W(h)ither the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)? W(h)ither constructivism? Fixity of norms and the ASEAN Way

Abstract

This article uses the reflection on the direction (whither) and health (wither) of constructivism and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that was witnessed in 2017 to see what these deliberations reveal about the fixity of norms and their contestation. The argument presented is that constitutive norms create fixed parameters of shared understandings but that within those parameters the meaning and application of the norm can be contested and debated. This insight helps to bridge the gap between conventional and critical constructivists and shows that the premise of jettisoning the ASEAN Way as necessary for ASEAN to achieve its ambitious community-building project is flawed. The argument relies on insights from the constructivist literature on norm degeneration to show how contestation is not one part of a norm’s life cycle but rather a constant companion. However, norms are not just contested, but they have fixity, and here practice theory can help show that the social world is just as much about continuity as it is change. The ASEAN case study is timely as introspection about the efficacy of its constitutive norms – the ASEAN Way – was prominent in 2017 as ASEAN turned 50.

The contested meaning-making of diplomatic norms: competence in practice in Southeast Asian multilateralism

“…While Wiener (2009: 180) recognizes that, in the abstract, norms have an inherently “flexible” quality, her account centers on “disrupting” otherwise stable understandings of a norm that have crystallized over time. Collins (2019) offers a similar account in his study of the practice of ASEAN norms. This move, however, “ultimately reintroduces an understanding of norms as facts,” and as only partially contested, within the bounds of a pre-established agreed-upon normative terrain, something hard to reconcile with an interest in the productivity of discourse or the play of practice (Niemann and Schillinger, 2017).…”

“…First, we advance an understanding of ASEAN diplomacy that is less state-centric. Instead of reducing the ways in which practitioners embody ASEAN norms as “a product of state interaction” (Collins, 2019: 5), our practice-oriented approach brings us closer to the actual, individual authors of these practices.…”

Contesting the ‘Promotion’ and ‘Protection’ of Human Rights: A Critical Understanding of the ASEAN–EU Relationship through Representational Force

“…The focus on the fixity of norms, in particular, is problematic. Whether referring to the ‘splitting of constructivism’ (Hofferberth and Weber, 2015), the ‘geneology’ of constructivism (Peltonen, 2017), or simply the challenge against ‘fixed’ norms presented by contestation (Collins, 2019), it is clear that the story of norms is incomplete. With this in mind, it may be possible to talk of constructivism s ; and yet while it is necessary to not only acknowledge this opening up of constructivism, more work needs to be done to spell out the differences within whilst appraising these distinctive values.…”

“…Turning to comparative regionalism and the constructivism that informs it, significant is the earlier focus on norms as fixed to norms as contested. Explaining change within constructivism is now under the spotlight more than ever (Collins, 2019; Hofferberth and Weber, 2015; Peltonen, 2017), causing many to re-evaluate the value of norm analysis beyond mere diffusion and compliance. Between these two – constructivism on the one hand, and criticisms of ASEAN's mere ‘promotion’ of human rights on the other – there are striking similarities in the potential for both to be seen differently.…”