The social identity of state: the structural constructivist explanation of

The social constructivist theory of IR developed by Alexander Wendt should be regarded as groundbreaking due to the challenge it posed to traditionally dominant theories. However, Wendt’s contribution to the study of identity in IR has been underestimated. As Zehfuss puts it, “[t]he conception of identity is crucial to both the constructivist move and the systemic character of Wendt’s argument, even if it is not its declared focus.”179 _{Wendt himself was well} aware that “[i]dentity formation has not been a significant concern of mainstream systemic theorists, neorealist or neoliberal.”180 _{So he attempted to address this issue. Wendt believes} that identity is socially constructed and sustained as a result of interstate relations.181 _{Identity is} not “exogenously given” contrary to the assumptions of the rationalist theories of IR.182 _In Wendt’s constructivist theory, how states “identify” themselves in relation to other states defines the very nature of international relations:

If states identify only with themselves, so to speak, the system will be anarchic. If they identify with a world state it will be hierarchical […]. And if they identify with each other, such that they have a collective identity in which each is bound to cooperate with the other, they would constitute a decentralized authority system, an “international state” that is neither

anarchy nor hierarchy.183

For Wendt, assumptions about self-help and the anarchic nature of international relations, as well as the notions such as the “normality” of war and mutual suspicion and the “exceptionality” of peace, cooperation, and trust were wrong. He rather argues that everything depends on the interplay of the identities of states. In his own words, “[w]hether or not the structure of a state’s system is anarchic is intimately tied to the distribution of state identities.”184 _{So, “if today we}

179 _{Maja Zehfuss, "Constructivism: a relentless quest for synthesis," in Constructivism and International Relations:}

Alexander Wendt and his critics, ed. Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 93.

180 _{Alexander Wendt, "Identity and Structural Change in International Politics," in The Return of Culture and Identity}

in IR Theory, ed. Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil (Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996), 48.

181 _{See, for instance, "Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics," International}

Organization 46, no. 2 (1992).;"Identity and Structural Change in International Politics."; Social Theory of International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

182 _{"Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics," 391.} 183 _{"Identity and Structural Change in International Politics," 47-48.}

find ourselves in a self-help world, this is due to process, not structure.”185 _{Overall, for Wendt} identity is too important a factor to ignore in observing international relations.

Wendt distinguished two layers of identity in states: corporate and social. Corporate identity means “intrinsic qualities that constitute actor individuality.”186 _{This includes ethnicity, race, and} gender. According to Wendt, for ordinary people, corporate identity is “the body and personal experience of consciousness,”187 _{whereas, for states, it is what motivates the need for security,} recognition, and development.188 _{The social identity of a state, in its turn, is comprised of “the} sets of meanings that an actor attributes to itself while taking the perspective of others.”189 _So, in Wendt’s theory, it is the social identity of the state, not its corporate identity, which is constructed in relation to “other”:

[Social identities] are “ontologically dependent on relations to others; for example, one cannot be an “anticommunist” if there are no communists around, nor a “balancer” if there is no one to balance. In this respect, social identities are a key link in the mutual constitution of agent and structure, embodying the terms of individuality through which corporate agents relate

to each other.190

Though Wendtian constructivism has challenged rationalist interpretations of international relations, it has some serious limitations. First, the “corporate identity” of a state is deemed as given and appears immune from international relations. For the theory to work, the corporate identity needs to be deemed as existing prior to state191 _{and international politics.}192 _Its sustainability is rather a matter of domestic politics. Most importantly, due to its “self- organizing” nature,193 _{it is of minimum interest to Wendt’s constructivist theory. Thus, social} constructivism does not apply to this layer of identity. Second, even though the “social identity” of a state is socially constructed, its “constructedness” is limited to either being power-seeking, self-minded or altruistic. To put it in Zehfuss’ words, “Wendt asks us to assume two actors, ego and alter, who then come to interact only after we have imagined them on their own.”194 _The only explanation for this limitation is that Wendt’s main concern was to demonstrate that egoism is not the only feature that identifies states. He was keen to prove that they can also be cooperative and altruist. In other words, he was overwhelmingly focused on demystifying the anarchy-driven greedy state identity. In any case, Wendt’s theory, no matter how

185 _{"Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics," 394.} 186 _{"Identity and Structural Change in International Politics," 48-49.}

187 _{Ibid., 50.} 188 _{Ibid., 51.} 189 _Ibid. 190 _Ibid. 191 _{See ibid.}

192 _{See Social Theory of International Politics, 328.}

193 _{"Identity and Structural Change in International Politics," 51.} 194 _{Zehfuss, "Constructivism: a relentless quest for synthesis," 108.}

groundbreaking it was at its time, fails to fully grasp the origins and importance of the multi- layered identities of nation-states. As the next section of the chapter shows, post-structuralist theories of IR are better equipped in this regard. As Wendt himself acknowledges, his theory is rather “essentialist” and, in comparison to post-structuralist theories, is a “somewhat weak claim.”195

1.2.The foreign as a threat to identity: a discursive understanding of international