Is U.S. identity founded on self-constructed crises? A poststructuralist approach

Essay , 2016 , 8 Seiten

Amerikanistik - Kultur und Landeskunde

Considered the key player in global politics it does not seem surprising that international relations theory centres around the role of the United States in the international system. Following the most recent elections the world is facing a wave of insecurity with scholars and policymakers alike wondering which course the United States will take. One important tool to predict actions is the study of identity, which been neglected in traditional IR theory. Yet understanding one’s identity can provide valuable insights into the character, line of thinking and future actions. A state’s identity is intertwined with its history and the U.S. history is one of war. Over the past century there was not one major war that the United States has not been involved in. One can therefore ask if the identity of the United States is founded on conflicts which were built by the United States itself?

This essay shall apply a poststructuralist approach to this question and discuss Foucault’s ‘limit attitude’ and exclusionist thinking in relation to U.S. history and foreign policy. The author shall look at the proclaimed war on terror as one example of a conflict the United States has faced over the past years although it would go beyond the boundaries of this piece to examine the war on terror in detail. Lastly, the conclusion is drawn that U.S. identity is shaped by conflicts but it would be false to call those crises self-constructed. Instead, the particularity of U.S. history and its foundation as an immigrant state have imposed a leading role in global politics upon them to which they are trying to live up to ever since. [...]

Is U.S. identity founded on self-constructed crises? A poststructuralist approach.

Considered the key player in global politics it does not seem surprising that international relations theory centres around the role of the United States in the international system. Following the most recent elections the world is facing a wave of insecurity with scholars and policymakers alike wondering which course the United States will take. One important tool to predict actions is the study of identity, which been neglected in traditional IR theory. Yet understanding one’s identity can provide valuable insights into the character, line of thinking and future actions. A state’s identity is intertwined with its history and the U.S. history is one of war. Over the past century there was not one major war that the United States has not been involved in. One can therefore ask if the identity of the United States is founded on conflicts which were built by the United States itself?

This essay shall apply a poststructuralist approach to this question and discuss Foucault’s ‘limit attitude’ and exclusionist thinking in relation to U.S. history and foreign policy. The author shall look at the proclaimed war on terror as one example of a conflict the United States has faced over the past years although it would go beyond the boundaries of this piece to examine the war on terror in detail. Lastly, the conclusion is drawn that U.S. identity is shaped by conflicts but it would be false to call those crises self-constructed. Instead, the particularity of U.S. history and its foundation as an immigrant state have imposed a leading role in global politics upon them to which they are trying to live up to ever since. Of course there are different definitions, levels and interpretations of the term identity but for matters of simplicity, identity shall be referred to as one entity summing up the particular character of the United States, deeply grounded in and accepted by the population, government and international community.

For poststructuralists, questions of ‘interpretation and representation, power and knowledge, and the politics of identity’ (Campbell, 2007, p.225) are essential, which makes this approach so attractive for addressing the topic in question. By considering the state’s history and political development as well as economic, religious and social aspects, this approach grants more insights than most traditional theories of International Relations. Indeed, the ‘individual human is an effect of the operations of power [around him]’ (Campbell, 2007, p.233) and therefore state identity, government and citizens are interlinked. It would be false to draw conclusions about one of them without taking into account the other two.

According to Foucault (1995), limitations are the basis for our interpretation of certain terms. The meaning of certain words, such as ‘reason’ or ‘sanity’, can only be understood by defining their counterparts ‘unreason’ and ‘insanity’. Hence it is impossible to know what is ‘good’ without defining what is considered ‘bad’ and good attributes are naturally associated with oneself. This perception ‘according to which that which is inside is deemed to be the self, good, primary, and original while the outside is the other, dangerous, secondary, and derivative’ (Campbell, 2007, p.234) is deeply grounded in U.S. foreign policy. One example is the depiction of South America in the discourse whereby the South was described as profoundly different and helpless compared to the United States to support U.S. foreign policy. Yet in reality it is almost impossible to draw clear lines between what is good and what is bad (Campbell, 1988, p.489). Exclusionist ‘us vs. them’ thinking has been an integral part of U.S. foreign policy ever since the constitution of the state, and the countless wars and conflicts America has fought over the past centuries have shaped the country profoundly. It certainly proved difficult to unite a country made up of immigrants from different backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities, and a mighty narrative associating Americans with strong, positive attributes was needed to overcome those difficulties. According to Connolly (1991), identity is often accomplished by drawing out and maligning differences until they are commonly accepted. Indeed, the United States has ‘overcome […] internal contradictions by externalising them in a highly charged differentiation with ethnic, cultural or ideological opponents’ (Fournier, 2012, p.25). Not only is exclusionist thinking founded in U.S. policy but it was also internalised by the American people and has changed the way political issues are approached in the public discourse. As Campbell (2007, p.236) wrote, the outcome of a situation depends not on the arguments but on the ability of one side to narrow down those arguments into clear and simple slogans. Ultimately this has brutalised the discourse and culminated in socially acceptable populism dominating most political debates of which the current president-elect Donald Trump is only the latest outcome.

It ‘takes a crisis to bring self-consciousness to an individual as well as to an era’ (Der Derian, 2003, p.443) and the same could be said about a whole state. One consistent feature throughout the history of the United States are conflicts and their strategical use by the government (Ibid.). This also has economic reasons. According to Merlingen (2006, p.183), western democracies are ‘directed towards the health, wealth and happiness of populations’ and this inevitably involves economy.

Politics and war are closely linked, even at times of peace (Philp, 1983, p.38) and wars have often been fought for economic reasons, not only to gain or maintain access to important resources but simply because the military is a highly profitable economic sector. The ‘feedback loop between military and civilian technology’ (Der Derian, 2000, p.787) is becoming smaller and smaller if not non-existing and military equipment and technologies quickly find their way into everyday life, hence the public directly benefits from the military. This leads to the notion that death is of similar importance as is life in in modern economy (Dillon and Lobo-Guerrero, 2008, p.289). Considering the controversial gun laws in the United States as well as the widely known deficiencies of the prison and justice system the question arises if the state’s obsession with conflicts and security is reflected in a public desire for the very same thing. After all, the modern human is ‘an historical achievement’ (Campbell, 2007, p.233) and the history of the United States is one of war. One might even say, ‘for America, there are only two kinds of years, the war years and the interwar years’ (Will, 2001, p.70). Furthermore, the promotion of peace and democracy on an international level creates a flourishing environment for the United States to prosper with new trading partners and potential political allies (Weldes, 1999, p.42).

When Soviet missiles were deployed in Cuba in 1962, the incident was immediately treated as a crisis by U.S. officials and this notion was accepted in academia without further questioning although U.S. missiles in Turkey, posing a similar threat to the Soviet Union, had been in place for years without the USSR calling out a crisis. The Cuban missile crisis and its interpretations in different countries around the world highlights how crises are socially constructed and used by the government to maintain state identity (Weldes, 1999, p.37). By the end of World War II, the United States had emerged as the strong leader of the free world, as ‘global and hemispheric leader, as the bastion and defender of freedom, as strong and resolute, and as credible’ (Weldes, 1999, p.41). The United States was perceived and wanted to be perceived as ‘ deus ex machina of global politics’ (Der Derian, 2000, p.772) and Soviet missiles just outside the United States were a threat to that identity that needed to be disposed of. The question of security is one of immense importance in the discourse of crises and identity. According to Neal (2006, p.34), security issues are introduced by the state but wouldn’t exist without the approval or rejection of the public. In order to gain public approval, the population must be convinced that there really is a threat to their security and the state must therefore not just ‘secure its monopoly of the legitimate use of force […] [but] must similarly also monopolise the legitimate definition of threat’ (Dillon and Lobo-Guerrero, 2008, p.275). To put it simply, the government decides against which threats to protect its citizens.

Crises, despite all negative aspects, can be very beneficial for the state since they allow the government to increase their control over the citizens, strengthen existing institutions and establish new processes and procedures. Even protests and riots against governmental procedures can potentially be useful since the public and political aftermath ‘bring new visibilities, knowledges, techniques and identities whilst reinforcing existing practises and mentalities of government’ (Death, 2010, p.236). In many cases, the identity of the state will be strengthened after a period of conflict, which can be seen on the development of the United States after World War II. Indeed, ‘crises and state identity are mutually constituting’ (Weldes, 1999, p.59).

[...]

• Autor: Katherine Kretshmer (Autor:in)
• Erscheinungsjahr: 2016
• Seiten: 8
• Katalognummer: V378102
• ISBN (eBook): 9783668557420
• ISBN (Buch): 9783668557437
• Sprache: Englisch