 20354 Hamburg Germany E-Mail: info@giga-hamburg.de Website: www.giga-hamburg.de

HTTP WWW - Giga-Hamburg - de DL Download - PHP D Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HTTP WWW - Giga-Hamburg - de DL Download - PHP D Content Publikationen PDF Wp50 Nabers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIGA Research Programme: Transformation in the Process of Globalisation

ArticleOutline 1 2 Introduction TowardsaTheoryofInternationalStructuralChange

2.1 Ideas,CultureandLanguage 2.2 Hegemony,CrisisandChange 2.3 Language,DiscourseandInterpretation 3 CritiqueandthePathtoEmpiricalResearch

different A predication X not A civilised barbaric B good evil

You might also like