Identity Crisis in the Diplomatic World

Growth, expansion, and deepening of globalization from one side created integrated and global identities, and on the other hand led to maintaining Hybrid or “Glocal” identities. [2]

Emergence of multiple identities, confusion, and turmoil in the identity boundaries of countries, the increasing role of perceptions and interpretations of identity in decision making, cutting of traditional links between political identity and nation-state, the establishment of collective identities and the emergence of new forms of violence based on politics of identity, all illustrate the increasing importance of identity in world interactions. The identity destabilizing force has caused semantic transformation of many international categories and issues among which diplomacy can be cited.

Political activists construct the identity of themselves and others in the process of political interactions, based on the meaning assigned to their and others’ acts and define themselves compared to other(s) with direct reference to the relationship [3].

Therefore, interactive procedures strengthen the identity of political actors, reproducing or transforming them. So the identity of political activists is formed in connection with specific cultural procedures, and increases their capacity in making distinctions between friend and foe as the most important procedural evaluative diplomacy. [4]

Conventionally, the diplomacy process is defined as the process of relations between international actors to avoid war. But now, it is defined as a "humanitarian situation going beyond the environmental experiences in sovereign states” or as James terms it, "diplomacy of communication systems in the international community". According to this new definition, diplomacy is not limited to actors, and may exist anywhere that "there are identity boundaries which are crossed".

Josson considers diplomacy as the central institution that has a role in "social reproduction of governmental societies” in the international system; namely, it is an institution that organizes and reproduces the identity of states in the international system. In other words, diplomacy is a process of establishing identity. [5]

In the book of image logic in international relations, Jeroyce focuses on the role of diplomacy. He argues that government action is meaningless out of the context of a larger common kind of mentality on diplomatic procedures. [6]

Richard Ashley considers foreign policy connected to records (between minds) and shared symbolic materials for feeding interpretations of the events, removing alternative interpretations, structuring procedures, and integrating the collective history- making. [7]

If diplomacy acts at the general level of identity-establishing discourse, the specific identities affect diplomacy. The identity element as one of the elements representing diplomacy made changes both in content and style of diplomatic institutions. In the style change, a situation-specific approach where all the actors in a specific situation react in the same way has become an actor-specific one, where actors with different cultural contexts adopt different negotiation strategies.

In other words, today identity and value factors are important in the perceptions, strategies and approaches of negotiators and should be dealt with in international negotiations be considered

. [8]

Identity led to the change in the content of diplomacy. If we accept that the decisions of foreign policy dominated by on the one hand meanings assigned to social objects by governments, and on the other hand their perception of themselves [9], there will be a possibility for adopting a new approach and strengthening new procedures for countries. In fact, what leads to changes in political and diplomatic discourse between states is rooted in identity changes in intra-national, national and international actors, providing suitable context for having friendly or hostile diplomatic relations between countries. [10] Thus, identity not only leads to change and a complexity of diplomatic methods, but also production of content changes and fundamental discourse between countries.

References

[1]. Homeira Moshirizadeh “Theoretical Introduction to Social Movements. (1379). Tehran. Imam Khomeni Research Center.

 [2]. Roland Robertson. (Tr. Kamal Pooladi) Globalization: social theory and global culture. (1994). Tehran. Sales Publication.

[3] . Alexander Wendt “Anarchy Is What States Make of It,” International Organization (1992) 46, 2: 391-425.

[4]. Thomas J Biesteker, and Weber, Cynthia “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty,” in Thomas J. Biesteker and Cynthia Weber, eds., State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996) P. 12.

[5]. Christer Josson “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation.” in Walter Carlsnaes Thomas Riss and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations. (London: Sage Publication 2005), pp.213-17

[6]. Tedd Haff (Tr. Alireza Tayyeb) “Promise for Reconstruction in International Relations” in Andrew Linklater, Newrealism, Critical Theory and Reconstruction School. (1386). P. 491. Tehran. The Office of Political and International Studies.

 [7]. Ibid p. 406.

[8]. Jossen, op.cit., pp. 219-220.

[9].Homeira Moshirzadeh “Reform in International Relations Theories” (1384). p. 375. (Tehran. Samt Publication.

 [10]. Iver B. Neumann, “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy.” Millennium (2002) 31, 3, p. 648.