Abstract
Corrigendum to Interactionist role theory meets ontological security studies: an exploration of synergies between sociopsychological approaches to the study of international relations. European Journal of International Relations 26(3) 851–874. DOI: 10.1177/1354066119889401
At various instances in the article, IR is meant to refer to International Relations (the name of the discipline, with capital letters) but not the generic term international relations (with lowercase letters). Hence, please note the changes where IR should be read “international relations” and not “International Relations”
This disconnect, this article argues, is regrettable, not least as IRT’s focus on the constitutive function of roles – and its emphasis on the creative and reflective capacities of international actors – promises to provide relevant insights into the dynamics of ontological security seeking in IR.
This disconnect, this article argues, is regrettable, not least as IRT’s focus on the constitutive function of roles – and its emphasis on the creative and reflective capacities of international actors – promises to provide relevant insights into the dynamics of ontological security seeking in international relations.
While closely related, and largely complementary, the two literatures have remained, however, surprisingly disconnected. This disconnect, this section argues, is regrettable as the insights from both literatures, if productively integrated, may provide for a better understanding of ontological security seeking in IR.
While closely related, and largely complementary, the two literatures have remained, however, surprisingly disconnected. This disconnect, this section argues, is regrettable as the insights from both literatures, if productively integrated, may provide for a better understanding of ontological security seeking in international relations.
Critically, emphasizing such neurotic and (physically) self-harming behaviour has enabled OS scholars to forcefully challenge classical utilitarian accounts of IR as well as the privileging of physical security in traditional security studies (Mitzen, 2006a; Steele, 2008). As highlighted by Trine Flockhart (2016), it further has allowed the OSL to
develop a constructivist explanation for why change in IR occurs less often – and is more difficult to achieve – than traditional constructivist accounts of international affairs appear to suggest.
Critically, emphasizing such neurotic and (physically) self-harming behaviour has enabled OS scholars to forcefully challenge classical utilitarian accounts of international relations as well as the privileging of physical security in traditional security studies (Mitzen, 2006a; Steele, 2008). As highlighted by Trine Flockhart (2016), it further has allowed the OSL to develop a constructivist explanation for why change in international relations occurs less often – and is more difficult to achieve – than traditional constructivist accounts of international affairs appear to suggest.
While these trends in the OSL have served to considerably widen the scope of the literature as well as the analytical purchase of the ‘ontological security’ concept, they also, as the following section seeks to illustrate, have moved the focus of the OSL closer to that of IRT, another emerging socio-psychological strand in the IR literature, which emphasizes IR as driven by the reflective intelligence – and the role-making and role-playing practices – of interacting agents.
While these trends in the OSL have served to considerably widen the scope of the literature as well as the analytical purchase of the ‘ontological security’ concept, they also, as the following section seeks to illustrate, have moved the focus of the OSL closer to that of IRT, another emerging socio-psychological strand in the IR literature, which emphasizes international relations as driven by the reflective intelligence – and the role-making and role-playing practices – of interacting agents.
Against this backdrop, this section of the article, in drawing on the above introductions of both the OSL and IRT, seeks to develop ideas for how an IRT perspective can be usefully employed to complement the
OSL in its theorization of ontological security (seeking) in IR.
Against this backdrop, this section of the article, in drawing on the above introductions of both the OSL and IRT, seeks to develop ideas for how an IRT perspective can be usefully employed to complement the
OSL in its theorization of ontological security (seeking) in international relations.
In outlining this IRT perspective on ontological security, this article has sought to provide a useful starting point for a more nuanced debate about the dynamics of ontological security seeking in IR.
In outlining this IRT perspective on ontological security, this article has sought to provide
a useful starting point for a more nuanced debate about the dynamics of ontological security seeking in international relations.
While this article has emphasized how IRT’s insights may enrich the OSL, future studies may seek to explore how the OSL, in turn, may strengthen role-theoretical accounts of IR.
While this article has emphasized how IRT’s insights may enrich the OSL, future studies may seek to explore how the OSL, in turn, may strengthen role-theoretical accounts of international relations.
A productive integration of insights from the OSL and IRT, moreover, has the potential to strengthen an understanding of the operation of the ‘subconscious’ in IR, which, from a Meadian perspective, enters an actor’s self-conscious mind by way of its ‘I’.
A productive integration of insights from the OSL and IRT, moreover, has the potential to strengthen an understanding of the operation of the ‘subconscious’ in international relations, which, from a Meadian perspective, enters an actor’s self-conscious mind by way of its ‘I’.
P. 853
In the field of IR, the OSL, which draws primarily on the works of Robert D. Laing (1969) and Anthony Giddens (1991), suggests that international actors, like individuals, are driven by a desire to develop a sense of ontological security (a stable and comfortable sense of ‘self’)1.
In the field of IR, the OSL, which draws primarily on the works of R. D. Laing (1969) and Anthony Giddens (1991), suggests that international actors, like individuals, are driven by a desire to develop a sense of ontological security (a stable and comfortable sense of ‘self’)1.