FROM AN AMBIVALENCE IN IDENTITY FORMATION TO THE DICHOTOMY IN INTEREST FORMATION

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 69 - 85, 29.06.2020

Rahmi İncekara Ferdi Tayfur Güçyetmez

Abstract

While becoming a member of international community on the one side, and insisting on preserving values and norms of Hobbesian culture on the other side, sovereigns face an intricate dilemma from within domestic inhibitions in conducting integration with the norms from outside. Dichotomy in interest formation with respect to foreign policy relations with the others reveals the fact that no mature international collective identity is possible since there already exists a serious problem, or paradox, in identity formulation from within, considering the complex interdependence feature of globalization and sub-nation identity in contradiction with state identity within the Westphalian territory. The underlying cause of problems in Lockean interest formation in foreign policy is the polarizing domination of Hobbesian culture in domestic politics. Holding constant the unit of analysis as state, interest and identity are the dependable variables, the interaction (socialization) is independent variable in this article. Theoretically, such a strong argument based upon Wendt’s approach to the relations of behavior, interest and identity in respective; States organize their actions by some interests defined by their identity. No roles, or any failure in conceptualizing their role identity, may well result in both relatively challenging situations for states while defining any political matter in the context of interest and confusion in their corporate identity formation in return.

Keywords

Economy, Dichotomy, Lockean Practice

References

• Ahmet Sözen “A Paradigm Shift in Turkish Foreign Policy: Transition and Challenges” Turkish Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, (March 2010), pp. 103–123.
• Alexander George and Robert Keohane, “The Concept of National Interests: Uses and Limitations,” in Presidential Decision-making in Foreign Policy, ed. Alexander George (Boulder: Westview, 1980), 217-38.
• Alexander Murinson, “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy,” Middle Eastern Studies (November 2006), 945-964
• Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no 2 (1992): 391-92.
• Alexander Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,” American Political Science Review 88 (1994)
• Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
• Alischa Kruger, “Reform of the Security Council: A New Approach, Friedrich Ebert Shifting, Brief Paper number, 12, 2009
• Barry Barnes, The Nature of Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988)
• Charles L. Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 2 (October 1997), pp. 171–201.
• Cox, R (1987a) Production, Power, and World Order. Columbia, University Press, New York.
• Cox, R (1987b) ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations’, Millennium 12(2).
• Cox, R. (1986) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders’, in R. Keohane (ed.) Neo-Realism and its Critics. Columbia University Press, New York.
• David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).
• Ehteshami, Anoushiravan, and Süleyman Elik. 2011. “Turkey’s Growing Relations with Iran and Arab Middle East.” Turkish Studies 12 (4): 643–62.
• Eric J. Labs, “Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims,” Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 1997), pp. 1–49
• Ernst Haas, When Knowledge Is Power? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 17-49.
• For further reading, Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turkey’s Foreign Policy Vision: An Assessment of 2007”, Insight Turkey, Vol. 10, No. 1, (2008), pp. 77-96.
• G. John Ikenberry, After Victory, Princeton University Press, 2019.
• Glenn H. Snyder, International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2002), pp. 149–173 Güçyetmez, F.(2007). Terörizme karşı uluslararası hukuk bağlamında alınan tedbirlerin incelenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mersin, Çağ Üniversitesi.
• Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon& Schuster paperbacks Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue ıf the Americas New York, 1994
• Herbert Blumer, "The Methodological Position of Symbolic Interactionism," in his Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 2.
• Jack Levy, “A Diversionary Theory of War: A Critique,” in Handbook of War Studies, ed. Manus I. Midlarsky (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988), 259-288
• John Greenwood, “A Sense of Identity: Prolegomena to a Social Theory of Personal Identity,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 24 (1991): 25-46
• John H. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 2, No.2 (January 1950), pp. 157–180
• John Hewitt, Dilemmas of the American Self, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989
• John J. Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5–57
• John Ruggie, "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in a Postwar Economic Order," in Krasner, Intemational Regimes, pp. 195-23
• Jonathan Mercer, “Anarchy and Identity,” International Organization 49 (1995): 229-252.
• Joseph Nye, "Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet Security Regimes," Intemational Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 371-402.
• Kenneth N. Waltz International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2. (Autumn, 1993), pp. 44-79
• Kenneth Waltz, "Reflections on Theory of Intemational Politics, " in Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 322-45.
• Keyman, E. Fuat, and Onur Sazak. 2015. “Turkey and Iran: The Two Modes of Engagement in the Middle East.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 17 (3): 321–36.
• Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton and Company.
• Mearsheimer, John. 2006. “Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I)”. International Relations 20(1): 105–23.
• Mearsheimer, John. 2010. “Structural Realism”. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity 2nd Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, 77–94.
• Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mearsheimer, John. 2011. “Imperial by Design”. Foreign Affairs 70(111): 16–34.
• Michael Schwalbe, “The Autogenesis of the Self,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 21 (1991): 269-295.
• Mustafa Aydın (2004) “Foucault’s Pendulum: Turkey in Central Asia and the Caucasus,” Turkish Studies, 5:2, 1-22.
• Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Anchor Books, 1966).
• Philip Tetlock, "Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy," in George Breslauer and Philip Tetlock, eds., Leaming in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 24-27.
• Richard Ashley, "Social Will and International Anarchy," in Hayward Alker and Richard Ashley, eds., After Realism, work in progress, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
• Cambridge, and Arizona State University, Tempe, 1992.
• Robert Jervis, "Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation," World Politics 40 (April 1988), pp. 317-49.
• Robert Keohane, "Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics," in his collection of essays entitled International Institutions and State Power (Boulder, Colo.:
• Westview Press, 1989), pp. 1-20.
• Robert O. Keohane, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 379-396
• Şaban Kardaş (2011) “Turkish-American Relations in the 2000s: Revisiting the Basic Parameters of Partnership?” Perceptions, 16:3, 25-52.
• Sabri Sayarı, (2013) “New Directions in Turkey–USA Relations” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 15:2, 129–142.
• Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (1993)
• Şener Aktürk, “Turkish-Russian Relations after the Cold War (1992-2002), Turkish Studies, Vol. 7, No: 3, (2006), pp. 337-364. Calabrese, John. 1998. “Turkey and Iran: Limits of a Stable Relationship.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 25 (1): 75–94.
• Sheldon Stryker and Peter J. Burke, The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory, Social Psychology Quarterly
• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism American Foreign Policy Since 1938, Penguin Books, 2011
• Vol. 63, No. 4, Special Millenium Issue on the State of Sociological Social Psychology (Dec., 2000), pp. 284-297
• William Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy, Frank Cass Publisher, 2013
• Ziya Onis “Multiple Faces of the “New” Turkish Foreign Policy: Underlying Dynamics and Critique” GLODEM Working Paper Series (2010).