Language games and Southeast Asia-United States relations, 1954-2006

Abstract

Chapter 2: Counter-Arguments Narratives of Southeast Asia-US relations usually depict the flow of power as unidirectional. In most instances, the relationship is seen as being led by the US, and the Southeast Asian states take on the role of free riders. In other accounts, power is held by the small Southeast Asian states when they are able to "pull" the US into the security architecture of the region. However, given that the flow of power is indeed unidirectional, what explains why sometimes it is the US that seems to shape, influence, or steer the relationship, while at other times it is the Southeast Asian nations? The relationship has also been described as following certain types of rule or order: sometimes it is described as hegemony, while at other times it is characterized by hierarchy. What explains this assortment of international orders? Moreover, what makes one type of rule hold in a particular time period? It is offered in this dissertation that such a variation may be explained by the use of language games as a method of analysis. It is argued here that Southeast Asia-US relations have experienced various types of rule from 1954 to 2006 because of the change in the language games that these states play. Paying attention to language emphasizes the constant and active participation of actors in international relations, be they superpowers or members of the so-called Third World. CHAPTER Chapter 1: Introduction Charmaine G. Misalucha 6 predominated especially in terms of the United States' conviction that its War on Terror was justified and morally right. At the same time, however, the United States' relations with the rest of the international community in general, and with Southeast Asia in particular, were suggestive of a hierarchic type of rule. US President George W. Bush made this clear in his "Either you are with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric, implying that states around the world were forced to take a stand and that if they so decide to side with the "terrorists," they would definitely suffer the wrath of a wronged superpower. Chapter 7 explores the reasons why and how one type of rule shifts to another. It also concludes by identifying the value of using language games to account for international relations. There are benefits to be reaped from the acknowledgement that different types of rule obtain in Southeast Asia-US relations. Barry Buzan and Richard Little in their 2000 piece, International Systems in World History, support this when they push the