‘Complex Socialization’: A Framework for the Study of State Socialization

Abstract

The article presents a model for the study of norms transfer through state socialization, which combines a Social Constructivist body of theory for ideational change with Social Identity Theory (SIT) for identity formation. The model privileges self- and other categorization processes which according to SIT takes place between all social groups, as the main determinant for the outcome of state socialization. By also reconceptualizing domestic structure into two separate we-groups; state/elite and nation/people, which may have different self- and other categorization dynamics, the model is able to not only account for the common occurrence of different outcomes of socialization in apparently similar cases, but is also able to take the mass domestic level into consideration. The question that is asked is therefore ‘why do the same norms matter so differently to apparently similar agents?’

Anti-fossil fuel norms

“…First, it is assumed that the state is a corporate agent and that it is thus meaningful to conceptualize it as a distinct agent, while recognizing that its behaviour is a function of many individual persons' behaviour and interactions (Flockhart 2006). Second, following Flockhart (2006), a distinction is drawn between a state's political elite (here defined as government officials) and the wider public, represented by the civil society (as depicted in Section 3.1, above). Third, it is assumed that the tactics by which a norm champion may seek to socialize a target state (via its government officials) include modeling appropriate behaviour (i.e.…”

IR theory and domestic adoption of international norms

“…Of three articles that include a substantial focus on international norms published in 2011 in International Organization (IO), a major outlet for work in the field, none mentions the role of corporations (Bush, 2011;Carpenter, 2011;Hafner-Burton et al, 2011). 2 In general, the overwhelming emphasis in the literature is on the socialisation and behaviour of states (Cortell and Davis, 2000, p. 83;Flockhart, 2006;Corntassel, 2007, pp. 164-165).…”

Acculturation and the acceptance of the Genocide Convention

“…Norms are defined here as 'collective expectations about proper behaviour for a given identity' (Jepperson, Wendt and Katzenstein, 1996: 54), and acceptance of a human rights treaty signals acceptance of certain standards of state behaviour. The literature abounds in possible explanations for why states ratify human rights treaties (see Avdeyeva, 2007;Cole, 2005;Hathaway, 2007;Moravcsik, 2000;Oberdörster 2008;Simmons, 2009;Struett and Weldon, 2006;Wotipka and Tsutsui, 2008), and how and why human rights norms spread, especially to non-democracies or recently-established democracies (see Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998;Flockhart, 2006;Risse, Ropp and Sikkink 1999;Schimmelfennig, Engert and Knobel, 2006).…”

“…This is 'the general process of adopting the beliefs and behavioral patterns of the surrounding culture' (Goodman and Jinks, 2004: 638). States wish to belong to certain 'social groups', and so will conform to the norms of that group (see Flockhart, 2006). 'Identification with a group can generate a range of cognitive and social pressures to conform' (Johnston, 2001: 499).…”