Role theory in symbolic interactionism: Czech Republic, Germany and the EU

Abstract

The literature on norm socialization and Europeanization has largely focused on successful norm diffusion, but thus far it has hardly addressed the norm backlash from the respective societies. To more fully grasp the interaction between member states' roles and their institutional preferences we provide a conceptual model for the de-composition of national role conceptions. This model is applied in case studies on German and Czech European policies in the constitutionalization process of the European Union. The paper illustrates how the composition of Czech and German roles has changed over time and how these national role conceptions shape the countries' respective institutional preferences. We conclude that historical role experience is considered as a powerful explanatory tool for the policies of today's European Union member states.Role theory has recently attracted attention as an interdisciplinary approach for understanding foreign policy decisions. Sociology, psychology and political science scholars have identified common characteristics of roles in diverse social domestic and international settings (Thies, 2010;Turner, 2006). Despite considerable interest in role theory,

Inter‐Role Conflict, Role Strain and Role Play in Chile's Relationship with Brazil

“…Instead, Argentina is key for defining Chile's most appropriate role in South America, especially in the security dimension of regional cooperation, as expressed in UNASUR's South American Defence Council, whereas Mexico in Latin America and the United States globally are seen as more important than Brazil for Chile's roles. A significant other can be a state one pays more attention to, as much as a role model to be emulated or it can be an actor that shapes the role conception in a somewhat negative manner – that is, ‘the type of actor you do not want to be’ (see Beneš and Harnisch, : 150). Even states that have considerable autonomy in forming their foreign policy need others to define who they are and how to act accordingly to their expected patterns of behaviour.…”

Theorizing the EU's Actorness: Towards an Interactionist Role Theory Framework

“…Interactionist role theory, which primarily draws on the work of social psychologist George Herbert Mead, has, over the past decades, made significant inroads into the study of change and continuity in international affairs (Aggestam, ; Beneš and Harnisch, ; Harnisch, , , , ; Herborth, ; McCourt, ). At the core of this perspective is the idea that international actors experience and express themselves in society by drawing on two intertwined aspects of agency: ‘me’ and ‘I’.…”

Malaysian Foreign Policy Toward Singapore From Mahathir to Badawi and Najib: A Role Theory Assessment

“…To understand role conception through symbolic interaction, this article will employ a three‐dimensional framework developed by Beneš and Harnisch () to examine how roles are conceived and change over time and policy variations. The first dimension refers to the ego‐alter aspect of the “self.” The ego (“I”) is the irreducible portion of the “self” based on internal sources of state and society, while the alter (“Me”) constitutes the part of the “self” which has internalized the perceived attitudes and expectations of the “other” (Beneš & Harnisch, , p. 149). On one hand, if foreign policy makers decide to conceive an ego‐dominated national role for their country, these national leaders could do so by referring to domestic political discourses which espouses the values of the state's political system and societal norms to formulate and legitimize the role conception (Beneš & Harnisch, , p. 149; Harnisch, , p. 8).…”

“…The second dimension is the “significant” versus “generalized other.” A “significant other” could be another state or other nonstate actors, or even an international organization which would be an “organized other”; while the “generalized other” could be an abstract notion such as the international community (Harnisch, , p. 49). The “significant other” is a major point of comparison for the “self.” National leaders could construct their nation's roles as images in contrast to the “significant other,” or a national role which seeks to imitate the “significant other” (Beneš & Harnisch, , p. 150). The last category is the “historical” versus “current other” (temporal dimension).…”

“…The last category is the “historical” versus “current other” (temporal dimension). The “historical other” could also be a “significant other” pointing to a historical past or even a “significant other” in past historical experience which has a major impact on how a state conceives its role in the current situation (Beneš & Harnisch, , p. 151).…”