Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00108367221134863
This is a proposed special issue devoted to the research programme on multiplicity as initiated by Justin Rosenberg. The submission includes 10 articles in addition to an introduction. One of the big strengths of this set of articles is the width of themes and subfields. They illustrate well the relevance of the key analytical ideas of ‘multiplicity’ to diverse areas and thereby support the central claim that this can serve as a new unifying frame for IR. At the same time, the width is promising in terms of gathering critical insights to help the programme develop. However, the articles do not fully deliver on this yet in their present state. Two main weaknesses account for this: first the articles are generally too uncritical, often satisfied by showing the possibility of applying Rosenberg’s terms to their case (either ‘multiplicity’ as such or its ‘five consequences’) without sufficiently exploring what their study adds to a programme that is still in a formative period. (My comment decidedly does not imply that every article should overstate conclusions about what is ‘wrong’ or ‘missing’ in the approach under investigation, as too often has become the standard article format, but they should be more ambitious in drawing out lessons about how to develop, refine and extend the approach.) Second the alleged angle of the special issue, ‘the problematique of difference’, disappears from sight in most of the articles. It is from the start an ambiguous angle taken, because it is unclear whether it is meant as emphasizing a quality with the multiplicity programme or as an intervention in relation to it. Possibly, this is a productive ambiguity, but in any case the ‘problematique of difference’ has to be brought out more clearly in the whole collection. I will comment in most detail on the introduction, both because it is the one that needs to be clarified to carry the rationale of the issue and because many of the comments here are relevant to several of the other articles. The comments come in a maybe slightly unconventional ‘discussing’ format. I do not want to take (only) a judgmental position as ‘referee’ and point thumbs up or down, because I fundamentally find the project promising but want to push the contributors to develop their arguments further and be more respectful of existing literatures. Thus, my comments are on most points intended not to shoot down but to stimulate.
{"title":"Review of special issue on ‘IR, multiplicity and the problematique of difference’","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/00108367221134863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221134863","url":null,"abstract":"This is a proposed special issue devoted to the research programme on multiplicity as initiated by Justin Rosenberg. The submission includes 10 articles in addition to an introduction. One of the big strengths of this set of articles is the width of themes and subfields. They illustrate well the relevance of the key analytical ideas of ‘multiplicity’ to diverse areas and thereby support the central claim that this can serve as a new unifying frame for IR. At the same time, the width is promising in terms of gathering critical insights to help the programme develop. However, the articles do not fully deliver on this yet in their present state. Two main weaknesses account for this: first the articles are generally too uncritical, often satisfied by showing the possibility of applying Rosenberg’s terms to their case (either ‘multiplicity’ as such or its ‘five consequences’) without sufficiently exploring what their study adds to a programme that is still in a formative period. (My comment decidedly does not imply that every article should overstate conclusions about what is ‘wrong’ or ‘missing’ in the approach under investigation, as too often has become the standard article format, but they should be more ambitious in drawing out lessons about how to develop, refine and extend the approach.) Second the alleged angle of the special issue, ‘the problematique of difference’, disappears from sight in most of the articles. It is from the start an ambiguous angle taken, because it is unclear whether it is meant as emphasizing a quality with the multiplicity programme or as an intervention in relation to it. Possibly, this is a productive ambiguity, but in any case the ‘problematique of difference’ has to be brought out more clearly in the whole collection. I will comment in most detail on the introduction, both because it is the one that needs to be clarified to carry the rationale of the issue and because many of the comments here are relevant to several of the other articles. The comments come in a maybe slightly unconventional ‘discussing’ format. I do not want to take (only) a judgmental position as ‘referee’ and point thumbs up or down, because I fundamentally find the project promising but want to push the contributors to develop their arguments further and be more respectful of existing literatures. Thus, my comments are on most points intended not to shoot down but to stimulate.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"57 1","pages":"402 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47032606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00108367221098490
J. Rosenberg, Benjamin Tallis
This text introduces the Special Issue on Multiplicity. It sets out the broad research programme of Multiplicity, considers some criticisms that have been made of this programme and then summarises the contributions to the Special Issue.
{"title":"Introduction: The international of everything","authors":"J. Rosenberg, Benjamin Tallis","doi":"10.1177/00108367221098490","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098490","url":null,"abstract":"This text introduces the Special Issue on Multiplicity. It sets out the broad research programme of Multiplicity, considers some criticisms that have been made of this programme and then summarises the contributions to the Special Issue.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"57 1","pages":"250 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49073632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00108367221132074
A. Björkdahl, T. Svensson
{"title":"Editors’ note on the Best Review Prize 2022","authors":"A. Björkdahl, T. Svensson","doi":"10.1177/00108367221132074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221132074","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"57 1","pages":"249 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47465498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00108367221098493
Nicholas Lees
In many circumstances where multiple, autonomous actors exist, cooperation is only a viable strategy if other actors also pursue a strategy of cooperation. Such situations can be characterised in terms of the Stag Hunt, based on a parable told by Rousseau. Although traditionally interpreted as a device for understanding how mutually beneficial cooperation can emerge, Harrison Wagner points out that would-be exploiters must overcome similar problems to succeed at subjugating others. Successful cooperation may have the ironic consequence of enabling deeper conflict within and between a multiplicity of societies. Despite its canonical status, the importance of the Stag Hunt for understanding the interaction between multiple societies may have been underestimated. Nonetheless, rational choice theory alone cannot explain how cooperation-for-predation became established, while historical sociology’s conventional ‘materialist metanarrative’ of the origin of war and the state may have unduly neglected the role of gender relations. The phenomenon of men’s secret societies, found in many stateless societies, indicates that fraternal solidarity within coalitions of men competing to control women’s labour and bodies may provide a path to the nucleation of warlike states. If this is correct, it becomes clear that in many societies, men and women experience multiplicity in qualitatively different ways.
{"title":"Of Stag Hunts and secret societies: Cooperation, male coalitions and the origins of multiplicity","authors":"Nicholas Lees","doi":"10.1177/00108367221098493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098493","url":null,"abstract":"In many circumstances where multiple, autonomous actors exist, cooperation is only a viable strategy if other actors also pursue a strategy of cooperation. Such situations can be characterised in terms of the Stag Hunt, based on a parable told by Rousseau. Although traditionally interpreted as a device for understanding how mutually beneficial cooperation can emerge, Harrison Wagner points out that would-be exploiters must overcome similar problems to succeed at subjugating others. Successful cooperation may have the ironic consequence of enabling deeper conflict within and between a multiplicity of societies. Despite its canonical status, the importance of the Stag Hunt for understanding the interaction between multiple societies may have been underestimated. Nonetheless, rational choice theory alone cannot explain how cooperation-for-predation became established, while historical sociology’s conventional ‘materialist metanarrative’ of the origin of war and the state may have unduly neglected the role of gender relations. The phenomenon of men’s secret societies, found in many stateless societies, indicates that fraternal solidarity within coalitions of men competing to control women’s labour and bodies may provide a path to the nucleation of warlike states. If this is correct, it becomes clear that in many societies, men and women experience multiplicity in qualitatively different ways.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"57 1","pages":"367 - 383"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44311030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-19DOI: 10.1177/00108367221103494
Kristin Haugevik
This article makes the case for integrating informal, social and minilateral dynamics in analyses of ‘differentiated integration’ in the European Union (EU) context. In EU studies, differentiated integration has mainly served as an analytical lens for studying variation in states’ degree of formalized commitment to the European integration project or in organizational decision-making procedures across policy areas. While this focus has generated important analytical and empirical insights, three dimensions tend to be lost when limiting the study of differentiated integration to negotiated outcomes manifest in legal documents and decision-making procedures. First, informal processes of integration precede and concur with formal ones. Second, European integration is an inherently social process, and member states integrate with the EU identity-building project in different ways and to different degrees. Third, member states enjoy heterogeneous social ties with one another, routinely forming informal bi- and minilateral coalitions in everyday decision-shaping processes. More knowledge about these informal and social dynamics can give us a better understanding of how differentiated integration manifests itself in practice and where the European integration process is heading. The theoretical argument is buttressed by data from the 2020 European Council of Foreign Relations’ ‘Coalition Explorer’ survey, showing how partner preferences within the EU continue to reflect stable social sub-orders.
{"title":"United clubs of Europe: Informal differentiation and the social ordering of intra-EU diplomacy","authors":"Kristin Haugevik","doi":"10.1177/00108367221103494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221103494","url":null,"abstract":"This article makes the case for integrating informal, social and minilateral dynamics in analyses of ‘differentiated integration’ in the European Union (EU) context. In EU studies, differentiated integration has mainly served as an analytical lens for studying variation in states’ degree of formalized commitment to the European integration project or in organizational decision-making procedures across policy areas. While this focus has generated important analytical and empirical insights, three dimensions tend to be lost when limiting the study of differentiated integration to negotiated outcomes manifest in legal documents and decision-making procedures. First, informal processes of integration precede and concur with formal ones. Second, European integration is an inherently social process, and member states integrate with the EU identity-building project in different ways and to different degrees. Third, member states enjoy heterogeneous social ties with one another, routinely forming informal bi- and minilateral coalitions in everyday decision-shaping processes. More knowledge about these informal and social dynamics can give us a better understanding of how differentiated integration manifests itself in practice and where the European integration process is heading. The theoretical argument is buttressed by data from the 2020 European Council of Foreign Relations’ ‘Coalition Explorer’ survey, showing how partner preferences within the EU continue to reflect stable social sub-orders.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"58 1","pages":"374 - 392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48287098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-10DOI: 10.1177/00108367221098494
Daniel Sobelman
Although coercion literature has traditionally focused on two-actor dyads, coercion in three-actor settings is a prevalent yet understudied strategy in International Relations. Such cases of “triangular coercion” represent a phenomenon whereby a coercer who lacks direct leverage over a resilient target coerces a third party who does possess leverage over the target, and to whom the target is vulnerable, and manipulates it into a clash of interests with the target. By forcing an otherwise uninvolved intermediary to align with the coercer, a coercer can alter the balance of vulnerability vis-à-vis its otherwise resilient target and enhance its susceptibility to coercion, albeit by extension. Existing scholarship tackles triangular coercion from different angles and mostly focuses on actor typology. This article seeks to promote our understanding of this strategy by proposing a conceptual model that distills its logic into the abstract components of vulnerability, resilience, and leverage. To demonstrate the dynamics of triangular coercion, the article draws on three empirical cases: Israel’s failed attempts to force Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah in the 1990s, Nazi Germany’s successful manipulation of Britain and France into coercing Czechoslovakia in 1938, and the Soviet Union’s success at forcing the United States to coerce Israel in 1973.
{"title":"Re-conceptualizing triangular coercion in International Relations","authors":"Daniel Sobelman","doi":"10.1177/00108367221098494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098494","url":null,"abstract":"Although coercion literature has traditionally focused on two-actor dyads, coercion in three-actor settings is a prevalent yet understudied strategy in International Relations. Such cases of “triangular coercion” represent a phenomenon whereby a coercer who lacks direct leverage over a resilient target coerces a third party who does possess leverage over the target, and to whom the target is vulnerable, and manipulates it into a clash of interests with the target. By forcing an otherwise uninvolved intermediary to align with the coercer, a coercer can alter the balance of vulnerability vis-à-vis its otherwise resilient target and enhance its susceptibility to coercion, albeit by extension. Existing scholarship tackles triangular coercion from different angles and mostly focuses on actor typology. This article seeks to promote our understanding of this strategy by proposing a conceptual model that distills its logic into the abstract components of vulnerability, resilience, and leverage. To demonstrate the dynamics of triangular coercion, the article draws on three empirical cases: Israel’s failed attempts to force Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah in the 1990s, Nazi Germany’s successful manipulation of Britain and France into coercing Czechoslovakia in 1938, and the Soviet Union’s success at forcing the United States to coerce Israel in 1973.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"58 1","pages":"356 - 373"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44611765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-02DOI: 10.1177/00108367221098497
A. Wiener
This article discusses the societal multiplicity proposition as a welcome conceptual proposition for IR. First, it argues that against the background of the discipline’s trajectory and especially Adler’s call for a turn towards ‘the social’ in the 1990s, Rosenberg’s proposition offers a nudge towards scrutinising concepts for a more concise and systematic appreciation of societal multiplicity as a source of knowledge production in a globalised world. Second, this is illustrated with reference to the challenge of building global governance from below as the international liberal order stands contested and alliances are re-negotiated. Third, it demonstrates why during this period of global change it is key to diversify sources of meaning-making and the conceptual categories to reflect this diversification. And fourth, it turns to practices of contestation as drivers of inter-societal negotiations that target both established fundamental norms of global governance (e.g. the rule of law, human rights, and democracy) and more recently, negotiated fundamental norms (e.g. climate justice, gender justice, or intergenerational justice). The article concludes that a conceptual shift from the agency of states and their representatives as carriers of knowledge and mediators of normative change towards engaging societal agency represents a welcome contribution.
{"title":"Societal multiplicity for international relations: Engaging societal interaction in building global governance from below","authors":"A. Wiener","doi":"10.1177/00108367221098497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098497","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the societal multiplicity proposition as a welcome conceptual proposition for IR. First, it argues that against the background of the discipline’s trajectory and especially Adler’s call for a turn towards ‘the social’ in the 1990s, Rosenberg’s proposition offers a nudge towards scrutinising concepts for a more concise and systematic appreciation of societal multiplicity as a source of knowledge production in a globalised world. Second, this is illustrated with reference to the challenge of building global governance from below as the international liberal order stands contested and alliances are re-negotiated. Third, it demonstrates why during this period of global change it is key to diversify sources of meaning-making and the conceptual categories to reflect this diversification. And fourth, it turns to practices of contestation as drivers of inter-societal negotiations that target both established fundamental norms of global governance (e.g. the rule of law, human rights, and democracy) and more recently, negotiated fundamental norms (e.g. climate justice, gender justice, or intergenerational justice). The article concludes that a conceptual shift from the agency of states and their representatives as carriers of knowledge and mediators of normative change towards engaging societal agency represents a welcome contribution.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"57 1","pages":"348 - 366"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43823496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00108367221113459
Jan Karlas
In the last 40 years, the international community has made considerable progress towards the regulation of inhumane conventional weapons (ICWs) by adopting treaties that regulate or ban these weapons. However, many states have still not joined these treaties or have joined them with a considerable delay. These ratification decisions cannot be satisfactorily explained by the existing literature on the origin of ICW treaties, which stress the role of global socialization processes. This article offers a theoretical argument that explains state decisions on the ratification of ICW treaties. It argues that while democracies and countries located in regions with high ratification rates are prone to ratify ICW treaties, an insecure external environment impedes or delays ratification. The argument also claims that security costs resulting from the characteristics of the individual treaties can modify the effects of these explanatory factors. To provide an empirical test for the argument, the article conducts a survival analysis that covers the ratification processes of the three existing ICW treaties.
{"title":"State commitments and inhumane conventional weapons: An explanatory analysis of treaty ratification","authors":"Jan Karlas","doi":"10.1177/00108367221113459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221113459","url":null,"abstract":"In the last 40 years, the international community has made considerable progress towards the regulation of inhumane conventional weapons (ICWs) by adopting treaties that regulate or ban these weapons. However, many states have still not joined these treaties or have joined them with a considerable delay. These ratification decisions cannot be satisfactorily explained by the existing literature on the origin of ICW treaties, which stress the role of global socialization processes. This article offers a theoretical argument that explains state decisions on the ratification of ICW treaties. It argues that while democracies and countries located in regions with high ratification rates are prone to ratify ICW treaties, an insecure external environment impedes or delays ratification. The argument also claims that security costs resulting from the characteristics of the individual treaties can modify the effects of these explanatory factors. To provide an empirical test for the argument, the article conducts a survival analysis that covers the ratification processes of the three existing ICW treaties.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"58 1","pages":"335 - 355"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49587910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00108367221098495
Christian Scheper
Human rights in global value chains have become a key field of study in international law and corporate governance. The analysis often starts with a gap – a ‘governance gap’ in human rights protection. This pragmatic starting point calls for pragmatic solutions: better corporate compliance and more accountability. While this goes a long way in addressing corporate misconduct, the global corporate form, its power and legitimation in transnationally generating and appropriating value tend to become naturalized phenomena. Moreover, the effects of accountability agendas on corporate power and legitimation are hardly considered. Instead, I propose to address the ‘human rights problem’ by understanding the corporation and its networks as consequences of international politics – conceptualized as inter-societal multiplicity. The multiplicity lens offers a possibility to replace the governance gap with a productive conception of inter-societal conditions and can complement the focus on accountability and compliance. I conclude the article by tentatively sketching three important consequences of such a starting point for defining the problem of human rights in global value chains: the international dimensions of the division of labour under competitive conditions, the legitimation of corporate practices and the production of knowledge for their regulation.
{"title":"Multiplicity, the corporation and human rights in global value chains","authors":"Christian Scheper","doi":"10.1177/00108367221098495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098495","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights in global value chains have become a key field of study in international law and corporate governance. The analysis often starts with a gap – a ‘governance gap’ in human rights protection. This pragmatic starting point calls for pragmatic solutions: better corporate compliance and more accountability. While this goes a long way in addressing corporate misconduct, the global corporate form, its power and legitimation in transnationally generating and appropriating value tend to become naturalized phenomena. Moreover, the effects of accountability agendas on corporate power and legitimation are hardly considered. Instead, I propose to address the ‘human rights problem’ by understanding the corporation and its networks as consequences of international politics – conceptualized as inter-societal multiplicity. The multiplicity lens offers a possibility to replace the governance gap with a productive conception of inter-societal conditions and can complement the focus on accountability and compliance. I conclude the article by tentatively sketching three important consequences of such a starting point for defining the problem of human rights in global value chains: the international dimensions of the division of labour under competitive conditions, the legitimation of corporate practices and the production of knowledge for their regulation.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"57 1","pages":"329 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45019604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-23DOI: 10.1177/00108367221110675
Linus Hagström, Charlotte Wagnsson, Magnus Lundström
‘Othering’ – the view or treatment of another person or group as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself – is a central concept in the International Relations literature on identity construction. It is often portrayed as a fairly singular and predominantly negative form of self/Other differentiation. During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden at first glance emerged as exactly such a negative Other. This article problematises such a view of Othering. Departing from a narrative analysis of news reporting on Sweden’s management of COVID-19 in the United States, Germany and the Nordic states, the article proposes an ideal type model with four forms of Othering – emotional, strategic, analytic and nuanced – not recognised in previous research. These types differ in their treatment of the Other as more or less significant and in involving a more or less self-reflexive construction of the self. Although narratives in all these settings drew on previously established narratives on Sweden, they followed different logics. This has implications for our understanding of Sweden as an Other in the time of COVID-19, as well as of self/Other relations in International Relations more broadly.
{"title":"Logics of Othering: Sweden as Other in the time of COVID-19","authors":"Linus Hagström, Charlotte Wagnsson, Magnus Lundström","doi":"10.1177/00108367221110675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221110675","url":null,"abstract":"‘Othering’ – the view or treatment of another person or group as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself – is a central concept in the International Relations literature on identity construction. It is often portrayed as a fairly singular and predominantly negative form of self/Other differentiation. During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden at first glance emerged as exactly such a negative Other. This article problematises such a view of Othering. Departing from a narrative analysis of news reporting on Sweden’s management of COVID-19 in the United States, Germany and the Nordic states, the article proposes an ideal type model with four forms of Othering – emotional, strategic, analytic and nuanced – not recognised in previous research. These types differ in their treatment of the Other as more or less significant and in involving a more or less self-reflexive construction of the self. Although narratives in all these settings drew on previously established narratives on Sweden, they followed different logics. This has implications for our understanding of Sweden as an Other in the time of COVID-19, as well as of self/Other relations in International Relations more broadly.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"58 1","pages":"315 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44425598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：