Constructivism research programme debates in IR research

Constructivist research in IR research is not a theoretical focus of this study. My research does, however, have the potential to comment on its position within the IR discipline and its various strands. IR relates here to the discipline (or subject-field) (“the study of the political and social interaction of state, non-state actors, and

121 _{Marschan-Piekkari et al. 2004, ibid.}

122 _{See G. Johns, “In praise of context,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(1) (2001): 31-42.}

123 _{D.M. Rousseau & Y. Fried, “Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research,” Journal of}

Organizational Behaviour 22(1) (2001): 1-13.

124 _{‘Text’, here, does not only entail written words but also spoken words and figurative (see M. Alvesson & K.} Sköldberg, Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2009). 125 _{M. Alvesson & K. Sköldberg 2009, ibid.}

49 individuals”).126

These debates are prospectively dealt with through aligning the inquiry with the Bourdieusian sociological ‘turn’ in IR research.

Practically speaking, this entails potential contribution (depending on the analysis of field-research data) of Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology for nuancing debates in the IR constructivist camp.127 This relates particularly to the roles of practice, culture, and

identity, in addition to research philosophical and social theoretical standpoints – and to some extent ethnography as methodology.128 The constructivist research camp, a

social theoretical ontology rather than a theory of IR I would argue, can be broadly divided into ‘conventional’ and ‘critical’ constructivism.129

They share, nonetheless, the focus on how ideational forces play out.130

126 _{M. Griffiths, O’Callaghan, T. & S.C. Roach, International Relations: The Key Concepts, 2nd edn (London:} Routledge, 2008), vii.

127 _{See S.J. Barkin, “Realist Constructivism and Realist-Constructivisms,” International Studies Review (2004):} 348-352; J.T. Checkel, “The constructivist turn in international relations theory,” World Politics 50 (1998): 324- 348; R.N. Lebow, “Constructive Realism,” International Studies Review (2004): 346-348; J.B. Mattern, “Power in Realist-Constructivist Research,” International Studies Review (2004): 343-346; J. Sterling-Folker, “Realist- Constructivism and Morality,” International Studies Review (2004): 341-343; P. Jackson Thaddeus (ed.), “Bridging the Gap: Towards a Realist-Constructivist Dialogue,” International Studies Review 6 (2004): 337-352; P. Jackson Thaddeus & D.H. Nexon, “Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism?,” International Studies Review (2004): 337-341; M. Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality

(Cambridge: University Press, 2002) – for review texts of constructivist research in IR, as well as Guzzini, S. & Leander, A. (eds.), Constructivism and international relations: Alexander Wendt and his critics (Oxford: Routledge, 2006) for an evaluation of Wendt and social theory in IR. See also D.S.A. Guttormsen and M. Jacoby, “Bridging a ‘Gap’?: Academia and the Realist – Constructivism Debate” (paper presented at the LSE Millennium annual conference, October 22-23, 2011) (short-listed for special issue, Millennium: Journal of International Studies), for an in-depth discussion concerning the IR discipline and multi-paradigmatic dialogues.

128 _{B. Buzan & M. Albert, “Differentiation: a sociological approach to international relations theory,” European}

journal of international relations 16(3) (2010): 315-337.

129 _{See T. Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security 23(1)} (1998): 171-200. ‘Conventionalists’ include eds Adler, E. & Barnett, M. (Security Communities, Cambridge: University Press, 1998), 29-66), Finnemore, M. (The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2003)), Hopf, T. (Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002)), Katzenstein (ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996b)), Reus-Smit (“The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions,” International Organization 51(4) (1997): 555-589), Ruggie (Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization (London and New York: Routledge, 1998)), and Wendt (Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: University Press, 1999)) (rejecting that objective truths can be achieved but tend to claim this for their own research subjects, and that a Weberian (‘verstehen’) interpretation is necessary in order to grasp social action). ‘Criticalists’ feature, for example, Campbell (1992, Writing Security, op.cit.), Der Derian, J. (On Diplomacy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987)), Tickner, J.A. (Gender in International Relations

50 2.1.8 Sociological meso-level

This approach is aligned with Bourdieu’s ‘constructivist structuralism’, or ‘structuralist constructivism’, where agency (microindividual) and structure (macrostructural) always operate dialectically in an inseparable fashion.131 At this

level, policy-researchers would collectively form large social structures (for example organisations and communities such as a new think tank or luncheon seminars), influenced by interaction and negotiation concerning ‘social reality’ amongst the individuals, but depending on a situational context/structure.132

In the conducted research, these processes operate by American culture(s) influencing how U.S. think tank policy-researchers negotiate about what constitutes ‘China’, and consequently ‘American-ness’, in their narratives. Contextual influence may also come from organisational cultures within the particular think-tank and/or policy-networks/communities during interaction (for example, meetings and seminar in the U.S. or in China) in addition to relations between the two countries. The meso- level is therefore a merged and intermediate sphere for problem-solving between macro- and micro (face-to-face human interaction) levels which are not merely abstractive, but indeed ‘reality’ to be analysed.133

Political Theory (Cambridge: University Press, 1993)) where truth-claims are rejected due to lack of common ground, and concentrates on rendering truth and power.

130 _{J.T. Checkel, “Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics,” in Review of International Studies 30} (2004): 229-244; J.T. Checkel 1998, “The constructivist turn in international relations theory,” op.cit.; M. Finnemore & K. Sikkink, “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science 4(1) (2001): 391-416; A.M. Klotz & C. Lynch 2007,

Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations, op.cit.; A. Klotz & D. Prakash (eds.), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); J. Ruggie 1998,

Constructing the World Polity, op.cit.; A. Wendt 1992, “Anarchy is what states make of it,” op.cit .; A. Wendt 1999, Social Theory of International Politics, op.cit.

131 _{P. Bourdieu 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, op.cit.; R. Jenkins, Pierre Bourdieu, revised edn (London:} Routledge, 2002).

132 _{J.G. Bruhn & H.M. Rebach, “Problem Solving at the Mesolevel,” in Sociological Practice: Intervention and}

Social Change, 2nd edn (Springer, 2007), 115-145. 133 _{Also see the corresponding point about field.}

51 2.1.9 Bourdieusian-inspired ethnography

The nature of the methodology and data-collection methods employed in this study is depicted in section two (this chapter). For now, it can be stated that the study makes use of ethnography as its research strategy (aka methodology) with in-depth interviews, participant observation, ethnographic/interpretivist contents analysis of research subjects’ written policy-research (and collection of written material) in addition to triangulation as the research methods. The use of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and the embedded conceptual “thinking tools” are what makes the study a ‘Bourdieusian-inspired’ endeavour. This exploration of Bourdieu’s social theory reflects the main focus of this thesis, and thus the principal area from which contributions will be proposed.

Bourdieu in some respects personifies the linkage of Sociology and Anthropology with the IR research agenda (i.e. the Bourdieusian sociological ‘turn’ in IR). In IR and Political Science, ethnography has often mistakenly been considered solely as an observation-technique detached from social theory and the participating element of

participant observation such as in Research Methods in Politics.134 On the contrary,

ethnography emerged as a uniquely distinct feature of the Social/Cultural Anthropology discipline entrenched with more than 100 year of intellectual history.135

134 _{P. Burnham, K.G. Lutz, W. Grant & Z. Layton-Henry, Research Methods in Politics, 2nd edn (Basingstoke:} Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). See W. Vrasti, “The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations,”

Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37(2) (2008): 279-30; J.P. Rancatore, “Strange: A Reply to Vrasti is It,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(1) (2010): 65-77; L. Wedeen, “Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science 13 (2010): 255-272; W. Vrasti, “Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Methodology and Love Writing,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(1) (2010): 79-88.

52