The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, by Peter J. Katzenstein, editor

13. Conclusion: National Security in a Changing World

Peter J. Katzenstein

The approach of "rational behavior," as it is typically interpreted, leads to a remarkably mute theory....The purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron. Economic theory has been much preoccupied with this rational fool decked in the glory of his one all-purpose preference ordering. To make room for the different concepts related to his behavior we need a more elaborate structure.

In the late phases of the Cold War American discussions about a newly emerging international order concentrated on changes in America's global position. Paul Kennedy's historical analysis of the rise and fall of great powers argued that, for reasons of material resources, like all other great powers America was destined to lose its position of international preeminence. ₁   At best, the United States could affect the process of secular decline. Francis Fukuyama's essay and subsequent book "The End of History" ₂   analyzed a broader range of factors and concluded, to the contrary, that America had prevailed in the great ideological conflicts of the twentieth century. Focusing on material resources and ideology, these two analyses reached dramatically different conclusions.

In a similar vein, the disintegration of the Soviet Union is yielding a proliferation of different interpretations. Some insist on the primacy of strong states, the continuity of the balance of power, and the inescapability of war. ₃   Others see a pandemonium of ethnic wars and wars of rage caused by the excessive weakness, not strength, of contemporary states. ₄   Still others argue that states will continue to be central actors, together with large corporations, regional security communities, and world civilizations. ₅   Our interpretations shape the views we hold of the international position of the United States and change in the world at large.

Adherents and critics of the two leading paradigms of international relations, realism and liberalism, did not succeed in explaining adequately, let alone predicting, the peaceful end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is, therefore, a good time to reconsider the conventional analytical assumptions that informed national security studies during the Cold War. Are there alternative ways of conceptualizing international relations and security affairs that are both systematic and comprehensive?

Our understanding of the international security environment inevitably privileges some factors at the expense of others. This book is no exception. It emphasizes culture and identity as important determinants of national security policy. Without a particular political problem or a well-specified research question, it makes little sense to privilege cultural context over material forces or problematic, constructed state identities over unproblematic, given ones. By the same logic, it makes little sense to make the opposite mistake, focusing exclusively on material resources or assuming that state identities can be taken for granted.

This essay argues that in American scholarship realism and liberalism have converged greatly in recent decades. Next, it summarizes the book's approach, hypotheses, and findings and then considers briefly two issues, sovereignty and regionalism. Third, it argues that the concept and the approach to national security should be broadened. Finally, it presents the current confusions about the purposes motivating American foreign policy as being rooted not in the transitory phenomena of daily politics but in the confusion about American identity.

Realism and Liberalism

Traditional disagreements between realism and liberalism are deep. The skepticism of realists is rooted in their analysis of bloody and often evil conflicts in world politics. By contrast, the optimism of liberals derives from the existence of embryonic communities of humankind. ₆   Since World War II international relations scholars have drawn a sharp distinction between a realist stance that took note of the shattering political experiences of the 1930s and 1940s and an idealist or legalist stance that did not. Hans Morgenthau, John Herz, and Henry Kissinger, among others, brought from Europe to the United States the doctrine of realpolitik, which Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, and other scholars reformulated as social science theory. ₇

Despite important substantive differences, the gap between realist and liberal perspectives has narrowed. In the 1950s and 1960s realists focused on the Cold War. Economic theories and strong assumptions about the rationality of decision makers informed their analysis of nuclear deterrence. As systematic explanatory factors, culture and identity did not exist. Liberals focused on the astonishing transformation that the process of European integration had brought to a part of the world that in the twen tieth century had spawned two global wars. ₈   Many liberals were deeply skeptical of the relevance of models of rationality to questions of nuclear strategy. ₉   Many realists remained unpersuaded that in the process of integration states would cede sovereignty on vital issues of "high politics." ₁₀

With the growing importance of economic issues in world politics, the gap between realism and liberalism narrowed during the 1970s. At the beginning of that decade interdependence theory had a decidedly liberal cast. It highlighted new sets of transnational relations not captured by traditional state-centric models of international politics. ₁₁   But the oil shock of 1973, the move to flexible exchange rates, and subsequent creeping trade protectionism helped to clarify the political dynamics of two kinds of interdependence, sensitivity and vulnerability, that affect societies and states differently. By the end of the 1970s interdependence theory had been reformulated as a set of descriptive models that approximated, more or less closely, two ideal types: traditional state-centric international politics as analyzed by realism, on the one hand, and a novel form of complex interdependence amenable to liberal analysis, on the other. ₁₂

The elaboration of regime theory in the 1980s has been the latest step in the substantial convergence of realist and liberal theories of international politics. "Modified structural realists" and "neoliberal institutionalists" have done a large amount of theoretically informed, empirical research. This has broadened the middle ground between "hard" neorealist scholars, who deny the political effects of regimes altogether, and "soft" Grotian scholars, who see in regimes more than mere mechanisms that facilitate the coordination of conflicting policies. This middle ground bridges a chasm that for decades had separated the fields of international relations and international law.

Furthermore, economic models of politics and choice theoretic perspectives have deeply affected the centrist versions of realist and liberal the ories, thus reinforcing a convergence in perspective. Realists and liberals alike contributed to the discussion of hegemonic stability that an economist, Charles Kindleberger, had started. ₁₃   Microeconomics was very important to the specification of neorealism. And institutional economics has become central to neoliberalism. Preferences are assumed to be fixed. Explicitly accepting the rationality premise, Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane, for example, write that "actions taken by human beings depend on the substantive quality of available ideas, since such ideas help to clarify principles and conceptions of causal relationships, and to coordinate individual behavior. Once institutionalized, furthermore, ideas continue to guide action in the absence of costly innovation." ₁₄   Bypassing the social effects (identity and culture) that this book underlines, their analysis views ideas as mechanisms by which actors with given identities seek to achieve their preexisting goals.

This is not to argue that the process of convergence has eliminated all important differences between realism and liberalism. These two perspectives continue to disagree strongly, most notably on the effect that institutions can have in moderating or transforming international conflicts, and on the dynamics of redistributive conflicts. ₁₅   But the stark difference that separated realism and liberalism in the 1950s and 1960s has become more muted. The end of the Cold War and the relatively peaceful disintegration of the Soviet Union have not disrupted this substantial convergence between current formulations of realist and liberal perspectives. Neorealism carries on in focusing largely on the balance of material forces in the international state system; neoliberalism continues to study the potentially moderating effects of international institutions on conflicts between states. ₁₆   In a clarifying exchange over the relative merits of neorealism and neoliberalism, Keohane invokes the collective identity of all scholars of international affairs interested in better theory. Students of realism and liberalism should break down artificial barriers between academic doctrines. ₁₇   For Keohane the possibility exists that "perhaps in the next few years, analysts who are willing to synthesize elements of realism, liberalism, and arguments about domestic politics will be able to better explain variations" in different aspects of world politics. ₁₈

Cataclysmic international change has affected the political sensibilities and intellectual intuitions of some realists and liberals. Henry Nau and Joseph Nye, for example, have articulated nuanced realist and liberal positions that seek to integrate culture and identity into their analyses. ₁₉   Nau is a realist with moderately conservative views. In light of the specific conditions of the inflation-ridden years of the early 1980s and in the interest of stable economic growth as an essential prerequisite for a peaceful international order, Nau favors a unilateral American approach to international problems. Nye is a liberal with moderate views. Seeking to strengthen the role of international institutions that embody many of America's values and interests, he favors multilateral diplomacy.

In making their theoretical moves, Nau and Nye follow some traditional realists and liberals who paid attention to culture and identity. Carl Schmitt, for example, was an uncompromising realist who insisted that identity, the distinction between friend and foe, was a central, defining element of the state. ₂₀   Indeed, Christoph Frei argues that Schmitt may well have borrowed the distinction between friend and foe from Hans Morgenthau's dissertation. ₂₁   Morgenthau's discussion of power acknowledges that international politics operates within a framework of rules and through the instrumentality of institutions. "The kinds of interests deter mining political action in a particular period of history depend upon the political and cultural context within which foreign policy is formulated." ₂₂   And ever since Kant, different strands of liberal thought have attached much greater importance to norms and identities than does neoliberal institutionalism.

For Nau and Nye, American foreign policy is determined fully neither by the distribution of material capabilities in the international system nor by the rules of international organizations. What also matters for Nau, for example, is the influence of the ideas that shape the purposes and policies of governments, specifically those of the United States. A cocoon of consensus-building shapes social values. As these purposes have converged among many of the major states since 1945, American interests have been well served. Similarly, Nye stresses the importance of institutions and culture for a transformation of power. He argues that the importance of "hard" power is declining while the importance of "soft" power is rising. ₂₃   Hard power relies on tangible resources and military or economic threats or inducements to affect the behavior of others directly. Soft power relies on intangible resources that include culture, ideology, and institutions that shape the preferences and thus co-opt behavior. ₂₄

Nau struggles with the problem of how to specify the influence of national ideas on the international convergence of purpose, especially in light of some of the glaring social pathologies that have marked American society during the last four decades. Nye has difficulty articulating clearly the relational implications of his concept of "soft power" and demonstrating empirically how it, and America's stipulated cultural, ideological, and institutional preeminence, is affecting different features of international politics. But both Nau and Nye point the way for future reformulations of realist and liberal perspectives by seeking to incorporate into their analysis social factors that are central to this book. Put differently, they are utterly persuasive by pointing to the need for both realism and liberalism to embed their analyses in a broader sociological perspective.

The effect of culture and identity varies across time and space. "Idealism" is not a political doctrine, as was thought in the 1950s, but a type of social science theory. ₂₅   Indeed, Ronen Palan and Brook Blair have argued that neorealism has been inoculated with an exceptionally heavy dose of German idealism. ₂₆   Culture and identity are summary labels for phenomena that have an objective existence. The crumbling of the structures that had defined and been reinforced by the Cold War highlights their relevance for an analysis of national security.

Summary and Extensions

The empirical studies in this book deal with subjects central to the field of national security studies: arms proliferation, intervention, deterrence and weapons of mass destruction, military doctrine and strategic culture in part 1 and several of these topics as well as civil-military relations, arms control, and alliances in part 2. This section briefly summarizes the approach, hypotheses, and findings of the empirical essays. Avoiding an artificial distinction between international and domestic politics, it then briefly considers sovereignty and regionalism in world politics.

Summary

All the empirical essays in this volume are problem-focused. In most instances the questions they pose are similar to those at the center of the mainstream literature on national security. Why have weapons proliferated throughout the developing world (essay 3)? What determines the choice between offensive and defensive military doctrines (essay 6)? How did "New Thinking" in the Soviet Union help bring about the end of the Cold War (essay 8)? Why do Japan and Germany refuse to seize the opportunities for enhancing their political and military profiles in the post-Cold War world (essay 9)? What will happen to nato (essay 10)? And what is the relation between threat and the process of alliance formation in the Middle East (essay 11)?

But in several instances the motivating questions differ from those normally asked by students of national security. How have nuclear and chemical weapons become delegitimated as "weapons of mass destruction" and how can we explain this change (essay 4)? How and why, rather than if and when, do humanitarian interventions occur (essay 5)? What is the relation between the self-help behavior of states and realist conceptions of the state in the international system (essay 7)? It is one of the advantages of the sociological perspective that on questions of national security it can both address existing questions in the field and, going beyond that, raise new ones.

Some of the essays articulate conventional, structural, rationalist, or functional explanations for the questions that interest them. And they point to the limitations of these explanations in accounting for the empirical evidence at hand. For example, Dana Eyre and Mark Suchman (essay 3) argue that conventional realist analysis views weapons proliferation as a consequence of states preparing for war as the ultimate means for defending their security. But if that were true, states should possess militaries in some rough proportion to both the magnitude and the quality of the threats they face. States confronting large internal security threats, for example, should have militaries and weapons that are very different in their configurations than states that face only minimal threats. But the size and functional specialization of many Third World militaries differ from what a conventional explanation would lead us to expect. Specifically, many Third World states spend too much of their money on "big ticket" items that are not useful in dealing with the actual internal security threats that they face.

Furthermore, Elizabeth Kier (essay 6) shows how prevailing explanations of the choice between offensive and defensive military doctrines are rooted in structural and functional styles of analysis. For functional reasons having to do with their size, autonomy, and prestige, military organizations, the conventional literature argues, prefer offensive doctrines. Furthermore, existing explanations argue that civilian intervention in the development of doctrine occurs in response to the objective incentives that the international balance of power provides. With few qualifications, Kier's analysis undercuts both of these claims.

Thomas Berger (essay 9) also shows realist explanations of Japanese and German security policy to be either indeterminate or empirically wrong, as neither state has sought to translate its growing capabilities in the last two decades into commensurate military power. Furthermore, liberal explanations that focus on Japan and Germany as trading states operating in international markets have trouble explaining why some important elements of Japanese and German antimilitarism arose even before complex interdependence created a benign international environment. And Thomas Risse-Kappen (essay 10) argues that structural realism, balance of power, hegemonic stability, and rationalist-institutional explanations are indeterminate or wrong in either explaining the origin of nato or accounting for how over time nato solved the collective action problem of harmonizing divergent national policies.

Other essays point to what they regard as some debilitating weaknesses that make conventional explanations ill-suited for helping to explain particular aspects of national security. Richard Price and Nina Tannenwald, for example, argue in essay 4 that rationalist, interest-based explanations of the "taboo" status of chemical and nuclear weapons are either indeterminate or wrong, for such explanations assume that some objective characteristics of weapons delegitimate them as weapons of war. Furthermore, conventional accounts have difficulty explaining why chemical and nuclear weapons were not used when it might have been advantageous and the deterrent effects of reliance on these weapons were not evident-for example, in the Pacific islands fighting during World War II. Martha Finnemore (essay 5) suggests that humanitarian interventions pose important logical problems for realist theory. Such interventions bring into conflict two of the theory's core assumptions, self-help and sovereignty. In cases of intervention, the target state ceases to be an autonomous actor. Furthermore, the shift to multilateral interventions as the main legitimate form of intervention in the last decades and the occurrence of interventions in situations in which the interests of the intervening states are often not at stake, either directly or indirectly, pose important anomalies to conventional accounts.

Alastair Johnston (essay 7) seeks to establish the superiority of an analytical perspective that stresses the effects of strategic culture over those of the international system emphasized by conventional models of structural realism. Robert Herman (essay 8) finds conventional structural and rationalist explanations limited because they posit a deterministic relation between structure and behavior and thus fail to engage political processes that he sees as central to any understanding of the transformations in Soviet politics and foreign policy in the 1980s. In a similar vein, Michael Barnett (essay 11) criticizes existing theories of balance of power and balance of threat for failing to engage a broad range of social processes that are essential for explaining how collective identities and the construction of threats shape processes of alliance formation in the Middle East.

The empirical essays make claims that both compete with and comple ment conventional explanations. In some instances they offer alternative explanations, for example, in the case of arms proliferation and military doctrine. In other instances, they make problematic what conventional theories take for granted-concepts such as deterrence, humanitarian intervention, or threats leading to alliance formations-thus complementing existing accounts. Finally, such complementarities also exist where the essays establish that the stipulated effects of general structural theories are indeterminate and thus unhelpful-for example, in answering questions about nato and the security policies of China, the Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan. The analysis of social effects on national security thus can offer a useful alternative to conventional theories; it can cause us to ask new questions about aspects of national security previously taken for granted; and it can offer a more fine-grained analysis of issues that conventional theories cannot deal with easily.

In their descriptions and explanations, the empirical essays trace two kinds of social effects on national security policies: processes that affect the identity of actors, and thus the interests these actors hold, and processes that shape the interests of actors directly without redefining identities. For example, internationally recognized standards of what it means to be a modern state, Eyre and Suchman (essay 3) and Finnemore (essay 4) argue, have noticeable effects on what kinds of weapons governments buy, whom they consider to be "human," and how they organize military interventions. Price and Tannenwald (essay 4) describe historical, political, and moral developments that have created a taboo around weapons of mass destruction, developments that are not reducible either to objective characteristics of the weapons themselves or to the structural power relations between states. And in their analyses of the effects of the organizational culture of the French military and of Chinese strategic culture, Elizabeth Kier (essay 6) and Alastair Johnston (essay 7) show how cultural effects help shape the interests that guide actors in the military doctrines they adopt and the security policies they adhere to. These cultural effects vary, depending on whether they operate in the polity at large or in particular military organizations (the French case) or whether they are reinforced by specific aspects of political ideology (the Chinese case).

Robert Herman (essay 8) and Thomas Berger (essay 9) trace the effects that Soviet, German, and Japanese contested definitions of identity have had on previously unchallenged views of state interest. But Herman's analysis of "New Thinking" stresses for the most part cognitive elements, not unlike those discussed in the global models of statehood in essays 3 and 4, while Berger's analysis underlines prescriptive elements. Finally, Thomas Risse-Kappen (essay 10) and Michael Barnett (essay 11) analyze how collective identities of liberal democracies and pan-Arabism define the threats that states face in the international system and thus shape the interests that motivate their alliance policies. The difference in these two cases is that over time the collective identity of the democratic member states of nato strengthened, and with it the North Atlantic security community, while the pan-Arabic movement weakened greatly after 1967, in the face of the growing identities of separate Arab states.

The essays avoid tautological reasoning. Instead of relying on policies as indicators of "revealed cultural preference," the authors analyze various kinds of texts and interview materials to infer the presence or absence of specific social effects. The analysis in these essays, as in the conventional explanations that they engage, is primarily interested in drawing causal inferences between stipulated effects and observed behavior. For example, although Eyre and Suchman are as interested as are the other authors in the effects that modern notions of statehood have on policy, their analysis simply assumes that a model of a modern military exists as part of an ensemble of models that helps define the modern world polity in which contemporary states operate. Essay 3 argues that if such a model exists, then it should have a range of observable effects, and the essay goes on to investigate those effects. Alternatively, Kier establishes the effects of the organizational culture of the military on military doctrine. But she is not interested in analyzing the sources of organizational culture and the degree to which and how it can change. Finally, to different degrees all of the remaining essays are interested in processes of cataclysmic or gradual change that alter some of the social processes that shape national security policies. ₂₇

In their methods of analysis these essays do not differ from the qualitative case study and historical narrative that are typical of the literature on national security. Eyre and Suchman's statistical analysis and the genealog ical reconstruction of historical processes of change in the analysis of the chemical weapons taboo in essay 4 illustrate, furthermore, that the analysis of social effects and processes can rely equally well on hard quantitative or soft interpretive methods. What distinguishes this book's approach is not distinctive methods but the analytical specification of effects that conventional theories typically slight.

In some instances these effects do not merely help define interests in ways that we tend to overlook but also make intelligible what from a structural or rationalist perspective may look like "dysfunctional" behavior. Essay 3 suggests, for example, that modern militaries in Third World countries have been a source of profound political instability for many of the political regimes that equip these militaries with modern weapons. Relatedly, the effects of the chemical weapons taboo were so strong, Price and Tannenwald argue, that the United States refrained from using these weapons when, in the absence of clear Japanese deterrent effects, it would have been advantageous to rely on them during the late stages of World War II in the Pacific. Kier (essay 6) illustrates that the reason for France's lack of adequate preparation for war in 1939 had cultural roots. Herman (essay 8) argues that the Soviet Union sacrificed an empire in the interest of meeting the "Western" standards of behavior that New Thinking and transnational contacts had spread among members of the political elite. ₂₈   Similarly, Berger's analysis underscores what from the vantage point of conventional theories looks like a profound "irrationality" of Japanese and German policy during the Persian Gulf war. For these two states resisted vigorously, and at considerable economic and political cost to themselves, the strong pressure that the United States brought to bear on them to join a broad international coalition against Iraq.

Since the approach of this book seeks to explain the interests that actors hold, rather than taking them as given, the notion of "dysfunctional" or "irrational" behavior makes little sense, for such a notion implies what this book's approach seeks to investigate, the existence of an objectively "best" standard for behavior. But just about any behavior can be construed to be "functional" or "rational" from some perspective. The trick is not to define one best standard against which all performance is measured, but to make intelligible the political logic inherent in different kinds of substantive rationalities.

Although all the essays argue that social effects have causal significance, the tightness or looseness of the link between social effects and observed behavior varies. In some instances the link is loose, as in the global models of statehood that inform the analysis of arms proliferation and military intervention in essays 3 and 4. Essay 10 refers to instances in which the United States actually did not comply with specific rules of the norm of consultation while at the same time acquiescing in the diffuse norm of taking Allied interests into account. And essay 7 reports the existence of a large gap between China's idealized, Confucian-Mencian strategic culture and security policy and the absence of such gap in the case of its parabellum, operational strategic culture. Depending on the content of a country's strategic culture and the nature of a chosen policy, Johnston's analysis suggests, the tightness of the link between social effects and observed behavior varies.

Most of the essays investigate how social effects define the interests that actors hold. Hence standards of appropriate behavior among allies, as described in essay 10, appeal to collective understandings. They are not arguments deployed for selfish reasons, as a rationalist interpretation would suggest. Instead they are the articulation of preferences that have been formed in light of historical experience. Instances in which allies make appeals to such standards in order to elicit compliance by others while covering their own noncompliance would rapidly undermine any existing collective understanding. Analogously, Kier (essay 6) argues that we need to make a sharp distinction between the causal effects of organizational culture on the one hand and the invocation of specific myths, created for particular political purposes, on the other. The defensive lesson of Verdun and World War I, for example, took on legendary proportions, but only after the organizational culture of the French military had already shaped a defensive military doctrine. Causal primacy hence lies with this factor, not with historical myths. Finally, the invocation of standards of appropriate behavior is often closely linked to issues of political power-for example, in the case of the invocation by Arab states of the taboo against chemical weapons as an attempt to redress a discriminatory nuclear nonproliferation regime as discussed in essay 4.

The social effects that are analyzed here typically are institutionalized. The taboo against chemical weapons, essay 4 argues, was institutionalized even before the invention of modern chemical weapons, a plausible explanation for the success of those who ostracized these weapons as instruments of war in the twentieth century. The antinuclear taboo, by way of contrast, was institutionalized only in the 1960s and 1970s, two decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the diverse data on the social effects that the essays report, only pan-Arabism appears to be conspicuously uninstitutionalized.

There is, however, considerable variation in the specificity or diffuseness of the social effects that the essays analyze. The global models of statehood that shape arms proliferation and intervention policies, Eyre and Suchman as well as Finnemore argue, are diffuse. The taboo against weapons of mass destruction and the effects of organizational culture of the military, on the other hand, are specific (essays 4 and 6). And as in several other of the essays, Risse-Kappen's discussion in essay 10 points to the coexistence of both, specific consultation norms with the diffuse obligation of taking allied interests into account in foreign policy making. Breaking specific norms can under some circumstances reinforce a diffuse sense of obligation toward allies who have not been consulted but whose interests must be taken into account.

This argument provides a ready link to the moral basis of American hegemony that Lea Brilmayer has analyzed lucidly. ₂₉   One of the advantages of the sociological-institutional perspective lies in its ability to lend itself to reconnecting empirical analysis to philosophical discussions about the purposes of political action and the nature of political community. Scholarly analysis of national security and international politics has sidestepped these issues during the last three decades. It should not.

Extensions

Paul Kowert and Jeffrey Legro (essay 12) reflect on both the effects and the origins of norms. They argue that norms are an interlocking web, spanning different levels of analysis and shaping the interests of actors, the beliefs that actors hold about the best means available for achieving their objectives, and larger normative structures. But Kowert and Legro note also that, in the effort to convince us that the social constructions of norms and identity matter, the empirical essays, like the conventional theories that they criticize, tend to take their own core concepts as exogenously given. ₃₀   With a few notable exceptions, such as the genealogy of the chemical weapons taboo in essay 4, the empirical essays have little to say about the manner by which collective identities and norms are constructed through different generative processes: ecological, social, and internal. Extension into the domain of social psychology offers a possible microfoundation for sociological approaches. Although it signifies the continued importance of psychology to our understanding of national security, such a move insists that besides individual cognition and motivation we must be attentive as well to collective and social origins. ₃₁   Relatedly, the research program on national role perceptions should be of great interest to those who are rediscovering the importance of social facts in international politics and national security. ₃₂

Other approaches for the construction of a microfoundation of an institutional perspective are possible. They include theories of practical knowledge and action based on advances in ethnomethodology, the analysis of cognitive aspects of routine social behavior, the taken-for-grantedness element in cognition, and the analysis of a habitus that seeks to explain why strategically oriented actors so often do not seek to alter social structures that are not in their interest. ₃₃   Furthermore, research into the microfoundations of norms and identities cannot avoid paying close attention to language. ₃₄   In contrast, conventional realist and liberal theories seek the microfoundation for structural theories in economics and the rational actor assumption. Essay 12 illustrates that much work has been done in other social science fields that is very relevant for the approach of this book and that should be incorporated more systematically into future work.

This book's focus on the social effects that operate on national security spans both international and domestic politics. ₃₅   Conventional theories, by contrast, typically operate exclusively at the level of the international system while conceding to "reductionist" theories of domestic politics the task of accounting for elements of national variation. This distinction has always been in tension with real-world politics, which the organization of this volume seeks to sidestep. Instead, the empirical essays analyze in one framework international and national effects that shape national security. In part 1 the essays by Eyre and Suchman, Price and Tannenwald, and Finnemore focus primarily on international models of statehood that inform national security policy on issues such as weapons procurement, non-use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and military intervention. At a different level of analysis but from the same norms-based perspective, the essays by Kier and Johnston focus instead at the national level on the effects of the organizational and strategic culture of the military. In part 2 Herman and Berger explain national security policy in terms of Soviet, Japanese, and German collective identities. From a similar identity-based vantage point, but at a different level of analysis, Risse-Kappen and Barnett examine the waxing and waning of international security communities in the North Atlantic area and of alliances in the Middle East as well as U.S.-Israeli relations. The book's analytical categories thus permit us to sidestep the traditional "level-of-analysis problem." ₃₆   I will illustrate this advantage briefly with reference to our understanding of sovereignty and regionalism as important factors that are shaping world politics.

Sovereignty

A sociological perspective affects how we think about the institution of sovereignty, in the view of conventional theories the supposed foundation of international anarchy and state autonomy. Writing from a realist perspective, Stephen Krasner acknowledges that the system of 1648 did not create states acting as "billiard balls." The principle of unquestioned state sovereignty never triumphed. Instead the practice of intervention, before and after 1648, has left state sovereignty deeply problematic, and with it the sharp distinction between international and domestic levels of analysis. ₃₇   Economic, social, and environmental issues that increasingly permeate state boundaries reinforce that trend. Sovereignty is an institution that shapes state identity. It is not a natural fact of international life. Instead it is politically contested and has variable political effects. ₃₈

A broader historical and cultural perspective, extending beyond the modern Western state system, illustrates that sovereignty is a problematic, fundamental institution distinctive of the modern Western system rather than a universal institution typical of all international systems. The international relations of other historical eras and civilizations have been based on other fundamental institutions. ₃₉

Reus-Smit, for example, argues that in Western history different state systems have created different fundamental institutions governing the relations between states. ₄₀   Ancient Greece, for example, relied for centuries on a successful system of third-party arbitration not codified by international law. By contrast, the modern Western system relies on law and multilateral diplomacy. The cause for such variation in institutional practice lies in changing state identities. These identities reflect not international sovereignty but domestic values concerning the moral purpose of the state. Such values are not invariant but historically and culturally specific. They originate in dominant states and then diffuse internationally, affecting the behavior of weak and strong states alike.

In the Chinese context, sovereignty is defined not only by equality between states but also by the capacity of the Chinese state to encompass others. ₄₁   With a combination of hierarchy and anarchy as its distinctive trait, the Chinese system, like the Ottoman Empire, was made up of suzerain states. In this instance issues of political or military domination and resistance do not fall into discrete spheres of international and domestic politics. They occupy a sphere that links both. Tributary trade, not third-party arbitration or international law and multilateralism, was the distinctive fundamental institution of the Sino-centric world. And it was the strength of domestic coalitions fighting over different, and changing, definitions of Chinese state identity that shaped the policy interests of the Ming dynasty.

What was true of ancient China is also true of contemporary world politics. Sovereignty is not the basic defining characteristic of an international anarchy. Instead there are numerous examples of various types of sovereignty, which suggests that sovereignty is not an unquestioned foundational institution of international politics that can be assumed or analyzed at the level of the international system. Contemporary conflicts in the Russian Federation, for example, offer a telling example. Between July 1990 and January 1991, fourteen of the sixteen autonomous republics in Russia declared their sovereignty and renamed themselves. A few months later four of the five autonomous oblasts did the same and were recognized by the Russian Supreme Soviet on July 2, 1991. ₄₂

Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union only the North Caucasus republic of Chechnya forced the issue of independence, which in December 1994 exploded into war. The Russian Federation Treaty signed in March 1992 creates three types of units with various types of sovereignty inside Russia: sovereign republics, other administrative units of varying size and autonomy, and the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Institutionalized definitions of nationhood do not have to treat nations simply as internally homogeneous and externally sharply delimited social groups. Nations are not fixed or real. Nationality struggles in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (cis) can be viewed instead not as "struggles of nations, but the struggles of institutionally constituted national elites-that is, elites institutionally defined as national-and aspiring counter-elites." ₄₃   A map of Russia thus resembles a quilt made up of republics proclaiming the precedence of their laws over those of the Russian Constitution. John Slocum concludes that "the concept of sovereignty, so much at stake in the struggle over Russian federalism, is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the world at large. A fragmented Russia, which hangs together on some level and not on others, seems perfectly in tune with the times." ₄₄

In contrast to Russia, contemporary Europe offers a very different example of far-reaching attempts to pool state sovereignty of various sorts across different parts of Europe and different issues areas. Neorealism either denies that international institutions in Europe have any important effects ₄₅   or interprets such effects as resulting primarily from the interests of "middle-rank" countries like France and Italy, which seek to gain some voice over the growing power of Germany. ₄₆   Neoliberal institutionalism interprets European international politics by pointing to a particularly dense set of institutions that facilitate problems of coordination. In this view institutions are important because they reduce uncertainty and create efficiencies that may contribute to the redefinition of interests and thus modify behavior. Neoliberals interpret the partial pooling of sovereignty in Europe as a series of nested games that link states in ongoing interactions that limit the range of their bargaining tactics. Political elites make strategic use of international institutions to escape from both the democratic controls and the political fragmentation of domestic societies. ₄₇

Furthermore, the structures and processes of European integration offer new opportunities for domestic actors to strike transnational bargains that change domestic coalitions, institutions, and policies.

But institutions do not merely create efficiencies. They also express identities, for example by affecting the character of statehood. John Ruggie, for one, sees in the eu "the first truly postmodern international political form." ₄₈   International politics in the eu is neither national nor intergovernmental nor supranational. It no longer takes place from twelve distinct starting places with twelve separate, single, and fixed viewpoints. The processes "whereby each of the twelve defines its own identity-and the identities are logically prior to preferences-increasingly endogenize the existence of the other eleven. Within this framework, European leaders may be thought of as entrepreneurs of alternative political identities." ₄₉   Because territorial conflict has become a less central component of state identity in Western Europe, the eu has tamed and transformed its member states in significant ways. European identity links both international and national levels of politics and shapes the preferences and interests that actors hold.

This sociological perspective makes it possible for us to capture variations in state identity that are glossed over by conventional theories. In their response to the crisis of fall 1993 in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (erm), France and Britain took different positions, arguably reflecting attempts to maintain different political identities in Europe. David Cameron thus argues that the politics of European monetary cooperation is explained best in terms of the effects that identity has on the definition of interests. ₅₀   France and Germany cooperated in a series of currency crises to maintain their privileged European partnership. In contrast to Britain, France refused to drop out of the erm, largely because of considerations of identity. ₅₁   State identities thus can have powerful effects on conceptions of state interest.

Institutional perspectives that neglect questions of identity also have great difficulties in accounting for German policy on questions of European monetary integration. While neoliberal institutionalism offers powerful explanations for why Germany has come to like the erm as a way of shaping European politics, it tells us little about why Germany's political leadership appears to be so committed to the goal of full monetary integration in the emu, a policy that would greatly reduce the power of German monetary policy in Europe. The effect of Europe on German identity offers us a clue. In his essay Thomas Berger points to the fundamental consequences that the changing purpose of the state has had for the character of German identity. Put succinctly, he describes the transformation of German state identity from territorial aggrandizement to individual entitlement, from warfare to welfare. Furthermore, as Thomas Risse-Kappen shows in his essay, the North Atlantic security community has had lasting effects on the identity of all member states, including Germany. In short, German identity now encompasses more international aspects than ever before in modern times. In fact, the German government accepted national unification in 1990 only under the condition that it be legitimated internationally by all European states. Europe thus has become a very important component of German national identity.

Like Germany, many European states are finding their "home" in a broadening European community. Identity politics is thus central to an understanding of the politics of regional integration. But as Michael Bar nett's analysis of Mideast politics illustrates, collective regional identities can be built "down" as well as "up." A sociological perspective can help us analyze conflict and war as well as peaceful cooperation.

Regionalism

An analytical focus on social effects of culture and identity permits us to examine international politics not only along dimensions of power, types of alliances, or geography. We may gain much from thinking of world regions as social constructs. Sometimes regions emerge spontaneously. At other times political actors deliberately fashion them. ₅₂

The North Atlantic region, for example, subsequently institutionalized in nato, was a political creation of the mid-1940s, designed to bring the United States politically closer to Britain and the European continent, in defiance of the logic of cartographers. With the reestablishment of democracy in the mid-1970s, political elites emphasized Spain's European identity rather than its traditional Iberian-Latin American identity. ₅₃   Greece succeeded in joining Europe largely because it could play on its recognized identity as the home of European culture and civilization. ₅₄   In a similar vein, since 1989 the Central European democracies have been competing in their attempts to show that they are returning to "Europe," with the Czech Republic apparently winning first prize. And Russian politicians are creating a new region of "the near abroad" to legitimate possible future interventions in the affairs of members of the cis. Such political constructs often, but not always, reflect particularly dense social transactions that tie different societies to one another. ₅₅   And they often, but not always, can enhance economic and social density.

On this point the contrast with neorealism is stark. This theory insists that states live in an international environment marked by an inescapable security dilemma. With the end of the Cold War and bipolarity, for example, neorealists argue that international politics is returning to multipolarity. "Assuming Russia recovers, and China holds itself together, we can expect as in the old days to have a world of five or so great powers, probably by the first decade of the next millennium . . . if unity is not achieved, Germany may get tired of playing European games, some years hence and go off on its own." ₅₆   States play games and have distinct identities that permit them to go their own ways when the game is over. But the language of multipolarity and games is analytically quite limiting, as Charles Kegley and Gregory Raymond have argued. ₅₇   It imposes an artificially uniform analytical perspective upon a political reality that differs substantially in different regions of the world. ₅₈

A sparse conception of international structure can capture elements of international politics better in some regions than in others. Considering the basic values that motivate the contemporary Chinese state, realism offers important, though limited, political insights into some aspects of the Asian balance of power. ₅₉   In contrast to Western Europe and the North Atlantic area, during the last several decades no security community has emerged in Asia. The Cold War never imposed as clear a split on Asia as it did on Europe, hence the end of the Cold War had a less dramatic effect on the Asian balance of power. The logic of military balancing that no longer is central to West European politics still remains an important aspect of Asian international politics. ₆₀

Indeed, since the end of the Cold War in Europe, Asian governments have moved very quickly to set up new multilateral international institutions or to deepen existing ones. This offers strong support for the insights of neoliberal institutional theory. Institutions do serve the purpose, among others, of reducing uncertainty and thus facilitating policy coordination. But this is not the only effect that institutions have, even in Asia. The network structures that are increasingly integrating Asian political economies under the umbrella of Japanese keiretsu systems and through Chinese ethnic and familial ties are informal and, by European standards, politically underinstitutionalized. ₆₁   But they are, in the words of Joel Kotkin, instances of a new form of tribalism in the global economy. They illustrate how race, religion, and identity are central in shaping important trends in the global economy. ₆₂

Regional politics in Europe offers another illustration of the role of the profound effects that collective identity has on interests and policies. The phenomenal success of the national institution of the welfare state since 1945 has had a lasting effect on the basic values that define the substantive purposes of policy both at home and abroad. This transformation is most evident in Germany in the center of Europe and the locus classicus of a virulent ethnically or racially based form of nationalism. Although current citizenship requirements still reflect the view of a national community bound together by ancestral lineage, the political realities of the 1990s are different. Contemporary German nationalism has become a nationalism not of collective assertion but of individual entitlement. With unification the expectation of the Kohl government, widely shared by the older generation of the social democratic leadership, assumed a repetition of the experience of joint sacrifice and pulling together, 1950s style.

What happened instead was the display of a "possessive individualism" that took the chancellor's election promises literally: national unification without individual sacrifice. This nationalism of entitlement has not shown itself as clearly in any other European state in recent years. But there exists no substantial evidence undermining the expectation that the German form of welfare state nationalism distinguishes Western Europe at large. ₆₃   The effect that the institution of the welfare state has had on collective identities in Germany and throughout Europe, and hence on the content of policy interests, I would argue is of much greater political importance for an understanding of the national security policies of Western European states than are the stipulated, though unmeasured, efficien cies that international institutions create as conceived by rationalist theories.

Different world regions thus embody different substantive domestic purposes that shape state sovereignty. And regions are parts of a global system that, in turn, is affecting them differently. Global processes like transnational capital flows, the increasing salience of human rights, or the risks of environmentally unsustainable developments thus have different political effects on states situated in different regions of the world. Today there exists no general threat to the state system as the basic organizing principle of international politics. Everywhere states retain minimal sovereignty. But an increasing number of agenda-setting and legitimacy-creating polities are organized on a global scale. ₆₄   This is one step in the direction that Hedley Bull has called the "neo-Medievalism" of contemporary international politics: ₆₅   a move, more or less halting in different regional settings, toward multiple, nested centers of collective authority and identity. One advantage of a sociological perspective is that it can capture analytically the variability of the effects that varying substantive values informing state sovereignty and different regional contexts have on the national security policies of states. Little is gained, and much is lost, when our theories foreclose a systematic investigation, at multiple levels of analysis, of the possibility that culture and identity can interact in shaping the interests of specific states seeking to protect their national security.

Going Beyond Traditional National Security Studies

This book's exclusive focus on traditional military issues meets traditional definitions of national security. The subject matter of the case studies is central to the substantive concerns of conventional approaches to questions of national security. The analytical issues are thus joined on grounds that provide a hard test for the sociological approach that this book puts forward.

We do not, however, endorse in this volume the insistence on restricting security studies only to states and military issues. Traditional strategic studies continues to be an important part of the field of security studies. And the state continues to be an important actor on questions of security. But changes in world politics have broadened the security agenda that confronts states. And nonstate actors are of great relevance to traditional issues of military security. Furthermore, theoretical debates about how strategic and security studies relate to the social sciences suggest that commonly made analytical distinctions-for example, between international and domestic politics, security issues and economic issues, facts and values-often hinder rather than help our description and explanation of real world events. ₆₆   These analytical distinctions often pose conceptual barriers that reflect a binary view of the world. In distinguishing between "inside" and "outside," "us" and "them," that view often takes collective identity as an unexamined defining characteristic of international politics. ₆₇   In light of recent political and theoretical developments, it serves no purpose to restrict scholarship to only one part of the field of national security studies. ₆₈

Developments in world politics speak for broadening the field of security studies in two directions, encompassing nonmilitary issues and nonstate actors. First, a focus on economic issues could analyze, for example, policies that relate to questions of military conversion and are thus clearly relevant to traditional national security studies. But it could also concentrate on broader issues of food security, as in Africa, or human rights, as in Haiti, because such issues can have direct effects on the military intervention of states. Furthermore, for governments of rich states the economic development of their poor neighbors is also becoming a security issue. Fear of mass migration, for example, and the social and political instabilities that it can engender, characterizes the political relations of the United States and Mexico, France and Northern Africa, and Germany and its Eastern neighbors.

Furthermore, collapsing political structures have put ethnic and national conflict even higher on the agenda of national security studies than they have been since 1945. The analysis of the effects of ethnic and national identities on security, as compared with competing class, gender, race, or religious identities, raises vexing political and theoretical problems. An empirically grounded analysis should steer clear of both the essentialism of rationalist perspectives (which, typically, take actor identities to be unproblematic) and the fluidity of postmodern perspectives (which often see identity as being shaped by specific combinations of contingency and agency). Security studies should not be narrowly restricted to states and questions of military security only. But neither should it be broadened so much that it comes to encompass all issues relating directly or indirectly to the violence between individuals and collectivities. Broader security studies can add to the traditional analysis of national security if the issues and actors that it studies have some demonstrable links to states and questions of military importance.

Theoretical developments in the social sciences, in international relations, and in the specific field of national security studies provide a second main reason why the intellectual agenda of security studies should be broad, not narrow. The dominant theoretical issues no longer relate, as they did in the 1970s and early 1980s, to debates between realist, pluralist, and structural-global analytical perspectives-that is, academic versions of conservatism, liberalism, and Marxism. Rather, the central theoretical debates now engage rationalist and constitutive explanatory approaches to theory.

This book targets realism's and rationalism's neglect of important effects and processes that shape the nature of political interests and the character of political actors. But the approach of this volume shares with realism and rationalism an insistence on linking analytical arguments to evidence. Other approaches, such as critical theory, postmodernism, and feminist theory, are divided on many issues. They offer much more profound and unsettling challenges to the field of national security studies and international relations theory than do disagreements between different types of explanatory theory. Critical theory investigates the knowledge interests that tie security studies to the institutions and individuals that control the levers of power. Feminist theory proposes to rethink all of the basic categories of analysis-man, state, and war-central to the field of military strategy and important in the field of security studies. And postmodernist theory seeks to deconstruct, among others, core concepts of security studies, such as state sovereignty, and thus to subvert the entire field of security studies and decenter its theoretical dis course. These approaches are themselves divided between critical theory that works toward some foundationalism of shared knowledge and postmodernism that does not, with different strands of feminist theory to be found in either camp. Typically, they all question the research strategy of realist, rationalist, and constructivist explanatory theory.

The theoretical debates that are occurring in the social sciences and in international relations, as well as in the fields of security and strategic studies, are likely to broaden the range of analytical approaches. One reason is generational change. When asked what constituted progress in the field of economics, a young Paul Samuelson is reported to have replied, "Obituaries." Younger scholars, whose political experiences were not formed by the Cold War, are likely to experiment with a broader range of theories to understand a new political reality. A second reason is the geographic diffusion of centers of learning and intellectual innovation in a more pluralist world. European peace researchers, for example, cannot suppress a polite yawn when American students of security studies rehearse vigorously arguments in the 1990s that Europeans debated in the 1960s and 1970s. And Asian scholars and policy makers are plainly bewildered by American debates about whether the definition of security should be restricted only to military issues or should encompass economic and other issues as well. From the Asian perspective it makes neither political nor intellectual sense to adhere to a narrow scope of security studies. In light of these reactions, Paul Samuelson might also have answered, "Intellectual currents outside of U.S. national security studies." ₆₉

National security studies are exposed to the differing insights of sociological or constructivist and economic or rationalist perspectives. This book tries to follow Max Weber onto the middle ground that he sought to preserve in the original "battle of the methods." ₇₀   In the late nineteenth century, that battle pitted Gustav Schmoller and the German historical school of economics against Carl Menger and the challenge of the British, neoclassical tradition. Neoclassical theory stressed choice, individual units, rationalism, a market logic, prediction, and explanation. The historical school emphasized constraints, collectivities, irrationalities, a logic of society, description, and explanation. Contemporary theoretical debates in the field of security studies, as throughout the social sciences, are restating core aspects of the old debate in modern form.

Disciplinary debates within each of the two camps and their various subdivisions tend to be isomorphic. They focus on the causal priority and sequence of the major analytical variables as they relate to the formulation of actor interests and choices. In the economic-rationalist perspective this debate affects how we think about the causal relationships among preferences, institutional rules, organizational structures, and choice. In the sociological-constitutive perspective it affects how we think about the causal relationships among identities, norms, interests, and practice. The discussions within different paradigms illustrate a substantial amount of parallelism in perspectives, albeit expressed in different analytical languages. Students of security seeking to relate their substantive interests to either camp thus focus on the intersection between power and policy on the one hand and preferences, institutional rules, organizational structures, norms, identity, and interests on the other.

But discussions within paradigms are theoretically less illuminating than the emerging debates across paradigms. Such debates sometimes bring radically different perspectives closer together. Some rationalists, for example, are in the early stages of seeking an active engagement with students of culture. For cultural processes may offer a solution to the vexing problem of multiple equilibria and the 'common knowledge' assumption. ₇₁   Alternatively, cross-paradigm debates can also divide more clearly from one another analytical perspectives that once were thought of as sharing much in common. For example, all variants of institutional analysis oppose a decontextualized and atomistic account of choice behavior. And all model the way institutional arrangements mediate, shape, and channel collective and individual choices. But the new rational choice institutionalism in economics and political science focuses on the institutional context of and constraint on interested action. It remains indebted to the Weberian distinction between a world of brute or material facts and a world of perceived or interpreted facts. This perspective contrasts, however, with the world of institutional facts that are at the center of the new post-Weberian institutionalism in sociology. ₇₂   This version of institutionalism focuses not on institutional constraints on interests and actors but on the institutional constitution of both interests and actors. Put differently, sociological institutionalism makes problematic what economic institutionalism takes for granted, actor identities and the interests they entail.

Cross-paradigm debates are as complicated now as they were at the end of the nineteenth century, for the temptation is great to merely retranslate the core constructs of another perspective or discipline into one's own, rather than trying to understand which parts of reality another perspective might in fact illuminate more forcefully than a familiar mode of thought. This appears to be true of all social science. As much as it might wish, the field of national security studies is unlikely to escape from a broadening of analytical perspectives and competing empirical claims. The only question is whether the new "battle of methods" will split the field further into different camps, both committed to empirical research, that speak past each other or will lead to joint intellectual advance. Eventually the choices we make as scholars and teachers will be reflected in which journals and book series publish our research findings, in how we train our graduate students, and in how we teach our undergraduate students. Acknowledging the intellectually profitable and personally uncomfortable frictions that occur in cross-paradigm discussions, this book aims at broadening the middle ground for an analysis of national security.

America in a Changing World

Shocks produce traumas. For the survivors of the California earthquake the traumas are emotional. For foreign policy specialists who watched the Cold War end unexpectedly and the Soviet Union disintegrate peacefully, the traumas are cognitive. Disagreement about the future course of American foreign policy runs deep. Conventional theories do not consider important factors that contributed to the cataclysmic changes of 1989-1990. Their conceptual lenses overlook the cultural-institutional context and identity as important causes that are creating widespread confusion about the purposes to which American power should be applied now that the Soviet Union has disappeared. In contrast, Ernest May identifies the central importance of culture and identity when he argues that "American foreign policy issues have historically involved one question not asked in the same way elsewhere: Who are we?" ₇₃

Although none of the empirical essays deal with American foreign policy directly, their arguments contain a number of implications that point to the contradictory impulses of American security policy on the international system. Eyre and Suchman suggest that the United States affects the militarization of international politics directly, as one of the largest weapons exporters in the world. Furthermore, by defining the model of what constitutes a modern military, the United States reinforces global militarization also, though indirectly. By implication, the United States also shapes the concepts and language by which modern militaries frame security issues, with obvious effects on the international security environment. Johnston's analysis of the causal effects of China's strategic culture of hard realism reminds us of the political significance of such collective norms. At the same time, American foreign policy has also created political developments that push in very different directions. Risse-Kappen and Herman show in their essays that the creation of a North Atlantic security community, embodying the principle of multilateralism and the exchange of ideas during the period of detente, as well as President Bush's policy of reassurance in 1989-1991 created the political space that allowed New Thinkers to operate and that helped push Gorbachev to adopt radical reform policies.

Over time some of these factors get magnified for reasons not directly related to American foreign policy. For example, the powerful effect of the presence of the United States in Germany and Japan after World War II eventually made these two states abstain from the militarization of international politics-based on the reassurance that the protection of the U.S. military has provided to date. Herman's paper illustrates that important elements of New Thinking in the Soviet Union, such as the concept of "defensive defense," acquired political significance because of contacts between Soviet and German research institutes.

Today American foreign policy is unsteady because the norms and doctrine that inform it remain politically undefined. Price and Tannenwald show how the norms of non-use of chemical and nuclear weapons evolved not in a linear fashion but in response to political contingencies, historical conjunctures, and accident. Finnemore's analysis of intervention norms documents important secular changes in shared identities and in liberal egalitarian notions of humanity. They are now embodied in international legal precepts that have eliminated the legitimacy of unilateral interventions for national gain. Realpolitik efforts to ignore claims for humanitarian intervention in strategically unimportant states will prove politically impossible to sustain in at least some cases, such as Rwanda.

If humanitarian interventions cannot be avoided and if they must be multilateral, U.S. policy makers should strengthen multilateral institutions so that they can act more efficiently and effectively when they must carry out what have become normatively necessary tasks. But at the end of the Cold War, we do not find a broadly accepted model or set of social norms that shapes U.S. policy. Instead American politics shows a deep division between a Congress committed to unilateralism and an executive favoring multilateralism. Similarly, the U.S. military, Kier's analysis of French military doctrine implies, should now reevaluate its military doctrine to adjust to new contexts. It remains to be seen whether peace enforcement in the Third World and low-intensity conflicts will replace, for example, the army's traditional focus on Europe and mechanized warfare.

Domestic debate about American foreign policy resembles a masquerade ball. Conservatives who favored an assertive foreign policy, including intervention, in the interest of defending the free world before 1989, have turned isolationist. None of the growing number of trouble spots in the Third World threatens vital American interests and thus merits engagement. Liberals who had advocated caution in foreign affairs before 1989 now insist that if international pandemonium is left unchecked, this will have deleterious consequences for the American body politic. Hence, they favor multilateral engagement in defense of basic human rights. In terms of public debate, American foreign policy reacts to the push and pull of the same forces as it did before 1989. The masques are the same. But the faces and voices that they conceal differ.

With the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the relative power of the United States has increased sharply. Yet we do not live in a world in which international security issues gravitate around only one superpower. For the United States is reluctant to commit its military might. Unilateral military action is unlikely, since few, if any, of the many conflicts in the world threaten vital American interests. And multilateral action is also unlikely, since the American political elite and public do not trust international peacekeeping and peace-enforcing efforts that the United States government cannot fully control. Yet American influence does not exist simply because of America's military might, for that might is often not usable in the many conflicts that affect the national security of states around the world. American influence exists also by virtue of the fact that the United States is recognized in most capitals around the world as the only military superpower.

On economic issues the distinction between the territorial economy of the United States and American global economic presence makes it difficult to come to an overall assessment of America's position. The territorial economy of the United States is holding its own in competition with Europe, but the accelerating pace of economic change in Asia is undermining, in relative terms, the strength of American producers in that part of the world. The American territorial economy creates a large number of jobs while real wages, uniquely among the leading capitalist states, stagnate or decline. In the international division of labor, American multinational corporations remain highly competitive, as has been true for the last several decades.

Finally, on questions of mass culture the assessment of America is equally indeterminate. The United States is unrivaled in exporting its popular culture to all corners of the globe, from fast-food chains to movies and rock music. Japan and Germany have made limited inroads, for example, in the world of fashion and international cuisine, but their cultural appeal is very limited compared with the pervasive American presence in the global culture market. Furthermore, that presence has intensified over time. In the process of becoming, in Walt Whitman's apt phrase, a "world nation, " however, the United States is largely giving over to marketing considerations any specificity of what it means to be American. ₇₄   For ET and Jurassic Park to be successful culture products, they must abstract from the American context in which they were produced. These are global stories that do not package American values. Distinctive to the strong global appeal of America's popular culture is the fact that it transcends the specificity to time and space. As is true for military and economic issues, in the realm of mass culture America appears to be both present and absent on the global scene.

The United States thus finds itself enmeshed in global contexts that are partly of its own making. As Samuel Huntington argued in a seminal essay published in 1973, the nature of the American empire was powered by the spread of transnational organizations. Since 1945 they were developed largely out of American national organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental. Access to foreign societies became as important as accords with foreign governments. America expanded into the international system not only by controlling foreign people and resources but also by deploying American people and resources. American expansion was typified not by the acquisition of foreign territory and the power to control but by the penetration of foreign society and the freedom to operate. This expansion was quintessentially American: segmental, pluralistic, and operational. By and large, and despite some significant exceptions, American expansion was not colonial. The mechanisms of expansion were variegated and involved a mixture of competition, coercion, and emulation. ₇₅   In the end, this American empire proved vastly superior to the territorially based one of the Soviet Union. But with the end of the Cold War, Huntington argues, the United States is locked, once again, in a conflict of global proportions. In Huntington's view the Cold War has given way to a clash of civilization that makes issues of cultural authenticity central to international politics. ₇₆   Indeed, Huntington's economic and cultural arguments are close cousins. The pervasiveness of America's informal empire and the increasing intensity of international cultural conflicts are probably causally related.

Civilizational clashes are in this view the defining characteristic of a new type of international relations. Civilizations are not replacing states. Instead, Huntington argues, they are becoming the relevant cultural contexts in which states must act. ₇₇   State interests will no longer be defined as much by ideological interests as by civilizational ones. Although they are real, the defining characteristics of civilizations (history, language, culture, tradition, religion) cannot be grasped easily. Similarly, although the boundaries between civilizations are not hard and fast, they are basic. ₇₈   Civilizations are becoming more important as the religious and political fundamentalism of non-Western states is challenging the interests and values of the West. Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Algeria are examples.

This argument is appealing to some because, like Doctor Doolittle's push-me-pull-you, it has two heads and thus can take on all comers-those who assume identities to be essential and those who assume them to be constructed. Under the wide umbrella of civilization, identities can be thought of as constantly contested and constructed in a fluid political life. Political leaders can deliberately choose to refashion the identity of a Turkey, a Mexico, an Australia, or a Russia. ₇₉   But this is not the central thrust of Huntington's argument. His analysis views the basic factors defining civilizations as objective and not amenable to political change. Indeed, at times in the analysis civilizations, not states, bandwagon and balance, and act on the international stage. ₈₀   Ethnic and religious slaughter in Yugoslavia results from five hundred years of history, not from the political gambits of a Milosevic or a Tudjman during the last five years. This view of civilizational identity as immutable permits Huntington to articulate the most controversial part of his analysis. An apparent, old civilizational multipolarity conceals an underlying, new bipolarity, which pits the "West against the rest." ₈₁

Huntington's conclusion is open to serious question on many grounds. ₈₂   Four points concern me here. His analysis does not specify the full range of outcomes that occurs when the states or empires that are carriers of civilizations clash. In history that range encompasses more than "clashes." Don Puchala's preliminary inventory of some historical episodes lists a much broader array of outcomes that includes absorption, hybridization, hege mony, rejection and resurgence, obliteration and genocide, isolation and suspicion, and cross-fertilization. ₈₃

Second, Huntington is erroneously one-sided in the conclusion he draws from his analysis. Karl Deutsch's comparison of world regions and civilizations strikes a better balance. Deutsch argues that the distinctiveness of the West is strongest with respect to social and political institutions. And, equally important, almost all Western traits can also be found in one or more world regions and civilizations. "The peoples and culture of the West are like those of other regions, only more so. This is why the West and the rest of the world could learn from each other in the past and can continue to do so in the future." ₈₄

Third, identities are neither totally fluid nor primordial. They are historically contingent and must be understood contextually. The resurgence of Islam illustrates the point. "Islam" operates as a construct that includes Iran in the Middle East and gives that country a leading role in the politics of that region. By contrast, "pan-Arabism" as the reigning ideology of the 1960s sought to exclude non-Arab Iran from the Middle East. A politically focused anti-imperialism of the 1960s has given way to a diffuse anti-Westernism in the 1990s. Definitions of collective identity are thus subject to change over time. Unsurprisingly, contemporary Islamic civilization is not a homogeneous actor on the world stage. Saudi Arabia and Iran express clashing visions of traditionalism and radicalism and are deeply divided over the social and cultural purposes of Islamic civilization. Static and totalizing wholes such as "Islam" and "Christianity," or "totalitarian Communism" and "democratic Capitalism," do not offer fruitful ways for analysis and harbor the risk of seriously misleading public policy. ₈₅

Finally, the United States itself reveals a great flaw in Huntington's attempt to reimpose intellectual order on an inchoate world, based on the equation of American with Western identity. Huntington acknowledges this possibility in the form of a rhetorical question: Is it possible that "de-Westernization of the United States" may lead to its "de-Americaniza tion"? ₈₆   The question is more than rhetorical. It is real. To be sure, the American celebration of cultural diversity, remarkably uniform as it is in its tenor, is not pushing the United States toward disintegration. But cultural diversity is real nonetheless. "Oklahoma city has five mosques, four Hindu temples, one Sikh gurudwara, and three Southeast Asian Buddhist temples. . . . There are said to be 70 mosques in the Chicago metropolitan area. . . . It is surprising to find that Muslims outnumber Episcopalians in the U.S. and are likely to outnumber Jews in the near future." ₈₇   These demographic facts eliminate the dubious anchor of an uncontested, stable American or Western identity that clashes with the "rest." In a world where "our" Japanese can beat "their" Japanese, ₈₈   will "our" Muslims fight "theirs"?

The United States may begin to follow in Canada's footsteps and become the second postmodern nation. Canada's central government has made multiculturalism its official policy, and Canadian identity on questions of security is defined in terms of international peacekeeping rather than the defense of national sovereignty. But in contrast to Canada through its politics, economics, and culture, the United States has a profound influence on the "rest." It offers a microcosm of the political and cultural pluralism that marks the world. The social statistics of the United States belie the presumption of cultural homogeneity. Traditional pillars of American identity are growing weaker: standardized school curricula, a common language, mass conscription, and a skilled industrial working class. Other institutions gain strength: the media and pop culture, high-tech warfare, and a bifurcated service economy. Thus the United States is increasingly institutionalizing its own "multicultural regime" as a form of postmodern politics. ₈₉

The incoherence of American policy and politics expresses this increasing diversity and, with the end of the Cold War, the weakening of a sense of collective identity. The hollowing out of the American economy by American multinational corporations and the segmentation of American culture by media conglomerates are part of the same social process. They reflect the logic of an informal American empire that is reorganizing the world along transnational lines while helping to disorganize the American nation-state. We can observe a similar process in Europe. But it takes a different form and works more obliquely. ₉₀   Civilizations will provide the relevant context for state action. With its identity demonstrably changing in important ways, however, the "West" is unlikely to confront the "rest." America's growing cultural heterogeneity makes implausible the fixing of a particular "us" that can be opposed to an alien "them." America's collective identity can no longer be reinforced by the invocation of an overpowering foreign enemy-unless, of course, one was to reinvent that enemy for political reasons in a new cultural gestalt.

An eroding sense of collective identity in the United States reinforces rather than weakens the transnational diffusion of American values. For as John Ruggie argues compellingly, the multilateral vision of world order that has been at the core of the American expansion in the twentieth century mirrors America's collective identity. To become American is a matter of individual choice, not birth. America sees itself as it sees the world it would like to create: a willful community created by individual choices that are based on a universal organizing principle. ₉₁

With the end of the Cold War, national security specialists are eager to find a new compass for the United States. The difficulty in constructing a coherent grand strategy does not lie primarily in the complexity of the material and normative constraints and incentives that confront the United States in the international arena. It lies rather in the contested collective U.S. identity and lack of purpose that make a clear definition of American interest so difficult. It is easy to forget that on the eve of the war with Iraq the American public was more deeply divided about whether or not to fight than it had been before any of the other major U.S. military campaigns in the twentieth century. America's position in the world is thus shaped by the two factors that this book has privileged in its analysis throughout: real and perceived cultural conflicts and the contestations of collective identities at home and abroad.

But the difficulty in devising a new American strategy runs deeper. In an attempt to meet its intellectual critics on their chosen ground, this book has been self-conscious in focusing on the state's military security. Yet the concept of national security is evidently in a process of broadening. Outside of the United States and the halls of government nonmilitary and nonstatist definitions of national security are becoming more widely shared. In Europe and Asia political and economic definitions of security are debated more seriously than in the United States. And in many states, especially in the Third World, the main worry is not, and should not be, about how to make the state more secure from other states. Rather the focus is, and should be, on how to make citizens more secure from the capriciousness of states.

Furthermore, the search for a new coherent strategy is impaired by the fact that the United States does not live with a few scores of other states in an anarchic international system. Nor does it belong to international institutions whose effects on policy coordination extend only to the reduction of uncertainties and the increase in transparency. Instead the United States is part of a variegated set of complex social structures and processes that constitute a global system. Although they are relevant for governments and states, these processes typically are not organized solely around states. They may or may not take institutional form and thus affect the interest calculations of governments. But they touch often on norms and identities that matter in domestic and international politics.

Today's problem is no longer that of E. H. Carr, one of avoiding the sterility of realism and the naiveté of idealism. ₉₂   Our choice is more complex. We can remain intellectually riveted on a realist world of states balancing power in a multipolar system. We can focus analytically with liberal institutionalists on the efficiency effects that institutions may have on the prospects for policy coordination between states. Or, acknowledging the partial validity of these views, we can broaden our analytical perspective, as this book suggests, to include as well culture and identity as important causal factors that help define the interests and constitute the actors that shape national security policies and global insecurities.

---

For their careful readings and critical comments of previous drafts, I would like to thank the members of the project; the participants at the Social Science Research Council/MacArthur Workshops at the University of Minnesota and Stanford University in 1994; and Emanuel Adler, Tom Christensen, Lynn Eden, Gunther Hellmann, Ron Jepperson, Mary E. Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, Jonathan Kirshner, Audie Kohli, Atul Kohli, Henry Nau, Jack Snyder, Janice Thomson, Stephen Walt, Alexander Wendt, and two anonymous readers for Columbia University Press.

Note 1:  Paul Kennedy, The Rise and the Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000  (New York: Random House, 1987). Back.

Note 2:  Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History," National Interest, no. 16 (Summer 1989): 3-18; Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man  (New York: Free Press, 1992). Back.

Note 3:  Kenneth N. Waltz, "The New World Order," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22, no. 2 (1993): 187-95; Kenneth N. Waltz, "The Emerging Structure of International Politics," International Security 18, no. 2 Fall 1993): 44-79; John J. Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War," International Security 15, no. 1 (Summer 1990): 5-56. Back.

Note 4:  Daniel P. Moynihan, Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics  (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Ken Jowitt, New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction  (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Back.

Note 5:  U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Multinationals and the National Interest: Playing by Different Rules, OTA-ITE-569 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993); Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, "Pluralistic Security Communities: Past, Present, and Future,' Working Paper Series on Regional Security, Global Studies Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1994; Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 22-49. Back.

Note 6:  Michael Lorriaux, "The Realists and Saint Augustine: Skepticism, Psychology, and Moral Action in International Relations Thought," International Studies Quarterly 36, no. 4 (December 1992): 401-20. Back.

Note 7:  Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace  (New York: Knopf, 1985); John H. Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age  (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959); Henry Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace, 1812-22  (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957); Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy  (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994); Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics  (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979); Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics  (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Frank W. Wayman and Paul F. Diehl, "Realism Reconsidered: The Realpolitik Framework and Its Basic Propositions," in Frank W. Wayman and Paul F. Diehl, eds., Reconstructing Realpolitik, pp. 3-26 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994). Back.

Note 8:  Ernst B. Haas, Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization  (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964); Karl W. Deutsch et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957). Back.

Note 9:  Philip Green, Deadly Logic: The Theory of Nuclear Deterrence  (New York: Schocken, 1968); Karl W. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations  (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968), pp. 124-30. Back.

Note 10:  Stanley Hoffmann, "Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State in Western Europe," Daedalus 95, no. 3 (Summer 1966): 862-915. Back.

Note 11:  Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, eds. Transnational Relations and World Politics  (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972). Back.

Note 12:  Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition  (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977). Back.

Note 13:  Charles P. Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939, rev. ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986). Back.

Note 14:  Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane, "Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework," in Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, p. 5 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993). Back.

Note 15:  Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics  (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); David A. Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate  (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); John J. Mearsheimer, "The False Promise of International Institutions," International Security 19, no. 3 (Winter 1994/95): 5-49, and a set of replies of liberal scholars to be published in the same journal (vol. 20, Summer issue), in 1995. Back.

Note 16:  Waltz, "The New World Order"; Waltz, "The Emerging Structure"; Robert O. Keohane, Joseph S. Nye, and Stanley Hoffmann, eds., After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989-1991  (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). Back.

Note 17:  Robert O. Keohane, "Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War," in Baldwin, Neorealism and Neoliberalism, p. 293. The analytical assumptions of a sociological formulation of liberalism that Keohane invokes only in passing are more compatible with the perspective of this volume than with the perspective of neoliberalism and its total neglect of issues of identity (ibid., pp. 271, 289), for they focus, in the words of Joseph Nye, on "the transformative effect of transnational contacts and coalitions on national attitudes," or identity; Joseph S. Nye, Jr., "Neorealism and Neoliberalism," World Politics 40, no. 2 (January 1988): 246. Back.

Note 18:  Keohane, "Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War," p. 296. Back.

Note 19:  Henry R. Nau, The Myth of America's Decline: Leading the World Economy into the 1990s  (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Joseph S. Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power  (New York: Basic Books, 1990); Robert L. Paarlberg, Leadership Abroad Begins at Home: U.S. Foreign Economic Policy after the Cold War  (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1995). Back.

Note 20:  Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen  (Munich: Duncker and Humblot, 1932). Back.

Note 21:  Christoph Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau: Eine intellektuelle Biographie  (Bern: Paul Haupt, 1993), pp. 168-72. I am indebted to Gunther Hellmann for drawing my attention to this point and to Frei's work. Back.

Note 22:  Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p. 11. Back.

Note 23:  Nye does not offer any suggestions for how we might explain this important change. The concluding pages in essay 2 try to develop one possible line of argument. Back.

Note 24:  Nye, Bound to Lead, pp. 31-32, 188. Back.

Note 25:  Christian Reus-Smit, "Realist and Resistance Utopias: Community, Security, and Political Action in the New Europe," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21, no. 1 (1992): 1-28; Robert W. McElroy, Morality and American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ethics in International Affairs  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Back.

Note 26:  Ronen P. Palan and Brook M. Blair, "On the Idealist Origins of the Realist Theory of International Relations," Review of International Studies 19 (1993): 385-99. Back.

Note 27:  For a number of reasons this volume resists the temptation of developing typologies-for example, of norms and identities. Since actor identities are often relational, they involve the coding of processes of political construction rather than simply the coding of the political properties of actors. The typologizing of processes is not an easy task and requires considerably more data than are at hand to date in this field of study. Typologies are useful for organizing a substantial body of empirical material. Outside of a rationalist framework, however, national security studies has paid little systematic attention to either norms or identities. The line of work that this book represents is at an early stage. Furthermore, typologies are ahistorical and acontextual. To be fruitful, most scholars argue, the analysis of norms, identities, and cultures must be contextual and historical. Back.

Note 28:  To be sure, realist and rationalist explanations help us to understand why the Soviet military permitted the reformers to seize power in the first place. For without reform, the military believed, Soviet defeat in the high-technology arms race of the Cold War would be unavoidable. But these explanations are not useful, Herman argues, in helping us to understand policies of voluntary retrenchment-imposing a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, deliberately undercutting the leadership of several Eastern European allied governments intent on cracking down on democracy movements, offering only token resistance to German unification on Western terms, and acquiescing in the un Security Council to a U.S.-led Persian Gulf intervention-that the reformers eventually adopted. Back.

Note 29:  Lea Brilmayer, American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World  (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). Back.

Note 30:  Sociological-institutional scholarship thus would do well to emulate Alexander George. Criticizing structural theories for their black-boxing of important processes that translate structural effects, he has shown us how to make "process theory" a respectable cousin of "substantive theory"; see Alexander L. George, Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy  (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993), pp. xxi-xxii. Glenn H. Snyder, "Process Variables in Neorealist Theory," Security Studies 5, no. 3 (Spring 1996), in press, has tried to enrich neorealist theory by developing more systematically the concepts of "process" and "relationship." Back.

Note 31:  On the basis of social psychological research, Jonathan Mercer offers an interesting realist critique of Wendt's constructivist account of anarchy. See his article "Anarchy and Identity," International Organization 49, no. 2 (1995): 229-52. Alastair Johnston's essay in this volume is a useful reminder that, contra Mercer, realism and constructivism are not necessarily antithetical, for realism can itself be viewed as a powerful social construction. See also Stephen Haggard, "Structuralism and Its Critics: Recent Progress in International Relations Theory," in Emanuel Adler and Beverly Crawford, eds., Progress in Postwar International Relations, p. 430 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991). Back.

Note 32:  Stephen G. Walker, ed., Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis  (Durham: Duke University Press, 1987). Back.

Note 33:  Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, introduction to Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio, eds., The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 15-27 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). Back.

Note 34:  Albert Yee, "The Causal Effects of Ideas Themselves and Policy Preferences: Behavioral, Institutional and Discursive Formulations" (unpublished paper, Brown University, 1993); Sanjoy Banerjee, "International Interaction as a Psychocultural Process: Examples from the Partition of India" (paper prepared for delivery at the 1994 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, September 1-4, 1994). Back.

Note 35:  It thus follows those scholars who are self-conscious in avoiding any sharp distinction between international and domestic levels of analysis; Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson, and Robert Putnam, eds., Double-Edged Diplomacy: Interactive Games in International Affairs  (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). Back.

Note 36:  In a different way, though, a sociological perspective may also emphasize differences between levels of analysis. This volume offers some evidence for the preliminary hypothesis that the constitutive effects of norms are stronger at the international level, while their regulative effects are stronger at the domestic level. Back.

Note 37:  Stephen D. Krasner, "Westphalia and All That," in Goldstein and Keohane, Ideas and Foreign Policy, pp. 235-64. Back.

Note 38:  John Boli, "Issues of Sovereignty in the World Polity: An Institutionalist Research Agenda" (unpublished paper, n.d.); Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber, eds., State Sovereignty As Social Construct  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press); Palan and Blair, "On the Idealist Origins." Back.

Note 39:  Adda B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960); Neta Crawford, "A Security Regime Among Democracies: Cooperation Among Iroquois Nations," International Organization 48, no. 3 (Summer 1944): 345-86. Back.

Note 40:  Christian Reus-Smit, "The Moral Purpose of the State: The Social Identity, Legitimate Action, and the Construction of International Institutions" (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1995). Back.

Note 41:  Arthur Waldron, "Chinese Strategy from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries," in Williamson Murray, MacGregor Knox, and Alvin Bernstein, eds., The Making of Strategy: Rulers, States, and War, pp. 85-114 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Morris Rossabi, ed., China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries  (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Alastair Iain Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Adam Segal, "War, Walls, or Trade: Changing Conceptions of Chinese State Identity and Ming Foreign Relations" (unpublished paper, Government Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1994). Back.

Note 42:  John W. Slocum, "Will Russia Disintegrate? Separatism, Regionalism, and the Future of the Russian Federation" (unpublished paper, Peace Studies Program, Cornell University, 1993), p. 5. Back.

Note 43:  Rogers Brubaker, "Nationhood and the National Question in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet Eurasia: An Institutionalist Account," Theory and Society 23 (1994): 48; David Laitin, "Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Nationality in the Post-Soviet Diaspora" (paper prepared for delivery at the 1994 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, September 1994); Ted Hopf, "Identity and Russian Foreign Policy" (unpublished paper, University of Michigan, August 1994); Jessica Eve Stern, "Moscow Meltdown: Can Russia Survive?" International Security 18, no. 4 (Spring 1994): 40-65. Back.

Note 44:  Slocum, "Will Russia Disintegrate?" p. 18. Back.

Note 45:  Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future." Back.

Note 46:  Joseph M. Grieco, "State Interests and International Rule Trajectories: A Neorealist Interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty and European Economic and Monetary Union," Security Studies 5, no. 3 (Spring 1996), forthcoming. Joseph M. Grieco, "The Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union, and the Neo-realist Research Programme," Review of International Studies 21, no. 1 (January 1995): 21-40. Neorealism fails to convince in this instance, since it sidesteps altogether the central question of why Germany has an interest in a policy that neorealist theory suggests favors its European competitors. An important part of the answer, as Grieco recognizes elsewhere, lies in German domestic politics and thus falls outside the domain of neorealist theory altogether. See Joseph M. Grieco, "Understanding the Problem of International Cooperation: The Limits of Neoliberal Institutionalism and the Future of Realist Theory," in Baldwin, Neorealism and  p. 338. Back.

Note 47:  Wayne Sandholtz, "Choosing Union: Monetary Politics and Maastricht," International Organization 47, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 1-39. Back.

Note 48:  John Gerard Ruggie, "Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations," International Organization 47, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 140. Ruggie's formulation is giving short shrift to Canada, arguably the first postmodern state par excellence. Quebec's search for "sovereignty association" bears some resemblance to the eu. According to Quebec comedian Yvon Deschamps, ideally an independent Quebec would exist within a united Canada. See Clyde H. Farnsworth, "Quebec Separatists Split on Timing and Terms of Referendum," New York Times, April 18, 1995, p. A9. The United States is not free of its own sovereignty problems. In 1990, 287 reservations for American Indians, and almost as many tribes, were recognized as distinct nations. These reservations sometimes resemble Third World enclave economies, often lacking extradition agreements with surrounding county governments. See Peter T. Suzuki, "The Indian Reservation in the Comparative PA Course" (paper prepared for delivery at the Eighteenth National Conference on Teaching Public Administration, Seattle, March 24-25, 1995). Back.

Note 49:  Ruggie, "Territoriality and Beyond," p. 172; Ann-Marie Burley and Walter Mattli, "Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration," International Organization 47, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 41-76. Back.

Note 50:  David Cameron, "British Exit, German Voice, French Loyalty: Defection, Domination, and Cooperation in the 1992-93 ERM Crisis" (paper prepared for delivery at the 1993 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., September 1993). Back.

Note 51:  This line of reasoning could be extended to a comparison of Germany and France. Despite some remarkable similarities in their international placement after World War II, West Germany and France have often behaved very differently. These differences are arguably related to different state identities. Back.

Note 52:  Adler and Barnett, "Pluralistic Security Communities." Back.

Note 53:  Michael Marks, "The Formation of European Policy in Post-Franco Spain: Ideas, Interests, and the International Transmission of Knowledge" (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1993). Back.

Note 54:  Michael Herzfeld, Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece  (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982). Back.

Note 55:  Deutsch et al., Political Community and the  . Back.

Note 56:  Waltz, "The New World Order," p. 194. Back.

Note 57:  Charles W. Kegley, Jr., and Gregory Raymond, A Multipolar Peace? Great-Power Politics in the Twenty-first Century  (New York: St. Martin's, 1994), p. 121. Back.

Note 58:  Peter J. Katzenstein, "Regions in Competition: Comparative Advantages of America, Europe, and Asia," in Helga Haftendorn and Christian Tuschhoff, eds., America and Europe in an Era of Change, pp. 105-26 (Boulder: Westview, 1993); Peter J. Katzenstein, "Introduction: Asian Regionalism in Comparative Perspective," in Peter J. Katzenstein and Takashi Shiraishi, eds., Network Power: Japan and Asia  (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997). Back.

Note 59:  Realist theories are likely to be wrong in their analyses if they overlook either the significance of comprehensive definitions of national security going beyond narrow military concerns or the legacy of the Sino-centric world system for the national security policies of Asian states in the 1990s. Back.

Note 60:  Applied to Asia, however, realism still faces the problem of yielding analyses that are indeterminate. See Peter J. Katzenstein, Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan  (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996). Back.

Note 61:  Katzenstein, "Introduction: Asian Realism." Back.

Note 62:  Joel Kotkin, Tribes: How Race, Religion, and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy  (New York: Random House, 1993). Back.

Note 63:  The reappearance of a virulent and xenophobic nationalism in the politics of many European states, including Germany, reflects an erosion (in the case of Italy, an implosion) of the political center-right. Underlying trends of increasing social diversity have been apparent for two decades, paralleling, although in less dramatic form, developments toward the creation of a multicultural regime in the United States. The broadening of the spectrum of collective identities in Europe has accelerated with the end of the Cold War. In the 1990s Christian democracy is losing its grip over the right-wing political spectrum. This development mirrors the erosion of social democratic support among groups favoring environmental movements in the 1980s. Back.

Note 64:  John Meyer, "Rationalized Environments," in W. Richard Scott and John W. Meyer, eds., Institutional Environments and Organizations  (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1994), pp. 28-54. Back.

Note 65:  Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics  (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), pp. 254-55. Back.

Note 66:  Such compartmentalization had great intellectual benefits in the 1970s and 1980s. It supported, for example, the creation of a "conventional" scholarly field of national security that followed the canons of social science rather than simply tracking policy developments, as had often been the case in the 1950s and 1960s. Back.

Note 67:  R. B. J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations As Political Theory  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Back.

Note 68:  When conventional analytical perspectives in the field of national security engage issues that provide hard tests for their preferred mode of analysis-broader security issues and nonstate actors-theoretical debate and empirical research on national security issues are likely to be enriched greatly. See, for example, Daniel Deudney, "The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 19, no. 3 (Winter 1990): 461-76. Back.

Note 69:  See, for example, a number of outstanding essays on international relations theory published in the excellent inaugural issue of Zeitschrift fur Internationale Beziehungen 1, no. 1 (1994). Back.

Note 70:  Richard Swedberg, " 'The Battle of the Methods': Toward a Paradigm Shift?" in Amitai Etzioni and Paul R. Lawrence, eds., Socio-Economics: Toward a New Synthesis, pp. 13-33 (Armonk, N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1991). During the last decade the relationship between economics and sociology has once again become a lively source of debate. See, for example, James N. Baron and Michael T. Hannan, "The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Sociology," Journal of Economic Literature 32 (September 1994): 1111-46; Harald Muller, "Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln: Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien," Zeitschrift fur Internationale Beziehungen 1, no. 1 (1994): 15-44; Rationality and Society 4, no. 4 (October 1992); Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 150, no. 1 (March 1994); James Johnson, "Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action," Political Theory 19, no. 2 (May 1991): 181-201; Jon Elster, The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Mark Granovetter, "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness," American Journal of Sociology 91, no. 3 (November 1985): 481-510; and Anthony Oberschall and Eric M. Leifer, "Efficiency and Social Institutions: Uses and Misuses of Economic Reasoning in Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1986): 233-53. Back.

Note 71:  John A. Ferejohn, "Rationality and Interpretation: Parliamentary Elections in Early Stuart England," in Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed., The Economic Approach to Politics  (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), pp. 279-305; Robert H. Bates and Barry R. Weingast, "A New Comparative Politics: Integrating Rational Choice and Interpretivist Perspectives" (unpublished paper, Harvard and Stanford Universities, October 1994); James Johnson, "Symbol and Strategy: Cultural Bases of Political Possibility" (unpublished paper, University of Rochester, 1992). Back.

Note 72:  Friedrich Kratochwil, "Regimes, Interpretation, and the 'Science' of Politics: A Reappraisal," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 263-84. Friedrich V. Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions  (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 22-28. Back.

Note 73:  Ernest R. May, " 'Who are We'?" Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (March-April 1994): 135. Back.

Note 74:  David Rieff, "A Global Culture?" World Policy Journal 10, no. 4 (Winter 1993/94): 74; Carl Bernstein, "The Leisure Empire," Time, December 24, 1990, pp. 56-59; Paarlberg, Leadership Abroad Begins at Home, pp. 48-56. Back.

Note 75:  Samuel P. Huntington, "Transnational Organizations in World Politics," World Politics 25, no. 3 (April 1973): 338, 342-45. Back.

Note 76:  Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Back.

Note 77:  Don Puchala, "International Encounters of Another Kind" (paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., March 30-April 2, 1994. Back.

Note 78:  Ian S. Lustick, Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza  (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993). Back.

Note 79:  Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?," pp. 24, 42-44, 48. Back.

Note 80:  Ibid., pp. 26-27, 30, 35, 39-41, 48. Back.

Note 81:  Ibid., pp. 26, 39-41, 48. Back.

Note 82:  Some of these issues are aired in a number of short articles published in Foreign Affairs 72, no. 5 (November-December 1993), and discussed by James Kurth in "The Real Clash," National Interest, no. 37 (Fall 1994): 3-15. They were discussed frankly at a special panel of the 1993 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Back.

Note 83:  Puchala, "International Encounters of Another Kind." Back.

Note 84:  Karl W. Deutsch, "On Nationalism, World Regions, and the Nature of the West," in Per Torsvik, ed., Mobilization, Center-Periphery Structures and Nation-Building: A Volume in Commemoration of Stein Rokkan, p. 86 (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1981). Back.

Note 85:  Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, "Religion, the State, and Transnational Civil Society," in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, ed., Transnational Religion, the State, and Global Civil Society, pp. 21-23 (forthcoming). Back.

Note 86:  Samuel P. Huntington, "If Not Civilizations, What? Paradigms of the Post-Cold War World," Foreign Affairs 72, no. 5 (November-December 1993): 189-90. Back.

Note 87:  Rudolph, "Religion, the State, and Transnational Civil Society," p. 4. Back.

Note 88:  Walter Feinberg, Japan and the Pursuit of a New American Identity: Work and Education in a Multicultural Age  (New York: Routledge, 1993). Back.

Note 89:  James Kurth, "The Post-Modern State: Is America a Nation?" Current 348 (December 1992): 26-33; Kurth, "The Real Clash." Back.

Note 90:  Michael Geyer, "Historical Fictions of Autonomy and the Europeanization of National History," Central European History 22, nos. 3-4 (1989): 316-42. Back.

Note 91:  John Gerard Ruggie, "Third Try at World Order? America and Multilateralism After the Cold War," Political Science Quarterly 109, no. 4 (Fall 1994): 564-65; Alexander L. George, "Domestic Constraints on Regime Change in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Need for Policy Legitimacy," in Ole R. Holsti, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alexander L. George, eds., Change in the International System, pp. 233-62 (Boulder: Westview, 1980). Back.

Note 92:  E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1956), pp. 11-12. ). Back.

---

The Culture of National Security