 |
| @Shertinarara |
Explanations from identity and culture have experienced a general revival in IR theory recently, sometimes as part of the constructivist turn (Finnemore 1996; Hudson 1997; Katzenstein 1996; Lapid and Kratochwil 1996a), sometimes within more rationalist frameworks (Posen 1993a, 1993b; Van Evera 1994). In international relations debate, there are set of different theoretical argument regarding to the identity. Neo-realism believe that international cooperation begin from the same construction of the state identity. Keohane as a Neo-liberalist challenged Neo-realist argument that even “self-help” identity-as starting point of international cooperation- there is also a possibility of state that has different identity to cooperate.
Constructivist approach is the most noticed identity related theory in international relations. Alexander Wendt’s however, concentrate on international systemic theory and thus on identities in the sense of the general meaning of ‘state’, of ‘sovereignty’ or of ‘anarchy’ (Wendt 1992, 1999). He can tell why a certain identity recognized but not what identity is which means it does not help to answer how state interpret the structure in international politics and their position in order to interact with other state. However, the constructivist assumption has not explained more general and systematic policy theory. Constructivism seems committed to the dichotomy of ideational and material. Therefore constructivist perspective confines identity to realm of ideational factors such as foreign policy.
In order to resolve ideational problem we need to shift toward poststructuralist approach. This approach believe that most of the identity needs complex and multidimensional system to make sense. Identity is a relational concept that produced from juxtapositions between selves to another. Other than that, historical concept of the country play important role on producing identity. Poststructuralist analyses have shown the importance of the Other for the construction of the identity of the self, we turn the focus to investigate more systematically, theoretically as well as empirically, the elements involved in the construction of the self (Hudson, 1997).
Identity and foreign policy are involving security in the sense of high politics. Foreign policy is self can be partially explained by national discourse that works on public texts. However, these public texts do not try to get to the motives of the actors or their hidden political message. A discourse is a system for the formation of statements’ (Foucault 1972; Dreyfus and Rabinow 1982; Bartelson 1995: 70). Therefore, Discourse is a logical system, ideas and image that construct an culture. Culture shapes identity that creates National self-image of who we tell others and ourselves. Effectiveness of foreign policy depends of a shared sense of national identity.
Identity Level of Analysis (LoA) using policy speeches, documents and interview as a discourse to be analyzed. Identity is a “road map” for policy maker to simplify and facilitate an understanding of a complex political reality. Rational theory tends to ignore endogenous dynamics and focus on material utility maximisation, while a reflective approach emphasises the impact of cultural practices, norms and values on perceptions of interests (Keohane 1988). In this argument, Neo-realist neglect that national interest also constructed by norms and value. These component are the script of state behavior in international relations.
References:
Bartelson, J. (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell. (1990). Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 15, No, 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 263-286.
Dreyfus, H. L. and Rabinow, P. (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Pantheon.
Hudson, V. M. (1997) ‘Culture and Foreign Policy: Developing a Research Agenda’, in Hudson (ed.), Culture & Foreign Policy, Boulder, Col.: Lynne Rienner, pp. 1–26.
Lapid, Y. and Kratochwil, F. (eds) (1996a) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder, Col.: Lynne Rienner.
Keohane, R. (1988), International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly vol 32, no 4.
Posen, B. (1993a) ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict’, Survival 35, 1: 27–47.
Waever, Ole. (2003). Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy: Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy Theory, pp 20-49
