Social science scholars are currently experiencing a post ‘Arab spring’ hangover. Whether or not the discipline is in complete turmoil has become a moot point for discussion. A kinder description would characterize the current intellectual period as a period of introspection, but it is clear this self- reflection has been too long in the waiting. The argument for a complete ontological shift of the discipline has become one of the leading interrogations within the academy (Ergul 2010; Hartmann 2013; Al-Ghazzi and Kraidy 2013).
In fact, academics across the social sciences failed to predict the ‘Arab Spring’, did not predict and misanalysed its collapse and the consequences of the collapse in Turkey and beyond. Nevertheless, some scholars assert that predicting the time of, or even occurrence of revolution is beyond the
19
scope of social science (Goodwin 2011; Gregory et al. 2014; Kuran 1995). Rather, social science is limited to analysing where revolt is more likely to occur and the reasons for said revolt (Goodwin 2011). Due to the increasing popularity of the liberal internationalist paradigm there has been a fixation within the academy on regime types, democratization and institutional reform in which other indicators of political, social and economic change were ignored (Howard and Walters 2014). These critics argue that for researchers to redeem themselves, future projects should employ broader research agendas (Howard and Walters 2014).
This thesis takes the approach that rather than stating the presence of scientific barriers to the realm of social science, there needs to be an ontological shift in the method of enquiry. The ontological basis of both realist and liberal internationalist approaches has been under growing criticism as constructivist approaches grow more popular (Howard and Walters 2014). The realist approach in IR research has led to a failure of the integration of domestic politics in the study of how states interact. The Washington Consensus liberal internationalist approach of those close to the policy- making community has been prevalent in political science. As such, it has failed to take into consideration local and regional power dynamics. Others argue that the tensions between the above two schools of thought are what has shaped the failure (Shelley 2011). Thus, the approach of this thesis is
20
that an ontological shift to constructivism has the potential to redeem the discipline and truly analyse inter and intra state dynamics.
The influence that ideas, norms and rules have over states’ identities and interests can provide a wider picture of current global affairs than traditional realist IR’s realpolitik (Hartmann 2013). Realism does not consider the role of non-state actors or determining factors other than self-interest in analysing the outcomes and trajectory of international politics13
. Constructivism presents a way of understanding IR that incorporates social forces into the study of global politics; offers a fresh perspective on anarchy, change and power in the international system, and situates state identity at the forefront of studies (Hopf 1998). Political reproduction is key to the constructivist approach; a state’s response to an international event may reproduce its identity or reinforce it (Hopf 1998). Hopf (1998: 173) explains how the study of behaviour is possible only within an intersubjective social context:
“Actors develop their relations with, and understandings of, others through the media of norms and practices. In the absence of norms, exercises of power, or actions, would be devoid of meaning. Constitutive norms define an identity by specifying the actions that will cause others to recognize that identity and respond to it appropriately.
13
A realist approach downplays the role of religion, culture and identity in foreign policy, “States, no matter their culture or religious heritage, face the same security dilemma in the form of threats because of power and geography... Religion in any form has little impact on the security dilemma and states responses to that dilemma.”(Sadik, 2012: 297) Neorealists elaborate this argument, “States consider themselves secure not necessarily when they have improved relations with their neighbours with religious affinity, but “when they have enough relative power to deter, pre-empt, or defend against threats to their survival or relative power position.” (Sadik, 2012: 297)
21
Since structure is meaningless without some intersubjective set of norms and practices, anarchy, mainstream international relations theory’s most crucial structural component, is meaningless.”
This explains how norms and practices dictate the character of anarchy within the international system.
Constructivism therefore treats the identities of states as changeable and reliant on sociohistorical and cultural factors. This offers much more context than a realist approach that defines states as simply self-interested, and nothing more (Hopf 1998). Identities create a sense of normality and predictability within the international system due to the preferences that they imply according to the characteristics an actor purposes to identify with. Thereby, daily social exchange reproduces identity within an intersubjective system (Hopf 1998). Although, an actor’s agency only goes so far, as they are not able to manage how their identity is perceived by other actors. A constructivist approach does not deny the realist tenets of the anarchic nature of the international system, nor the structural qualities of the international system that neo-realists purport. Constructivism in fact expands these concepts to provide a framework for understanding that is relevant to today’s globalized geopolitics. A constructivist paradigm, therefore, can open a wide variety of decisions and actions for analysis (Hopf 1998).
An important point of deliberation for scholars of both IR and Middle Eastern studies is how the revolutionary wave of action during the Arab ‘spring’ dominoed from one country to the next. Weyland (2012) explains that a
22
constructivist ontology using norms and values can clarify how the success of one uprising, and the ideals that came about from it such as anti- authoritarianism and the empowerment of the masses, spread from one setting to another. Yet, this approach does not explain the temporal issues regarding the speed of the spread of the protests. Also, the predating value systems within the various states that experienced uprisings were far from homogeneous to start with which creates further problems for analysis. Weyland (2012) explains how in laic more progressive countries such as Tunisia, the population was more predisposed to democracy and liberalism than in more conservative countries such as Yemen. Here, constructivism fails to explain ‘the tight clustering of protests and uprisings’ and the applicability of value change to enact political change in such a short amount of time across the Arab region (Weyland 2012).
A constructivist study needs to be supplemented with additional ontological approaches to explain complex dynamics. At the interchange of domestic and international politics, domestic politics has continued to play a less significant role in IR which has been dominated by foreign policy analysis, diplomacy and realpolitik. A discipline superior in the comprehension of the importance of domestic politics in global contexts is historical sociology, which when accompanied by constructivism can lead to radical analysis and begin to fill the gaps that constructivism leaves behind (Hall 1999).
23
Historical sociology studies social relations as both causal and parallel phenomena to IR. This means that the domestic and international political realms are merged, which can offer depth to constructivist studies (Shaw 2013). Historical sociology emphasizes institutions and social order as clear pillars and flags for scholars to follow in the historical analysis of agency and change. Lawson, (2006: 39) emphasizes that this will only be successful if these institutions are, “understood beyond the straightjacket afforded to them by mainstream IR theory.”
Historical sociology's multilinear and dynamic ontology of change lends a weightier role to the agency of actors (Lawson 2006). Allowing for a greater awareness of the unexpected as the norm, this focus can remove the bias of ideological predictions that have dominated IR in the last fifty years. Lawson (2006: 38) explains that this broader research agenda can examine,
“the production, reproduction, reform, and recasting of primary and derivative institutions which flow out of, and which form, particular structural conjunctures; the relationship between initial choices, developmental paths, critical junctures, and transformation in issues as varied as state formation and systems change; and investigation of the forces that act as principia media in driving macro-level processes of social change.”
This breakdown of social processes of change is valuable for a constructivist approach which is based on an intersubjective social context.
Scholars and practitioners of IR have failed to provide thorough or sound analysis of the geopolitics of the Middle East in the past few years, especially regarding the Arab ‘Spring’. Realism and liberal internationalism have not
24
offered a viable logic of analysis for a region with such diverse and trans- border identities and interests. A constructivist approach that can incorporate the role of domestic politics and the institutionalization of domestic identities (as offered by historical sociology), in turn with their transnational character, may have the potential to redeem IR.