Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:46:54.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The problem of change in constructivist theory: Ontological security seeking and agent motivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2016

Trine Flockhart
Trine Flockhart*
Affiliation:
Professor, International Relations, University of Kent
*
*Correspondence to: Trine Flockhart, Professor of International Relations, School of Politics and International Relations, Rutherford College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX. Author’s email: T.Flockhart@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constructivism has a problem in accounting for agent-led change and for what motivates agents to make up their minds about how to put their agency to use. I show that constructivism’s problem of change is related to tensions between constructivism’s own key assumptions about the mutually constitutive relationship between structure and agency, understanding of change and to an essentialist conception of identity. I argue that agency is constituted through processes of ‘identification’ involving identity and narrative constructions and performance through practice and action. I make the perhaps controversial move to regard ontological security as a precondition for agent-led change and to identify ontological security maximisation as functionally equivalent to rationalist theories’ agent assumption of utility maximisation. I identify two strategies for maximising ontological security: a ‘strategy of being’ to secure a stable and esteem-enhancing identity and a strong narrative; and a ‘strategy of doing’ to ensure cognitive consistency through routinised practice whilst also undertaking action contributing to a sense of integrity and pride. The article concludes that although humans are endowed with agency, their actual ability to utilise their agency is severely constrained by their need for maintaining ontological security, which may explain why change appears so difficult to achieve.

Keywords

NarrativeSocial Identity TheoryAgencyPracticeOntological SecurityIdentity
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 799 - 820
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Lebow, Richard Ned and Risse-Kappen, Thomas, International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War (New York: Colombia University Press, 1996), p. 1 Google Scholar. See also the excellent piece by Gusterson, Hugh, ‘Missing the end of the Cold War in international security’, in Jutta Weldes et al. (eds), Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), pp. 319–345 Google Scholar. The chapter investigates all articles published in International Security in the three years prior to the end of the Cold War – finding that not a single one embraced the idea that the Cold War could end.

2 This was apparent at the seminar for the preparation of Lebow and Risse-Kappen’s International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, where one participant is said to have delegated the end of the Cold War to ‘a mere data point that could not be used to test or develop theory’. The view was countered by a graduate student who suggested that by that logic ‘we should give up the study of the Big Bang; it too was a data point’. See ‘Preface’ in Lebow and Risse-Kappen, International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.

3 Buzan, Barry and Jones, R. J. (eds), Change and the Study of International Relations (London: Frances Pinter, 1981), p. 1 Google Scholar. In the book Buzan and Jones did ‘grasp the nettle’ although their analysis was constrained by the limited conceptual tool set available at the time. For example, Joseph Frankel mused ‘if our concern should be with change in “reality” or if it was more a shift in our “mental constructs”’, ultimately dismissing the thought that IR should engage in analysis of changes in human expectation as a factor of IR because the area fell ‘within the domains of historians of ideas and was beyond the skills of the average social scientist’, Frankel, Joseph, ‘Perspectives on change’, in Buzan and Jones (eds), Change and the Study of International Relations, p. 231 Google Scholar.

4 Gay, Paul du and Vikkelsø, Signe, ‘On the lost specification of “change”’, WMO Working Paper Series No. 1 (Copenhagen: Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School, 2012)Google Scholar.

5 Onuf, Nicholas G., World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

6 Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Organization, 46:2 (1992), pp. 395–421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Adler, Emmanuel, ‘Constructivism and International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes et al. (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage: 2002), pp. 95–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 102).

8 Wendt, Alexander, ‘The agent-structure problem in International Relations theory’, International Organization, 41:3 (1987), p. 339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norms dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Spandler, Killian, ‘The political international society: Change in primary and secondary institutions’, Review of International Relations, 41:3 (2015), pp. 601–622 Google Scholar, which combines constitution and institutionalisation to explain change in response to external shocks and incremental change and institutional stability (p. 614).

11 Checkel, Jeffrey, ‘The constructivist turn in International Relations theory’, World Politics, 50:1 (1998), p. 346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, ‘Realism and the constructivist challenge: Rejecting, reconstructing, or rereading author(s)’, International Studies Review, 4:1 (2002), p. 93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Koslowski, Rey and Kratochwil, Friedrich V., ‘Understanding change in international politics: the Soviet Empire’s demise and the international system’, International Organization, 48:2 (1994), p. 227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sterling-Folker, ‘Realism and the constructivist challenge’, p. 93.

14 Lebow, Ned, A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For the link between a psychological form of constructivism and Ned Lebow’s Cultural Theory of International Relations, see Hymans, Jacques, ‘The arrival of psychological constructivism’, International Theory, 2:3 (2010), pp. 461–467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Suganami, Hidemi, ‘Agents, structures, narratives’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:3 (1999), pp. 365–386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:2 (2011), pp. 327–350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See, for example, Orlikowski, Wanda, ‘Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective’, Information Systems Research, 7:1 (1996), p. 65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Weick, Karl E., ‘Emergent change as a universal in organizations’, in Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria (eds), Breaking the Code of Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000), p. 233 Google Scholar.

19 Throughout this article I distinguish between ‘practice’ and ‘action’. I understand ‘practice’ as defined by Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot (eds), International Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 6 as ‘competent performances’. However, as suggested by Adler and Pouliot ‘action are specific types of behaviour and practices are a particular kind of action’. I view ‘practice’ as mainly concerned with competent routinised performance and ‘action’ as conceptualised by Taylor, Charles in Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar as behaviour directed towards a specific goal and linked with desires, intentions, and purposes – attributes that are not necessarily present in the more habitual practice based behaviour.

20 Mitzen, Jennifer, ‘Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:3 (2006), p. 341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Laing, R. D., The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness (New York: Penguin, 1990 [orig. pub. 1969]), p. 39 Google Scholar.

22 Giddens, Anthony, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), p. 37 Google Scholar.

23 Laing, The Divided Self, p. 44.

24 Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations, p. 60.

25 Steele, Brent J., ‘Ontological security and the power of self-identity: British neutrality and the American Civil War’, Review of International Studies, 31:3 (2005), pp. 519–540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Mitzen, ‘Ontological security in world politics’, p. 346.

27 Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, p. 40.

28 Ibid., p. 47.

29 Ibid., p. 43.

30 Ibid., p. 47.

31 Mitzen, ‘Ontological security in world politics’, p. 342.

32 Ibid., p. 346.

33 Ian Craib, Experiencing Identity (London: Sage, 1998).

34 Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, p. 40.

35 Browning, Christopher and Joenniemi, Pertti, ‘Escaping security: Norden as a source of ontologival certainty’, International Studies Assiocation (New Orleans, 2010)Google Scholar.

36 Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, p. 54. Giddens refers to ‘a particular narrative’ whereas I prefer the term ‘strong narrative’, which I define as a narrative that supports the agent’s identity and provides a sense of direction and understanding of past events and past actions.

37 Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, p. 36.

38 Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘Making sense of international practices’, in Adler and Pouliot (eds), International Practice, p. 47 Google Scholar.

39 Mitzen, ‘Ontological security in world politics’, p. 344.

40 Ibid., p. 346.

41 Taylor, Human Agency and Language, p. 4.

42 Rumelili, Bahar, ‘Identity and desecuritisation: the pitfalls of conflating ontological and physical security’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 18:1 (2013), pp. 1–13 Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., p. 2.

44 O’Brien, Martin, ‘Theorizing modernity: Reflexivity, identity and environment in Giddens’ social theory’, in Martin O’Brien, Sue Penna, and Colin Hay (eds), Theorizing Modernity, Reflexivity, Identity and Environment in Giddens’ Social Theory (London & New York, Longman, 1999)Google Scholar.

45 Browning, Christopher and Joennimi, Pertti, ‘Ontological security, self-articulation and securitization of identity’, Cooperation and Conflict (forthcoming, 2016), p. 16 Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., p. 23.

47 Mälksoo, Maria, ‘Memory must be defended’, Security Dialogue, 36:3 (2015), pp. 231–237 Google Scholar (p. 223).

48 Croft, Stuart, ‘Constructing ontological insecurity: the insecuritization of Britain’s Muslims’, Contemporary Security Policy, 33:2 (2012), pp. 219–235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 223).

49 Ibid., p. 221.

50 Berenskoetter, Felix, ‘Parameters of national biography’, European Journal of International Relations, 20:1 (2014), pp. 262–288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Berendskoetter, ‘Parameters of national biography’, p. 264.

52 Ibid., p. 271.

53 Adler, Emanuel, ‘Resilient liberal practices’, in Tim Dunne and Trine Flockhart (eds), Liberal World Orders (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

54 Hopf, Ted, ‘The logic of habit in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:4 (2010), p. 555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Hopf, Ted, ‘The promise of constructivism in International Relations theory’, International Security, 23:1 (1998), p. 180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Singer, David J., ‘The historical experiment as research strategy in the study of world politics’, in David J. Singer (ed.), The Correlates of War, Vol. I (New York, Free Press, 1979), p. 184 Google Scholar (pp. 175–96).

57 Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics; Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity; Dessler, David, ‘What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate?’, International Organization, 43:3 (1989), pp. 441–473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norms dynamics and political change’.

59 Kratochwil, Friedrich V., Rules, Norms, and Decisions on the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Onuf, World of Our Making.

61 Flockhart, Trine, ‘Democracy, security and the social construction of Europe’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 2:1 (2001), pp. 27–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Even though the literature on change in IR is extensive the question of the origin of the ‘critical juncture’ remains only partially explored. See, for example, Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar; Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Explaining crisis and change in transatlantic relations’, in Jeffery Anderson, John Ikenberry, and Thomas Risse (eds), The End of the West? Crisis and Change in the Atlantic Order (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Introduction: Power, order and change in world politics’, in G. John Ikenberry (ed.), Power, Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 1–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Puchala, Donald, Theory and History in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2003)Google Scholar.

63 Risse, Thomas, ‘“Let’s argue!”: Communicative action in world politics’, International Organization, 54:1 (2000), pp. 1–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Checkel, Jeffery, ‘International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework’, International Organization, 59:4 (2005), pp. 801–826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flockhart, Trine, ‘Complex socialization: a framework for the study of state socialization’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:1 (2006), pp. 89–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 March, J. and Olsen, P. J., Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Free Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

66 Berendskoetter, Felix, ‘Reclaiming the vision thing: Constructivists as students of the future’, International Studies Quarterly, 55 (2011), p. 650 Google Scholar.

67 Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 11.

68 The question is implicitly addressed by those who see improvements in agents’ standing or self-esteem as a major motivational factor. See, for example, Rubin, Mark and Hewstone, Miles, ‘Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: a review and some suggestions for clarification’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (1998), pp. 40–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations; and Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, ‘Stigma management in International Relations: Transgressive identities, norms and order in international society’, International Organization, 68:1 (2014), pp. 143–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Weick, ‘Emergent change as a universal in organizations’.

70 Structure can be many things such as material forms of infrastructure, formal forms of institutions such as law, diplomacy, and war and ideational forms of structure rooted in norms, rules, and language – or it may be a combination of all three.

71 For a discussion on the focus on linear and progressive change in liberal IR theory, see Flockhart, Trine, ‘Liberal imaginations: Transformative logics of liberal order’, in Dunne and Flockhart (eds), Liberal World Orders, pp. 69–86 Google Scholar; Hobson, John M., ‘Mann, the state and war’, in J. Hall and R. Schroeder (eds), An Anatomy of Power: The Social Theory of Michael Mann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 150–166 Google Scholar; Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘The idea of history and history with ideas’, in Stephen Hobden and John M. Hobson (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Ruggie, John Gerard, Constructing the World Polity: Essays in International Institutionalization (London: Routledge, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Indeed, MacMillan’s hunch was correct as emergent change is by far the most common form of change, and planned change (both evolutionary and revolutionary) have notoriously poor success rates. See Weick, ‘Emergent change as a universal in organizations’, p. 226.

73 Brännmark, Mikael and Benn, Suzann, ‘A proposed model for evaluating the sustainability of continuous change programmes’, Journal of Change Management, 12:2 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Tsoukas, Haridimos and Chia, Robert, ‘On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change’, Organization Science, 13:5 (2002), p. 290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Dawson, Patrick, ‘Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations’, Journal of Change Management, 14:3 (2014), p. 291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Emergent change is described as unpredictable, often unintentional, can come from anywhere and is hence the opposite of planned and continuous change. Liebhart, Margit and Lorenzo, Lucia Garcia, ‘Between planned and emergent change: Decision makers’ perceptions of managing change in organisations’, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 10 (2014)Google Scholar, available at: {http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29866/1/__libfile_REPOSITORY_Content_Garcia-Lorenzo,%20L_Between%20planned_Garcia-Lorenzo_Between%20planned_2014.pdf} accessed 22 June 2015.

77 Orlikowski, ‘Improvising organizational transformation over time’, p. 65.

78 Weick, ‘Emergent change as a universal in organizations’, p. 233.

79 Epstein, ‘Who speaks?’, p. 330.

80 Ibid., p. 331.

81 Berendskoetter, ‘Reclaiming the vision thing’, p. 648.

82 Kornprobst, Markus, ‘The agent’s logics of action: Defining and mapping political judgement’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), p. 72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Tajfel, Henri, Differentiation between Social Groups (London: Academic Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

84 John Turner, Rediscovering the Social Group (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987).

85 Rubin and Hewstone, ‘Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis’, pp. 40–62.

86 Billig, Michael and Tajfel, Henri, ‘Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 3:1 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tajfel, Differentiation between Social Groups.

87 Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations.

88 Somers, Margarete and Gibson, Gloria, ‘Reclaiming the epistemological ‘Other’: Narrative and the social constitution of identity’, in Craig Calhoun (ed.), Social Theory and the Politics of Identity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994)Google Scholar.

89 Ezzy, D., ‘Theorizing narrative identity: Symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics’, The Sociological Quarterly, 39:2 (1998), pp. 239–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Ciutâ, Felix, ‘The end(s) of NATO: Security strategic action and narrative transformation’, Contemporary Security Policy 23:1 (2002), pp. 35–62 Google Scholar.

91 Bially-Mattern, Janice, ‘A practice theory of emotion for International Relations’, in Adler and Pouliot (eds), International Practice, p. 75 Google Scholar.

92 Ibid., p. 70.

93 Adler and Pouliot (eds), International Practice, p. 5.

94 Mitzen, Jennifer, ‘Anchoring Europe’s civilizing identity: Habits, capabilities, and ontological security’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:2 (2005), pp. 270–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Steele, Brent J., Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-identity and the IR State (London: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar.

96 Browning and Joeniemmi, ‘Ontological security, self-articulation and securitization of identity’.

97 Epstein, ‘Who speaks?’, p. 335.

98 Solomon, Ty, ‘The turn to psychology in constructivism’, International Studies Review, 14 (2012), pp. 637–639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Browning, ‘Nation branding’, p. 197.

100 Billig and Tajfel, ‘Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour’; Hogg, M. and Abrams, D., Social Identifications: A Social Phycology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes (London: Routledge, 1988)Google Scholar; Tajfel, Differentiation between Social Groups; Tajfel, Henri, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Turner, John, Rediscovering the Social Group (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar.

101 Rubin and Hewstone, ‘Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis’.

102 Burnes, B., ‘Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about it?’, Journal of Change Management, 11:4 (2011), pp. 445–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Browning and Joenniemi, ‘Escaping security’, p. 6.

104 Ibid., p. 5.

105 Rubin and Hewstone, ‘Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis’. See also Forsby, Andreas Bøje, The Logic of Social Identity in IR: China’s Identity and Grand Strategy in the 21st Century (PhD thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, 2016)Google Scholar. Forsby adds a desire for social distinctiveness as a motivation for action.

106 Flockhart, ‘Complex socialization’; Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations.

107 Kinnvall, Catarina, ‘Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security’, Political Psychology, 25:5 (2004), pp. 741–767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Rubin and Hewstone, ‘Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis’.

109 Croft, ‘Constructing ontological insecurity’.

110 Pouliot, Vincent, International Security in Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, p. 38.

112 Hay, Colin, ‘Crisis and structural transformation of the state: Interrogating the process of change’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1:3 (1999), pp. 317–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Neo-functionalists were always unequivocal in their assumption that spill-over – and hence change – was a reaction to disappointment and frustration. In the original version of neo-functionalism, spill-over was grounded in negative emotions such as the fear that political goals could not be achieved unless other areas of cooperation were incorporated into the process. See, for example, Schmitter, Philippe, ‘Three neo-functional hypotheses about international integration’, International Organization, 23:1 (1969), p. 162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Yet although disappointment can be a first step towards increasing awareness of what needs to be done, as suggested by Adler, Emanuel and Crawford, Beverly, Progress in Postwar International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), p. 29 Google Scholar, it seems more likely to lead to defeatism and inaction – a point that is clearly reiterated in the literature on ontological security, which may indeed be the missing link in neo-functional theory.