Objectivity, reaching for the unattainable

This part of the chapter 2 looks at how the objectivity of the research is affected by various issues. Hence, the section strives to interpret the voices of criticism, not in effort to silence them but rather to acknowledge the limitations we each bring with us. Social constructivism puts a lot of weight in the use of language. Language can be seen to construct reality and is in a very important role in how we define ourselves and our surroundings.²⁹¹ This is why it is

287 Jokinen & Juhila & Suoninen (1993), pp. 32–33. Jokinen, Juhila and Suoninen use Dorothy Smith’s (1990) example of an analysis of an insanity as an example how cultural context affects deductions and conclusions.

288 Ayoob (1995), pp. 29–30, Tilly (1990).

289 Jones (2013), pp. 49–52.

290Ibid., Buzan and Hansen (2009), p. 244. Construction of the Western Self as superior, strong and civilized is typical.

291 Buzan and Hansen (2009), p. 33. ‘Discursive approaches’ argue that security is not definable objectively.

considered to be ‘a key stone of social constructivism’.²⁹² The power of language is seen in the concepts we use, the cultural background we exhibit, and in the norms of the society.²⁹³ Because I am of Finnish background, I am also a product of that society. This means I have inherited all of its linguistics, concepts, and cultural implications. It positions me in a certain way when I’m reading literature in English and transcribe it into text. Moreover, it affects the concepts and texts without my knowledge. I am not a native speaker of English, nor have I the cultural and societal background of those who have written the material I study.²⁹⁴ This is something I cannot change but it is something I must take note of.

Furthermore, the context in where concepts are used defines them. It leads to the fact that same concepts are found in different connections with different meanings. Therefore, the meaning of concepts varies due to ontological, theoretical, epistemological and methodological positioning. They are also affected by cultural and social context.²⁹⁵ This comes quite visible in the following chapter where the concept of failing state is defined. The DA methodology and intersubjective and intertextual interpretation can cause its own variance. This happens, since every time a text is read there’s a possibility that that reading differs from the previous one. Hence, the information can change with consecutive readings.

This is something that one cannot change (for example compared to statistical empiricism), but it have to be taken into consideration. There are also several points that should be noted in regards to cultural views, norms and values.

First, as a Finn I represent a Western cultural–normative background with the adjoining historical–ethical baggage. This applies also to the theoretical base of the study since the state system, IR, and the current concept of security originate from Western view.²⁹⁶ This puts me into a position where everything I see and experience is through a set of specific ‘glasses’.

This is bound to affect both the analysis as well the conclusions of the research.²⁹⁷ A person with an Asian or African background would probably draw different conclusion and interpretation from the same material. This is something to be aware of and to accept the fact

292 Burr (1995), pp. 32–33.

293Ayoob (1995), pp. 3–7. All of the concepts and definitions associated with state, security, international relations, state failure (with its analogies) are heavily colored by Western view due their origins.

294 Burr (1995), p. 37. Vivien Burr argues that, ’the concepts we operate with are tied in with the kind of society we live in’. Thus, they are not arbitrary and they do not exist ‘out there’ for us to attach arbitrary labels.

Therefore our conceptualization is the product of our society.

295 Takala & Lämsä (2001), p. 383.

296 Ayoob (1995), pp. 6–11, Buzan and Hansen (2009), p. 19.

297 Sipilä & Koivula (2013), p. 15. According to them, voiced and unvoiced theoretical assumptions create our subjectivity. Therefore, researcher’s cultural–normative background can be seen to create our subjectivity.

that there cannot be a completely value–free research.²⁹⁸ Second, this research does not have a hypothesis as such as. Instead it has a solid theoretical basis from which it strives to find new viewpoints on the chosen subject. Moreover, the lack of hypothesis can be seen to improve on the objectivity of the research. This is because there is no need to prove anything absolutely true or false, but to open new ways of looking at the phenomenon.²⁹⁹ This positioning makes the theory of the research as means to analyze primary and secondary material from a specific, explicit, viewpoint.³⁰⁰ This explicit viewpoint is created with Constructivism, Poststructuralism and Securitization theories, which leaves out other theories.

Third, quantitative research can provide additional objectivity by providing supporting or critical empiric data. However, because of the chosen theories and methods its use should be carefully considered. Fourth, material of the research consists of official documents and academic source material. Official documents (the NSS’) have validity since they are prepared by a wide board of experts and politicians and are approved at the highest level of the government (president). However, the weaknesses of these documents are their heavy subjective nature which comes from the fact that they represent power (of the state). In them are embedded the motives and aspirations of those who have drafted them as well as the identity and interests of the state. Regardless, they are concrete decisions that have real world consequences and thus a valid source. Academic literature and articles strive by their very definition to be objective. Therefore, they retain a smaller amount of subjectivity than the official governmental documents but still have the same cultural–normative variance mentioned earlier. Peer review and cross–referencing in them also greatly increases the validity of a given study or article.

Finally, it should be remembered that all observation and conclusion of a given research are tied to the theory being used. Therefore no research can ever uncover the ‘absolute truth’.

As Aki–Mauri Huhtinen puts it, ‘absolute observation is possible only for a rock because it cannot choose the object of its action, environment, or create its own world.’ ³⁰¹

298 As noted, there are criticism directed toward Western notion of the conceptualization of state failure discourse and accusations of ahistorical and Eurocentric positioning.

299 Jari Eskola & Juha Suoranta (1998), Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen, p. 20. Qualitative research can test theories and see how it behaves even though there is no cause–relation.

300 Alasuutari (1993), p. 61.

301 Huhtinen (2002), p. 19. Huhtinen by this example reiterates the fact that living things cannot possess absolutely objective observation, and they cannot step outside their environment to observe reality. Thus, living things always create their own world and observations.

3 THE PARADIGM OF FAILING STATES DISCOURSE

–Ad fontes

The previous chapter defined the theoretical and epistemological grounds of this research. It showed the process of securitization and the significance of the speech act. Addition to this, methodological issues where addressed and the use of DA was defined. Moreover, the chapter also brought up counter arguments, criticism and the limitations of this research. This chapter takes a look in to the historical background of the modern state and ends in with conceptualizing and defining failing state. In order to analyze the securitization of failing states it is critical to understand the definition of what a state is. This is because concept and definition of the state affects the analysis of the primary material.

Buzan and Hansen argue that ‘understanding the state is crucial if one is to debate about the state as the referent object of security’, since questions of security ‘evolve around the status of the state’³⁰² Therefore, the concept of state has to be addressed, before analysis of the NSS.

This is because the analysis of the NSS documents relies on understanding how the concept of the state affects the discourse on FS. Furthermore, Sonali Huria argues that ‘the concept of the state is central, since the discourse on the state failure is inescapably tied on the idea of statehood’.³⁰³

Therefore, IOT adequately define and understand state failure one must take a look how the state was perceived in the West. This can be done by looking at sovereignty, identity and the system of states. Western norms are the dominant defining factor on the background of the whole international system and the recognition of other states has this normative element embedded to it.³⁰⁴ Conceptualizing and defining failing states through the origins of the Western state acts as a prelude for the analysis of the NSS in chapter 4. The Western view is ever present in the various definitions of state failure. Hence, it also affects the securitization of the failing states in the NSS documents.

302 Buzan and Hansen (2009), p. 22.

303 Huria (2008), p. 1. Nay (2013), p. 328. Nay argues that in the early 2000s ‘there were no critical academic studies looking at the underlying issues’ of the new policy debate in regards to failed and fragile states. This was problematic since it had already started to affect U.S. foreign policy. It was ‘after 2005 that some academics started to stress the conceptual limitations’.

304 Holm (1998), pp. 2–3. Holm argues that state weakness is a result of states system’s foundation and having a confrontation between principles of sovereignty and power. Moreover, he refers to Martha Finnemore, RBJ Walker and Herbert Wight in that all states are evaluated and legitimized through the norms of the dominant states. Thus weak states are the consequence of how the system has been constituted.