Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

The Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149

Abstract

The article studies “ontological” security concept. In a general sense the term depicts expectations of a state about its stable and predictable relations with counterparts. With the term gaining theoretical sway in constructivism since the 21st century, we argue, that it still lacks instrumental definition with fixed assumptions and variables. The analysis of ontological security is conducted in twofold manner. First, we overview the broad range of interpretations, demonstrate the absence of an instrumental definition of the concept and suggest some parameters of such a definition. Secondly, we study the ways how a state can gain ontological security. Three options of achieving ontological security are being presented: adaptation (assuming the role of ‘another’ from the external environment); change of rules (imposing its own role on the subject with whom the interaction occurs); and the breach of relations. At all these stages, the state tries either to adopt the norms and practices by which it interacts with the environment, or to redefine its position in ongoing relations with counterparties. We conclude by presenting a sought definition of the term and by arguing that the concept enhances the constructivist contribution to the IR theory since it allows to define the logic of states’ behavior in international arena. Thus, states seek to be socialized into an intersubjective reality and to define norms, practices and status through forging common and communicative knowledge with ‘other’. Otherwise, the state’s behavior could be irrational. Theory emphasizes the need to avoid situations of the ontological security dilemma: the state projects its own, mostly protective reality, which, however, does not provide it with ontological security from the counterparty and could potentially push for further escalation of crisis interactions.

Authors declare the absence of conflict of interests.

About the Authors

A. V. Khudaykulova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA of Russia
Russian Federation
Alexandra V. Khudaykulova – Candidate of Political Science, Associate Profes-sor, Department of Applied Analysis of International Problems


N. Y. Neklyudov
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA of Russia
Russian Federation
Nikita Ya. Neklyudov – Expert, Strategic Marketing Group


References

1. Applebaum A. 2013. Iron Curtain. The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956. Anchor. 640 p.

2. Behravesh M. 2018. State Revisionism and Ontological (In)Security in International Politics: the Complicated Case of Iran and its Nuclear Behavior. – Journal of International Relations and Development. 21(4). P. 836–857.

3. Buzan B. 1991. People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 318 p.

4. Buzan B. Wæver O. Wilde J. de. 1998. Security: a New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 239 p.

5. Cebeci D. 2019. Growing up Exceptional-The Waning American Century: The US' Withdrawal from the JCPOA Through the Lens of Ontological Security Theory. Doctoral dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

6. Ejdus F. 2017. Critical situations, fundamental questions and ontological insecurity in world politics. – Journal of International Relations and Development. 21(4). P. 883–908.

7. Epstein N. 2007. Explaining the War on Terrorism from an Ontological-Security Perspective. – MIT International Review. Spring. P. 12-19.

8. Giddens A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 294 p.

9. Giddens A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 264 p.

10. Greve P. 2018. Ontological Security, the Struggle for Recognition, and the Maintenance of Security Communities. – Journal of International Relations and Development. 21(4). P. 858-882.

11. Homolar A., Scholz R. 2019. The power of Trump-speak: populist crisis narratives and ontological security. – Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 32(3). P. 344-364.

12. Hopf T. 2013. Common-Sense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics. – International Organization. 67(2). P. 317–354.

13. Hopf T. 2013. Reconstructing the Cold War. The Early Years, 1945–1958. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 291 p.

14. Huszka B. 2017. Eurosceptic yet Pro-enlargement: the Paradoxes of Hungary’s EU Policy. – Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 17(4). P. 591–609.

15. Huysmans J. 1998. Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier. – European Journal of International Relations. 4(2). P. 226-255.

16. Kinnvall C. 2004. Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security. – Political Psychology. 25(5). P. 741–767.

17. Kinnvall C., Mitzen J. 2017. An Introduction to the special issue: Ontological security in world politics. – Cooperation and Conflict. 52(1). P. 3-11.

18. Kinnvall С., Manners I., Mitzen J. 2018. Introduction to 2018 special issue of European Security: “ontological (in)security in the European Union”. – European Security. 23(3). P. 249-265.

19. Kinnvall С., Mitzen J. 2018. Ontological security and conflict: the dynamics of crisis and the constitution of community. – Journal of International Relations and Development. 21(4). P. 825-835.

20. Kompridis N. 2007. Struggling over the Meaning of Recognition. A Matter of Identity, Justice, or Freedom? – European Journal of Political Theory. 6(3). P. 277–289

21. Krolikowski A. 2008. State Personhood in Ontological Security Theories of International Relations and Chinese Nationalism: A Sceptical View. – The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 2(1). P. 109–133.

22. Laing R. 1960. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. London: Penguin. 224 p.

23. McSweeney B. 1999. Security, Identity, and Interests. A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 239 p.

24. Mearsheimer J. 1990. Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. – International security. 15(1). P. 5-56.

25. Mearsheimer J. 2018. The Great Delusion. Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale: Yale University Press. 368 p.

26. Mearsheimer J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: WW Norton & Company. 568 p.

27. Mitzen J. 2018. Feeling at Home in Europe: Migration, Ontological Security, and the Political Psychology of EU Bordering. – Political Psychology. 39(6). P. 1373-1387.

28. Mitzen J. 2006. Anchoring Europe's civilizing identity: habits, capabilities and ontological security. – Journal of European Public Policy. 13(2). P. 270-285.

29. Mitzen J. 2006. Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. – European Journal of International Relations. 12(3). P. 341–370.

30. Mitzen J., Schweller R.L. 2011. Knowing the Unknown Unknowns: Misplaced Certainty and the Onset of War. – Security Studies. 20(3). P. 2–35.

31. Moravcsik A. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. – International Organization. 51(4). P. 513-553.

32. Ringmar E. 1996. Identity, Interest, and Action. A Cultural Explanation of Sweden’s Intervention in the Thirty Years War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 236 p.

33. Ringmar E. 2012. The International Politics of Recognition. – The International Politics of Recognition. Ed. by Lindemann T. and Ringmar E. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. P.3-23.

34. Rumelili B. 2015. Identity and De-securitization: The Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological and Physical Security. – Journal of International Relations and Development. 18(1). P. 52–74.

35. Steele B. 2005. Ontological Security and the Power of Self-Identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War. – Review of International Studies. 31(3). P. 519–540.

36. Steele B. 2008. Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge. 208 p.

37. Steele B. 2019. Welcome home! Routines, ontological insecurity and the politics of US military reunion videos. – Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 32(3). P. 1-23.

38. Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press. 256 p.

39. Wendt A. 1994. Collective Identity Formation and the International State. – The American Political Science Review. 88(2). P. 384-396.

40. Wendt A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 420 p.

41. Wendt A. 1987. The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. – International Organization. 41(3). P. 335-370.

42. Wendt A. 2004. The State as Person in International Theory. – Review of International Studies. 30(4). P. 289–316.

43. Wolczuk K. 2016. Managing the flows of gas and rules: Ukraine between the EU and Russia. – Eurasian Geography and Economics. 57(1). P. 113-137.

44. Wolf R. 2011. Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition. – International Theory. 3(1). P. 105–142.

45. Wolf R. 2014. Treating Asian Nations with Respect: The Promises and Pitfalls of Status Recognition. – Global Discourse. 4(4). P. 462–480

46. Zarakol A. 2011. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West. New York: Cambridge University Press. 312 p.

47. Zarakol A. 2010. Ontological (In)Security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan. – International Relations. 24(1). P. 3–23.

48. Zarakol A. 2017. States and Ontological Security: A Historical Rethinking. – Cooperation and Conflict. 52(1). P. 48–68.

49. Alexeyeva T.A. 2014. Think Like Constructivist: Discovering a Polyphonic World. – Comparative Politics Russia. 1(14). P. 4-21. (In Russ.)

50. Durmanenko A. 2012. Religion and Ontological Security: Analysis of Functionality in the Context of Structuration Theory. – Baltic Humanitarian Journal. No. 1. P. 5-8. (In Russ.)

51. Elfimova O.S. 2012. The Concept of Security in Western Modern Times Sociologic Theories. – Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod. Series: Social Sciences. No. 3. P. 35-41. (In Russ.)

52. Giddens A. 2005. The construction of society. Outline of the theory of Structuration. (Russ. ed.: Giddens A. Ustroenie obshestva: Ocherk teorii structuracii. Moscow: Akademicheskii prospect. 528 p.)

53. Istomin I. 2018. Logica povedenia gosudarstv v mezhdynarodnoi politke [The Logic of States’ Behaviour in International Politics]. Moscow: Aspekt-Press, 294 p. (In Russ.)

54. Kadyrkulova M. 2016. Bezhency i ontologigeskaya bezopasnost’ strany [Refugees and ontological security of a state]. – Vestnik Sovremennoi Nauki. No. 5. P. 132-134. (In Russ.)

55. Khudaykulova A. 2016. Conflict Management in the new Century. Back to Proxy Wars. – International Trends. 14(4). P.67-79. (In Russ.)

56. Khudaykulova A. 2015. International Conflict Studies as a Research and Teaching Area. – Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. No. 3. P. 61-73. (In Russ.)

57. Kim D.S. 2018. K voprosu ob issledovanii ontologicheskih konceptov bezopasnosti [An Analytical Study of the Ontological Concepts of Security]. – Social'no-politicheskie nauki. No. 5. P. 97-100. (In Russ.)


Review

For citations:


Khudaykulova A.V., Neklyudov N.Y. The Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2019;12(6):129-149. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149

Views: 2220


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)