Filosofías de mantenimiento

makers

Notwithstanding the fact that Wendt stresses several times that “domestic” politics matters and points out that states are self-organized entities which are constructed from within by the discourse practices of individuals as well as groups,212 he excludes it from his analysis

204

Ibid., 357. 205

Suganami, “Wendt, IR, and Philosophy,” 59. 206

Kratochwill, “Constructing a new orthodoxy?” 33 207

Wendt, Social Theory, 360-3 208

Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it,” 421 209

Wendt, Social Theory, 335 210

Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it,” 421 211

Wendt, Social Theory, 335 212

out of systemic concerns. However, since this study is not a systemic analysis but an attempt of foreign policy analysis which aims to analyze Turkey’s foreign policy, Wendt’s systemic approach remains insufficient to explain the reorientation of TFP. Indeed, foreign political orientation of a country is seriously influenced by a country’s political system, the dynamics inherent to competition for domestic political power as well as the changes of governments (e. g. level of democracy, participation of interest groups and civil society actors in decision making processes, and institutionalized power relations).213 Therefore, excluding domestic politics from the analysis would hinder to see the whole image and would prevent to account for the transformation in the foreign political behaviors of states.

One of the main arguments of this dissertation is that identity-based explanations offer a better understanding of states’ foreign policy behaviors. Therefore, my concentration will be on the identity and on foreign policy preferences and interests of Turkey. Yet, unlike Wendt, I do not restrict the study to the international realm with regards to the constitution processes of state identities. Wendt aims to develop a theory of the states system, not a theory of the state and therefore he treats states’ identities and interests to a certain degree exogenous to the system. Thereby, in parallel with rationalist thinking, he takes the existence of states as given.214 Here, “the state itself is treated as a ‘black box’ the internal workings of which are irrelevant to the construction of state identities and interests.”215 Hence, Wendt has explicitly bracketed state identities and interests to be explained by mutual constitution,216 that is, identities and interests of states are assumed to be formed through inter-state interaction. Consequently, “social construction at the level of individual agents, or more generally, at any domestic level is neglected.”217

However, neither the political and historical context in which national interests are shaped nor the intersubjective meanings which define state identities and interests can be limited to those meanings constructed solely in inter-state relations. Ultimately, states are, only analytically, unitary actors.218 “The meanings which objects, events and actions have for ‘states’ are necessarily the meanings they have for those individuals who act in the name of the state. And these state officials do not approach international politics with a blank slate on which meanings are written only as a result of interactions among states. Instead, they approach international politics with an already quite comprehensive and elaborate appreciation of the world, of the international system and of the place of their state within it. This appreciation, in turn, is necessarily rooted in meanings already produced, at least in part, in domestic political and cultural contexts.”219

Given the fact that foreign policy makers (individuals, institutions or domestic groups) come from varying political and cultural contexts, they will engage in different actions when faced with different situations. Culture as socially shared and transmitted ideas and beliefs has a decisive role in actors’ perceptions in the process of defining the world around them and in their actions.220

213

Asiye Öztürk, "The Domestic Context of Turkey’s Changing Foreign Policy towards the Middle East and the Caspian Region," Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Discussion Paper, (Bonn: 10/2009), 5. 214

Wendt, Social Theory, 246. 215

Jutta Weldes, “Constructing National Interests,” European Journal of International Relations 2 (1996), 280. 216

Checkel, "The Constructivist Turn," 341. 217

Ibid. 218

Weldes, "Constructing National Interests," 280. 219

Ibid. 220

In pluralistic societies, a state identity and its interests will be a product of a struggle among varying domestic groups seeking to affect the state’s foreign policy in accordance with their identity conceptions.221 Once an identity is constructed, states institutionalize it at both domestic and international levels and form the institutions to protect their identities in the domestic realm.222 Simultaneously, when the newly defined identities step in the international realm, they are shaped by the international system and as such actor behaviors are also affected by it.223

On the other hand, state identities are not constant. “They can change as a result of interaction with others due to international developments”224 Domestically, identities might transform as a result of several political developments. Firstly, “drastic political developments such as revolutions can change a state’s identity and replace it with a new one as happened in Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979.”225 Secondly, the role of domestic actors in foreign policy making (be individuals, groups or institutions) might shift as a result of domestic institutional arrangements or elections. “In this case, the foreign policy discourse can be dominated by entirely new organizations or individuals with different identity conceptions that may perceive the national interest in a different way.”226

Identities are sustained in interaction with others.227 However, depending on its nature, systemic interaction might be transformative or confirmative in relation to the already held identities. The point here is that since identities are also relevant to domestic politics, systemic interactions will be interpreted differently by varying domestic actors with different cultural backgrounds and identities, and consequently, systemic interaction will be either confirmative or transformative concerning the identity.228

In systemic interaction, “identities and interests are learned and then reinforced in response to how actors are treated by significant others.”229 This is the so called “reflected appraisals.” Accordingly, it is hypothesized that actors come to see themselves as a reflection of how they think others see or ‘appraise’ them in the ‘mirror’ of Others’ representations of the Self.”230 Here the significant others do not encompass all others; power and dependency play an important role. However, if as a result of a change in a state’s internal or external environments, a state’s identity is disconfirmed by significant others, lack of a clearly defined role may culminate with an identity crisis.231 For instance, rejection of Turkey’s bid for a full EU membership in 1997 led Turkey to an identity crisis.

Another point attracting attention is the prominent role of individuals in foreign policy making. At this point, psychological factors influencing foreign policy decisions might be complementary to the constructivist thinking. Although Wendt and more generally constructivists are not interested in the personalities of decision makers, they play a determining role in foreign policy making processes. Decisions at the highest levels of 221 Ibid. 222 Ibid. 223

Wendt, Social Theory, 21. 224

Bozdağlıoğlu, Turkish Foreign Policy, 25. 225

Ibid. 226

Ibid. 227

Wendt, Social Theory, 331. 228

Bozdağlıoğlu, Turkish Foreign Policy, 26. 229

Wendt, Social Theory, 327. 230

Ibid. 231

government are usually made either by small groups or powerful individuals. Other foreign policy determinants (such as international material or social structure or domestic balances) are mediated by the images, attitudes, values, beliefs, doctrines and ideologies of policy makers. Thus their personalities play essential role in the definition of FP.232 Here, the personality refers to a combination of agent leadership traits and perceptions that mediate the ultimate role of power and material aspects of international relations as well as the role of global norms in shaping state behavior.233 In addition to their paradigms, perceptions or images of the real world, their personal characteristics would be crucial in understanding foreign policy preferences. Especially, if the decision making occurs during a crisis or under certain conditions such as high stress and high uncertainty the impact of psychological factors would be greater.234 For example, Winston Churchill had a dominant position as a decision maker during World War II.235 Likewise, President Özal also played a dominant role during the First Gulf War who virtually dominated the TFP. PM Erdoğan’s reaction in the Davos Forum in January 2009, which will be elaborated in the next chapter, might be also associated with psychological factors. Consequently, without taking the psychological qualities of the decision makers into consideration, it would be misleading to consider the identities of the actors entirely constructed

At this stage, touching on the socialization processes of individuals, which were neglected by Wendt, would provide considerably explanatory tools to account for current TFP. In fact, it is socialization processes which render norms effective on foreign policy. In sociological terminology, ‘socialization is a process in which a person grows into the society and culture surrounding him and, by learning social norms and roles, becomes an independent, competent social being.’236 In this process, individuals internalize the modes of thought and behavior of their social environment, and shape their interests and preferences accordingly. However, socialization process is not a one-way process in which the actor being socialized assumes a completely passive role. ‘Rather, the actor being socialized may well reflect on what he internalizes during the socialization process and may even modify its content.’ Thus, socialization is a process which is never complete but a continuous one.237

In short, while acknowledging and appreciating the usefulness of Wendt's systemic constructivism in analyzing TFP, in view of foreign policy making processes and the issues studied in this dissertation, a holistic approach to TFP which seeks to take the domestic and international as two faces of a single social order and engages in accommodating all factors affecting the identities and interests of state seems a more useful method to make a comprehensive foreign policy analysis. Moreover, considering the qualities of TFP in the 1980s and 2000s and the considerable role of individuals in foreign policy making processes, an exclusion of the psychological features of the policy makers from the analysis seems not as a reasonable option.

232

Sita Ramachandran, Decision-Making in Foreign Policy, (Delhi: Northern Book Centre, 1996), 15 233

Vaughn P.Shannon, "Toward a Social Psychological Theory of International Politics," (paper presented at

ISA, New York City, 2009), 34-35

http://wright.academia.edu/VaughnShannon/Papers/84970/Toward_a_Social_Psychological_Theory_of_Internat ional_Politics

234

Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne, Foreign Policy: theories, actors, cases, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 20

235

Alex Mintz and Karl DeRouen, Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 97

236

Henning Boekle, Volker Rittberger, Wolfgang Wagner, Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory, in German Foreign Policy since Unification, ed Volker Rittberger, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 110 237