Revisiting ‘identity’ in International Relations: From identity as substance to identifications in action

Abstract

In recent years, the concept of identity has become central to International Relations theory. Opposing rational actor assumptions, constructivist and post-structuralist identity scholarship has argued that preferences and interests are tied to actors' identities, which, in turn, explain action. While we welcome the attempt to move beyond rationalist and materialist accounts of state action, we argue that identity scholarship conceptualizes identity in methodologically individualist and causal terms. However, understanding identity in this way hinders us from grasping how actors are situated and continually develop within complex networks of social interdependencies. We suggest an approach that draws on processual-relational thinking and figurational sociology, and that shifts analysis from searching for identity to analysing identification processes. Contrary to the notion that identities inform action, we argue that specific sets of identifications are temporarily and incompletely stabilized in decision-making, and do not precede or inform action. To this end, we develop a model for empirical research that makes agency in identification processes visible and apply it to Swiss foreign policy decision-making. We suggest that non-foundationalist research revisit and discuss how identity is conceptualized and used in research, lest it reproduce the pitfalls of rationalist and materialist approaches.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives, policy learning and institutionalization: the surprising failure of open government in Norway

“…Dynamics of conformity and esteem during norm cascades are particularly compelling in the current context, insofar as countries can be expected to seek "'social proof'-states comply with norms to demonstrate that they have adapted to the social environment-that they 'belong'" (see also Bucher & Jasper, 2017;Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, p. 903). In an international policy discourse marked by enthusiasm for technology and participation, OGP membership provides a powerful signaling tool with which countries can indicate that they too practice "government 2.0".…”

“…These were elaborated according to theoretical frameworks from international relations scholarship on global norm promotion and policy studies research on processes of diffusion, transfer, translation, and learning. an IR theoretical approach to the diffusion of global norms which emphasizes the salience and appropriateness of global norms primarily in terms of aggregate national culture and politics , and suggests that contemporary research on identity and state action in international relations (Bucher & Jasper, 2017) should more directly engage with the roles of individuals.…”

The uses and abuses of victimhood nationalism in international politics

“…As this work scales up beyond first-image analysis of individual actors’ pioneering identity narratives in specific national discourses to consideration of victimhood nationalism as a collective identity, it will inevitably be complicated by the aggregation and methodological issues inherent to studying identity in international politics (see, e.g., Bucher and Jasper, 2017; Epstein, 2011; Lebow, 2016). Identities that emerge from complex national identity discourses are often labile and multifaceted, interpreted and internalized by different actors in different ways at different times.…”

Relational ontology and the politics of boundary-making: East Asian financial regionalism

“…We should not look for boundaries of things, but for things of boundaries. (Italics added) In this vein, I combine insights from Jackson and Nexon (1999), Abbott (2001), and Bucher and Jasper (2016) to present a three-stage framework for regional boundarymaking and its associated institutional practices. The three sequential stages of the framework are the emergence and maintenance of a boundary ('proto-boundary') as a critical basis for the formation of a regional collective identity ('yoking'), which informs the regional practice of institutional building ('rationalization').…”

“…This analytical framework proposes three sequential stages -'protoboundary', 'yoking', and 'rationalization' -that lead to the formation of a clear boundary by defining what is meant by 'outside', thus establishing the 'inside' of the boundary. I develop this framework by drawing on Jackson and Nexon (1999), Abbott (2001), Tilly (1995Tilly ( , 2004, and Bucher and Jasper (2016), among others. Because none of these works alone cover the full range of collective boundary-making processes, I combine their insights within the three-stage framework.…”