Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T13:13:28.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Practice time!’ Doxic futures in security and defence diplomacy after Brexit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Øyvind Svendsen Open the ORCID record for Øyvind Svendsen [Opens in a new window]
Øyvind Svendsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Time constitutes social life and time management is central to the everyday conduct of international politics. For some reason, however, the practice turn in International Relations (IR) has produced knowledge about how past practices constitute international politics but not about how the future is also a constitutive feature in and on social life. Introducing a novel perspective on practice and temporality, the article argues that intersubjectively situated representations of the future by practitioners in international politics contribute substantially to our understanding of political processes and the making of international politics. To develop what appears a contradiction in terms – that ‘future-practices’ are driven by tacit know-how and conscious reflection simultaneously – the article develops the concept of doxic futures: representations of the future rooted in practical knowledge and tacit assumptions about the self-evident nature of the social world. The argument is illustrated with a case study of European security and defence diplomacy after the UK voted to leave the EU. Through the envisioning of two concrete doxic futures, a ‘Europe of buying together’ and the UK as a third country in EU defence, diplomats effectively tried to save European security and defence cooperation from the potentially disintegrating effects of Brexit.

Keywords

TimePracticeFutureSecurityEuropean DefenceBrexit
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hutchings, Kimberley, Time and World Politics: Thinking the Present (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hom, Andrew R. and Steele, Brent J., ‘Open horizons: the temporal visions of reflexive realism’, International Studies Review, 12:2 (2010), pp. 271–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Solomon, Ty, ‘Time and subjectivity in world politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 58:4 (2014), pp. 671–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hom, Andrew R., ‘Timing is everything: Toward a better understanding of time and international politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 62:1 (2018), pp. 69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Neumann, Iver B. and Øverland, Erik F., ‘International Relations and policy planning: the method of perspectivist scenario building’, International Studies Perspectives, 5:3 (2004), pp. 258–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ekengren, Magnus, The Time of European Governance (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Meyer, Christoph O., ‘The purpose and pitfalls of constructivist forecasting: Insights from strategic culture research for the European Union's evolution as a military power’, International Studies Quarterly, 55:3 (2011), pp. 669–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Hom, Andrew R., ‘Silent order: the temporal turn in critical International Relations’, Millennium, 46:3 (2018), pp. 303–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Cooper, Andrew F. and Cornut, Jérémie, ‘The changing practices of frontline diplomacy: New directions for inquiry’, Review of International Studies, 45:2 (2018), pp. 300–03CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Nissen, Rebecca Adler, ‘Towards a practice turn in EU studies: the everyday of European integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54:1 (2016), pp. 87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Hopf, Ted, ‘The logic of habit in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:4 (2010), pp. 539–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Pouliot, Vincent, International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Neumann, Iver B., ‘Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy’, Millennium, 31:3 (2002), pp. 627–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), pp. 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, ‘The play of international practice’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:3 (2015), pp. 449–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Berenskoetter, Felix, ‘Reclaiming the vision thing: Constructivists as students of the future’, International Studies Quarterly, 55:3 (2011), pp. 647–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Mérand, Frédéric, European Defence Policy: Beyond the Nation State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Pouliot, Vincent, ‘The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities’, International Organization, 62:2 (2008), pp. 257–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berenskoetter, ‘Reclaiming the vision thing’.

12 Schindler, Sebastian and Wille, Tobias, ‘Change in and through practice: Pierre Bourdieu, Vincent Pouliot, and the end of the Cold War’, International Theory, 7:2 (2015), pp. 330–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hopf, Ted, ‘Change in international practices’, European Journal of International Relations (2017)Google Scholar.

13 Rosamond, Ben, ‘Brexit and the problem of European disintegration’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12:4 (2016), pp. 864–71Google Scholar.

14 Deutsch, Karl et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael (eds), Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ole Wæver, ‘Insecurity, security, and asecurity in the West European non-war community’, in Adler and Barnett (eds), Security Communities, pp. 69–118.

15 See, for example, Manners, Ian, ‘Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2 (2002), pp. 235–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meyer, Christoph O., The Quest for a European Strategic Culture: Changing Norms on Security and Defence in the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sjursen, Helene, Questioning EU Enlargement: Europe in Search of Identity (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar.

16 George, Stephen, An Awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; McCourt, David M., Britain and World Power since 1945 (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Kavalski, Emilian, Extending the European Security Community: Constructing Peace in the Balkans (London: Taurus Academic Studies, 2007)Google Scholar; Græger, Nina, ‘European security as practice: EU-NATO communities of practice in the making?’, European Security, 25:4 (2016), pp. 478–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Bremberg, Niklas, ‘The European Union as a security community-building institution: Venues, networks and co-operative security practices’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 53:2 (2015), pp. 674–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Adler, Emanuel and Greve, Patricia, ‘When security community meets balance of power: Overlapping regional mechanisms of security governance’, Review of International Studies, 35:1 (2009), p. 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Bicchi, Federica, ‘The EU as a community of practice: Foreign policy communications in the COREU network’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18:8 (2011), pp. 1115–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bicchi, Federica and Bremberg, Niklas, ‘European diplomatic practices: Contemporary challenges and innovative approaches’, European Security, 25:4 (2016), pp. 391–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mérand, Frédéric and Rayroux, Antoine, ‘The practice of burden sharing in European crisis management operations’, European Security, 25:4 (2016), pp. 442–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, International Practice Theory, 2nd edn (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Berling, Trine V., The International Political Sociology of Security (London and New York: Routledge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Bueger and Gadinger, International Practice Theory, p. 41.

23 Guzzini, Stefano, ‘A reconstruction of constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Schatzki, Theodore R., ‘Peripheral vision: On organizations as they happen’, Organization Studies, 27:12 (2006), pp. 1863–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Sewell, William H. Jr, ‘A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation’, American Journal of Sociology, 98:1 (1992), pp. 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Cornut, Jérémie, ‘Diplomacy, agency, and the logic of improvisation and virtuosity in practice’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:3 (2017), pp. 712–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 James Black et al., ‘Defence and security after Brexit’, RAND, available at: {https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1786z1.html} accessed 14 June 2017.

28 Bicchi and Bremberg, ‘European diplomatic practices’, p. 394.

29 Onuf, Nicholas, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

30 See Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality’; Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’; Adler-Nissen, ‘Rebecca (ed.), Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR (London and New York: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar.

31 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, ‘Opting out of an ever closer union: the integration doxa and the management of sovereignty’, West European Politics, 34:5 (2011), pp. 1092–13 (p. 1099)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Doxa is only one in the family of interrelated concepts that make up Bourdieu's sociology. For instance, without field and habitus there would be no doxa, as there is no field and habitus without doxa. However, the concept of doxic futures is developed to stand alone, so to speak, but its epistemological basis necessarily lies in Bourdieu's wider social theory. As such, ‘doxa is the cornerstone of any field to the extent that it determines the stability of the objective social structures through the way these are reproduced and reproduce themselves in the agents’ perceptions and practices; in other words, in their habitus’. Deer, Cécile, ‘Doxa’, in Grenfell, Michael (ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (Oxon: Routledge, 2012), pp. 119–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, emphasis in original.

32 Berling, The International Political Sociology of Security; Senn, Martin and Elhardt, Christoph, ‘Bourdieu and the bomb: Power, language and the doxic battle over the value of nuclear weapons’, European Journal of International Relations, 20:2 (2014), pp. 316–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Guzzini, ‘A reconstruction of constructivism in International Relations’; Adler-Nissen, ‘Opting out of an ever closer union’; Leander, Anna, ‘The promises, problems, and potentials of a Bourdieu-inspired staging of International Relations’, International Political Sociology, 5:3 (2011), pp. 294–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Ashley, Richard K., ‘The poverty of neorealism’, International Organization, 38:2 (1984), pp. 225–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashley, Richard K., ‘The geopolitics of geopolitical space: Toward a critical social theory of international politics’, Alternatives, 12:4 (1987), pp. 403–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice (New York: New York University Press, 1977), p. 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Loyal, Steven, Bourdieu's Theory of the State (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Ashley, ‘The geopolitics of geopolitical space’; Guzzini, Stefano, Power, Realism and Constructivism (Oxon: Routledge, 2013), pp. 103–04CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Bourdieu, Pierre, Pascalian Mediation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 208Google Scholar.

39 Hopf, ‘Change in international practices’.

40 Guzzini, ‘A reconstruction of constructivism in International Relations’ ; Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality’; Adler-Nissen (ed.), Bourdieu in International Relations; Berling, The International Political Sociology of Security; Leander, ‘The promises, problems, and potentials of a Bourdieu-inspired staging of International Relations’; Mérand, Frédéric, ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense’, Security Studies, 19:2 (2010), pp. 342–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuvøy, Kirsti, ‘Symbolic power and (in)security: the marginalization of women's security in northwest Russia’, International Political Sociology, 4:4 (2010), pp. 401–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bigo, Didier, ‘Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of practices, practices of power’, International Political Sociology, 5:3 (2011), pp. 225–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, pp. 82–3.

42 Pouliot, Vincent, International Security in Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 12.

44 Pouliot, Vincent and Thèrien, Jean-Philippe, ‘The politics of inclusion: Changing patterns in the governance of international security’, Review of International Studies, 41:2 (2015), pp. 211–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Tim Oliver, ‘Now! That's What I Call Brexit: Delving into the Brexicon’ (2016), available at: {http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/12/22/now-thats-what-i-call-brexit-delving-into-the-brexicon-of-brexit/} accessed 14 February 2017.

46 Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mische, Ann, ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, 103:4 (1998), p. 963CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In their conception of temporality, Emirbayer and Mische allow a level of agent rationality that is not possible in doxic futures due to the embeddedness of habits when alternative possibilities are imagined.

47 Bergmann, Werner, ‘The problem of time in sociology’, Time & Society, 1:1 (1992), p. 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Berenskoetter, ‘Reclaiming the vision thing’, p. 650.

49 Walt, Stephen M., ‘International Relations: One world, many theories’, Foreign Policy, 110 (1998), pp. 40–1Google Scholar.

50 Berenskoetter, ‘Reclaiming the vision thing’, p. 663.

51 Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality’.

52 Leander, ‘The promises, problems, and potentials of a Bourdieu-inspired staging of International Relations’, p. 304.

53 Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality’.

54 Thanks to Felix Berenskoetter for drawing my attention to this.

55 Hopf, ‘The logic of habit in International Relations’.

56 Emirbayer and Mische, ‘What is agency?’.

57 Cornut, Jérémie, ‘The practice turn in International Relations theory’, in Denemark, Robert A. and Marlin-Bennett, Renée (eds), The International Studies Encyclopedia (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar.

58 Pouliot, Vincent, ‘“Sobjectivism”: Toward a constructivist methodology’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:2 (2007), pp. 359–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicolini, Davide, Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

59 Bueger and Gadinger, International Practice Theory.

60 Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality’, p. 284.

61 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Deer, ‘Doxa’.

63 Andersen, Morten Skumsrud and Neumann, Iver B., ‘Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning Wampum diplomacy’, Millennium, 40:3 (2012), pp. 457–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Leander, Anna, ‘Thinking tools: Analyzing symbolic power and violence’, in Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa (eds), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bueger and Gadinger, International Practice Theory, p. 43.

65 Hansen, Lene, Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2006), p. 73Google Scholar.

66 Due to the sensitive topic, all informants have been granted anonymity. Seven of the informants were ambassadors to the EU's Political and Security Committee (PSC), one was a deputy ambassador to the same committee, one was an EEAS diplomat preparing meetings in the PSC, one was a member of the House of Lords, one was a head of a CSDP section at a national representation in Brussels, one worked on security issues in the European Commission, and one was a security official at a national representation in Brussels.

67 Pouliot, Vincent, ‘Practice tracing’, in Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey (eds), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 237–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Interview 1 with PSC ambassador, Brussels, 21 September 2018.

69 Howorth, Jolyon, ‘The political and security committee: a case study in “supranational intergovernmentalism”’, Les Cahiers Européens, 01:2010 (2010), pp. 1–24Google Scholar.

70 Interview in European Commission, 29 November 2016.

71 Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. Gordon, Colin (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980)Google Scholar; Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’.

72 Hopf, ‘The logic of habit in International Relations’.

73 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H., ‘Relations before states: Substance, process and the study of world politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:3 (1999), pp. 291–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Sending, Ole Jacob, Pouliot, Vincent, and Neumann, Iver B., Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Interview with PSC ambassador, Brussels, 21 November 2017.

76 Interview with member of the House of Lords, London, 1 December 2016.

77 Frédéric Mérand and Amelie Forget, ‘Strategy’, in Adler-Nissen (ed.), Bourdieu in International Relations, pp. 93–113.

78 See Berling, The International Political Sociology of Security.

79 An obvious parallel and inspiration for this wording is, of course, Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto in which they analysed the elites’ fear of and reaction to the coming of communism.

80 EU, ‘Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy’, available at: {http://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union} accessed 14 June 2017.

81 Schmidt, Vivien, Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bickerton, Chris J., ‘Towards a social theory of EU foreign and security policy’, Journal of Common Marked Studies, 49:1 (2011), pp. 171–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Claudia Major and Alicia von Voss, ‘European Defence in View of Brexit’ (2017), p. 4, available at: {https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2017C10_mjr_vos.pdf} accessed 14 June 2017.

83 Interview in Brussels, 29 November 2016.

84 Interview 1 with PSC ambassador, 20 November 2017.

85 Interview 2 with PSC ambassador, 21 September 2018.

86 Adler-Nissen, ‘Opting out of an ever closer union’.

87 European Commission, ‘European Defence Fund’, available at: {https://ec.europa.eu/commission/news/european-defence-fund-2019-mar-19_en} accessed 4 April 2019.

88 Interview 1 with PSC ambassador, 20 November 2017.

89 Chopra, Rohit, ‘Neoliberalism as doxa: Bourdieu's theory of the state and the contemporary Indian discourse on globalization and liberalization’, Cultural Studies, 17:3/4 (2003), pp. 419–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Sophia Besch, ‘Security of Supply in EU Defence: Friends in Need?’ (2016), available at: {https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/insight_sb_17.8.16.pdf} accessed 14 June 2017.

91 This dynamic was also visible in the public debate and reflected in the political declaration on the future relationship that the UK and the EU negotiated as part of the Article 50 process.

92 Interview in EEAS, Brussels, 29 November 2016.

93 Ibid.

94 Interview 2 with PSC ambassador, Brussels, 20 November 2017.

95 Interview with Head of CSDP Section, 21 September 2018.

96 Interview with PSC ambassador, Brussels, 20 September 2017.

97 Interview with Head of CSDP section, Brussels, 21 September 2018.

98 Hom, ‘Timing is everything’, p. 306.

99 Aradau, Claudia et al. , Critical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015), p. 11Google Scholar.