Britain and World Power since 1945

Interactionist role theory meets ontological security studies: an exploration of synergies between socio-psychological approaches to the study of international relations

“…IRT constitutes a particular strand of role-theoretical theorizing in IR, which draws extensively on the works of social psychologist George Herbert Mead (1934), as well as, if to a lesser extent, on Alexander Wendt’s 2 application of Meadian concepts in his constructivist theory of international politics (1992, 1999). Like the OSL, IRT primarily concerns itself with the social emergence of an international actor’s ‘self’ in society (Harnisch, 2011b, 2012; Klose, 2018, 2019; McCourt, 2011, 2012, 2014; Wehner, 2015; Wehner and Thies, 2014). Concretely, it argues that an international actor, like an individual, emerges through the development of an image of its ‘self’, and the making and playing of roles, which allow that image to be expressed and stabilized in societal interaction.…”

“…Drawing on Mead’s theorization of the ‘self’, and sociological role-theoretical concepts like ‘alter-casting’ (see Weinstein and Deutschberger, 1963), an IRT perspective, furthermore, suggests that an individual actor draws on its reflective intelligence not only to develop a sense of ‘self’ but also to realize that sense of ‘self’ in society through the making and playing roles, which allow for the emergence of self-fulfilling routines, as well as the development of self-confidence. Concretely, IRT notes in this regard that individual actors seek to realize their ‘self’-image in society through the tied-up processes of role-making and alter-casting, whereby the latter refers to an individual’s attempt to get significant others to perform roles, which correspond with their vision of (their ‘self’ in) society (on role-making and alter-casting, see Harnisch, 2016: 15–16 and McCourt, 2011: 1607, 2014: 33). IRT further suggests that an individual actor’s ‘self’-realization is not a straightforward but rather a problematic process, which is shaped by its capacity to take up societal roles in line with its image of its ‘self’, as well as its ability to cast others into corresponding commensurate or counter-roles.…”

“…As part of this process, individual actors (to a greater or lesser extent) come to attach their ‘self’ to – and invest their ‘self’ in – an international actor’s ‘self’ and societal role-play, which they (more or less) come to consider as representing their ‘self’ on the international stage. The emergence of an international actor, IRT suggests, is thus intimately tied up with the emergence of domestic constituent units, which include both individuals as well as the collective domestic actors to which individuals attach their (role-playing) ‘self’ (McCourt, 2014: 37–38).…”

“…In recent years, interactionist role theory (IRT) and the ontological security literature (OSL) have fuelled a socio-psychological turn in the discipline of International Relations (IR) (see, for instance, Browning and Joenniemi, 2017; Harnisch, 2011b, 2012; Kinnvall, 2004; Kinnvall et al, 2018; Kinnvall and Mitzen, 2017; McCourt, 2011, 2012, 2014; Steele, 2008; Wehner, 2015; Wehner and Thies, 2014; Zarakol, 2010). While closely related, and largely complementary, the two literatures remain, however, surprisingly disconnected.…”

For Queen and Country! National Identity and British Post-War Use of Military Power

“…David McCourt argues that the Second World War and the subsequent loss of relative economic and military power to the USA and the Soviet Union changed Britain's world role (McCourt 2009(McCourt , 2014. As an outcome of these changes in the international order, Britain assumed the identity of a residual great power, an identity that strongly influences British post-war security policy from the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003(McCourt 2011.…”