The “Role” of Nationalism in Chinese Foreign Policy: A Reactive Model of Nationalism &amp; Conflict

Brittingham, Michael Alan

doi:10.1007/s11366-007-9005-3

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Brittingham (2007) argues that Chinese nationalism is a type of role that is activated only when China needs to defend its national identity from perceived threats from others. In his formulation, a role is an -identity mobilized in a specific situation‖ (p. 149) that provides guidance about behavior in a particular situation.…”

Section: What We See In Their Work Is a Break Between Scholars Doing mentioning

confidence: 99%

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

Thies¹

2017

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Role theory is an approach to the study of foreign policy that developed in the interdisciplinary field of social psychology and can be appropriately applied at the individual, state, and system level analyses. Role theory, which first attracted attention in the foreign policy literature after the publication of K. J. Holsti’s 1970 study of national role conception, does not refer to a single theory, but rather a family of theories, an approach, or perspective that begins with the concept of role as central to social life. The major independent variables in the study of roles include role expectations, role demands, role location, and audience effects (including cues). In addition, role theory contains its own model of social identity based on three crucial dimensions: status, value, and involvement. The 1987 publication of Stephen G. Walker’s edited volume, Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, set the stage for further advances in the use of role theory in both the fields of foreign policy and international relations. According to Walker, role theory has a rich language of descriptive concepts, the organizational potential to bridge levels of analyses, and numerous explanatory advantages. This makes role theory an extremely valuable approach to foreign policy analysis. Role theory also offers a way of bringing greater integration between foreign policy analysis and international relations, especially through constructivist meta-theory.

show abstract

Section: What We See In Their Work Is a Break Between Scholars Doing mentioning

confidence: 99%

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

Thies¹

2017

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of China, most scholars treat China's international role taking as determined by its manipulation of cultural and historical identities in response to fluctuating external and internal demands (Shih 1988(Shih , 2012Shih and Yin 2013). Moreover, institutions have traditionally been treated as unitary actors navigating a two-level role taking game, oftentimes appeasing nationalist sentiments or invoking historical "victimhood" in response to alter expectations to secure their preferred NRC (Brittingham 2007;Suzuki 2008;Tang 2008;Liao 2013). Harnisch, Bersick, and Gottwald (2016, 38-55), for example, argue that China's bilateral roles with Japan and Western powers, namely the United States, have changed in accordance with changes in its domestic historical selfidentification.…”

Section: Role Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“Sellout” Ministries and Jingoes: China’s Bureaucratic Institutions and the Evolution of Contested National Role Conceptions in the South China Sea

Jones

2017

foreign policy anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article extends the role theory literature on domestic role contestation process by specifically examining bureaucracies as potential advocates of competing national role conceptions. While recent scholarship on domestic role contestation affirms the influence of party politics and cabinet dynamics on role enactment, bureaucracies remain underexplored as key actors despite the presence of a robust literature that supports their relevance in the foreign policymaking process. This article draws on expectations from both the role theory and bureaucratic politics literatures to explain how bureaucracies contest national roles and how such contestation may be resolved. The article tests these propositions through the study of China's inter-bureaucratic contestation over its appropriate role in the South China Sea territorial disputes between 1979 and 1992. The article concurrently advances role studies on China by integrating them with more recent arguments about domestic role contestation. Traditionally, role theorists interested in China have either black-boxed the state or only focused on elite-mass role contestation, while this article explores intra-elite role contestation. Evan Jones received his BA in International Relations from Oakland University's Honors College. He also studied Mandarin at Nanjing University. Some of his research interests include China's foreign policy, the South China Sea territorial disputes, leadership and decision-making, bureaucratic politics, and role theory. Author's Note: I would like to thank Cristian Cantir for his invaluable comments on earlier versions of this work. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, quantitative research shows no systematic relationship between past episodes of domestic unrest in China and involvement in militarized interstate disputes, whether over territory or other issues (Johnston 1998). Moreover, in the 1990s, actions that might be seen as diversionary, such as the public demonstrations following the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 or the 2005 protests against Japan, have been reactive in nature (Brittingham 2007). China's leaders mobilized society in response to external challenges that questioned their domestic credibility as leaders, not in response to domestic discontent from which attention needed to be deflected.…”

Section: Diversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Relations Theory and China’s Rise: Assessing China’s Potential for Territorial Expansion

Fravel

2010

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether China’s rise as a great power will be peaceful or violent is a question that animates scholars and policymakers alike. Power transition theory and offensive realism reach pessimistic conclusions about China’s potential for armed conflict because of the benefits of aggression. Nevertheless, applications of these theories to China’s rise fail to examine the size and scope of these benefits and to compare them systematically to the costs of conflict that other scholars have identified. To fill this gap, this article applies different international relations theories to identify potential benefits in one defined issue area, territorial conflict, and then weighs these benefits against the likely costs. The potential benefits of territorial expansion are limited, a finding that weakens confidence in the predictions of power transition theory and offensive realism but increases confidence in more optimistic arguments about China’s rise based on economic interdependence.

show abstract

The “Role” of Nationalism in Chinese Foreign Policy: A Reactive Model of Nationalism & Conflict

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

Role Theory and Foreign Policy

“Sellout” Ministries and Jingoes: China’s Bureaucratic Institutions and the Evolution of Contested National Role Conceptions in the South China Sea

International Relations Theory and China’s Rise: Assessing China’s Potential for Territorial Expansion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About