State–society complexes in ontological security-seeking in IR

Revisiting the Causes of Russian Foreign Policy Changes: Incoherent Biographical Narrative, Recognition and Russia's Ontological Security-Seeking

“…This conceptualisation suggests that ontological security-seeking at the individual, societal and state levels is fundamentally intertwined. 20 Since its debut in IR, the ontological security scholarship has grown increasingly diverse. Two insights, in particular, are of importance here.…”

“…An alternative understanding of ontological security -the one employed in this analysis -suggests that identities are never fixed but constantly evolving, shifting an emphasis from identity stability to reflexivity towards identity, i.e., ability to revise identity in the face of change without impairing a cohesive sense of identity. 22 This understanding of ontological security calls for openness towards one's biographical narrative and perceptions of various others. In practical terms, it requires availability of discursive societal space, relatively free from state interference, where individuals and groups can deliberate on their collective self-image.…”

Bodies Coming Apart and Bodies Becoming Parts: Widening, Deepening, and Embodying Ontological (In)Security in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Second, Narozhna (2020 , 559) has outlined a “non-reductionist” framework “allowing us to elucidate the links between an individual, the society, and the state,” which crucially recognizes and problematizes the “anthropomorphisation of the state” ( Narozhna 2020 ) due to how it “shifts the locus of consciousness and intentionality from individuals to the state” ( Narozhna 2020 , 569). However, noticing that states are spoken about, appear as, and are treated as human is not exactly the same as arguing that collective political units that I prefer to refer to as bodies politic are not only anthropomorphized but also deeply and profoundly embodied.…”

“…As Wendt (2004 , 289) has explained, IR scholars often personify the state while “personhood is a useful fiction, analogy, metaphor, or shorthand for something else.” In their intervention, Narozhna (2020 , 568) also recognizes that “interlocking relationships” make way for the becoming of both individuals and states. However these relationships are not fleshed out to provide a robust ontological (in)security theory detailing how the process of (re/dis)embodiment brings both individual and collective into and out of being but rather takes a “relational view of agents and structures” ( Narozhna 2020 , 569), which are assumed to remain secure in themselves at the deep ontological level.…”

“…As Wendt (2004 , 289) has explained, IR scholars often personify the state while “personhood is a useful fiction, analogy, metaphor, or shorthand for something else.” In their intervention, Narozhna (2020 , 568) also recognizes that “interlocking relationships” make way for the becoming of both individuals and states. However these relationships are not fleshed out to provide a robust ontological (in)security theory detailing how the process of (re/dis)embodiment brings both individual and collective into and out of being but rather takes a “relational view of agents and structures” ( Narozhna 2020 , 569), which are assumed to remain secure in themselves at the deep ontological level. Moreover, understood as more deeply associated than units in “relations” with one another, the approach to ontological (in)security presented in this article rather describes both individual(ized) and collective(ized) bodies as coconstitutive of one another and involved, not in a “relational” manner but in an ongoing process of correspondence —(re/dis)embodiment.…”