Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory1

Abstract

Cantir, Cristian and Juliet Kaarbo. (2011) Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1111/j.1743‐8594.2011.00156.x Many of the strengths of research in Foreign Policy Analysis have been overlooked by role theorists. Role theorists often assume that roles are shared across elites and masses, that elites can manipulate masses, or that public opinion on roles constrains elites. Role theorists also tend to assume that there is a consensus among elites over national roles. Research in Foreign Policy Analysis, on the other hand, demonstrates that foreign policy may be contested both vertically (between elites and masses) and horizontally (among elites) and that these conflicts affect foreign policy decision making and foreign policy behavior. We propose that (i) contested roles mean that roles and foreign policy are not as stable as is often implied; (ii) research on contested roles offers Foreign Policy Analysis a less preference‐oriented way of conceptualizing policy disagreements and decision making; and (iii) structures reveal themselves as important when agents use them in domestic discourse over contested roles, but the impact of international norm and role structures is not automatic, as it is shaped by the agents (and domestic structures) in the domestic political process. We suggest that research on the strategic use of roles could bring together these benefits of examining contested roles.

Ideological Codependency and Regional Order: Iran, Syria, and the Axis of Refusal

“…They are also relevant to literature on the role of ideas, identity, and ideology in the constitution of regional order. Examples include work on coalitions and regional security (Buzan and Waever 2003;Solingen 1998Solingen , 2015, neoclassical realism (Juneau 2015), role theory (Cantir and Kaarbo 2012;Fernandez-Molina 2015), the role of ideology in alliances and conflict (Haas 2012;Owen 2010Owen , 2015Rubin 2014), the foreign policy of authoritarian states (Colgan and Weeks 2015;Kanat 2014;Odinius and Kuntz 2015;Weeks 2012), and constructivist approaches to foreign policy and regional order (Barnett 1998;Telhami and Barnett 2002).…”

BRICS and the Evolution of a New Agenda Within Global Governance

“…Domestic expectations are created from foreign policy makers' perceptions of the outlook of internal actors such as economic elites or other key state supporters among the general population. The influence of public opinion on foreign policy issues (Kaarbo and Cantir 2012), as well as a state's historical self, is integral to determining domestic expectations.…”

National Role Conceptions in the ‘Global Korea’ Foreign Policy Strategy

“…20) National roles are by no means always consensual; they can be contested both between elites and between the public and elites. 21) Beyond the individual level of decision makers, roles are internal constructions of a collective self of a nation. Roles are thus elements of state and national identity and situated in a cultural and social context.…”