In Alexander Wendt's "Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics", he comments that "a state may have multiple identities... the commitment to and the salience of particular identities vary, but each identity is an inherently social definition of the actor grounded in the theories which actors collectively hold about themselves and one another and which constitute the structure of the social world." (p.398)
Aside from being a mouthful, this segment of the article stuck with me as I continued with the other asynchronous material. It's a very interesting concept - how an actors identity can shape their interests and actions. I can see identity playing a role in Agency and Structure, with varying identities allowing for more agency or more structure. But I also have been thinking about the roll an actor's identity can play in the 2x2, and how the change in identity could result in a change what box the actor is in.
Take the US for example. We have many identities, with some more pronounced at times than others.
Over the past 2 years, our "identity" has shifted drastically. Under the new administration, our nation as an actor identifies much more nationalistic and self-centered than we did under Obama. Additionally, outside actors have seen us in a much more negative light and identifying us as much more difficult to work with and harder to read. I think this change in identity has seen our country move more toward the Autonomous + Impermeable box than we were under Obama.
In class this week, I hope that we discuss more the role of identity in shaping an actors motivations and placement in the 2x2, as well as how an actor's identity can influence a potential pathway to change.
Source: Alexander Wendt. (Spring, 1992.) "Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics." International Organization, Vol. 46. No. 2. Published by The MIT Press.
When studying the dreaded 2x2 for this module, including in class, I was all kinds of confused. Now that I have a better understanding of what actors/actions would fit in each of the boxes, in relation to this module's readings, I can finally make sense of the articles. I think it is an interesting point that you make about the United States moving into the upper left box of autonomous x impermeable. I believe it can be argued that as a country, our international interests have changed, as well as some of our ideas on how to engage with other countries. However, after doing the module three activity, I do not believe it is as easy to move to another box on the 2x2. Instead, I would argue that there are different levels to each of the boxes, ranging from the moderate end of actors and states, to the extreme end. I feel as though the idea of looking at actors in each box in terms of moderate to extreme, better allows for the difference in possibilities even within one of the boxes.
ReplyDelete