Being firm believers of the effect of 'ideas' in the discourse of International Relations, Finnemore and Sikkink successfully defend the role of normative theory in their piece 'International Norm Dynamics and Political Change'. This piece acted as a sort of refreshment from the rather dry and mainstream realist and liberal theories. We understand that the international system may be anarchic, states may be self-interested and institutions may fail, but understanding this comes at a cost; the ability to use logic, thinking, ideas. Finnemore and Sikkink explain how 'ideas' have managed to take on the role of 'norms' and defines the role that social interactions play in the international system.
What are norms? In the conventional sense, norms are a standard of acceptable behaviour, an informal binding pact of shared values and knowledge. Norms are a common occurrence in our everyday lives. Not talking loudly in a class room, or a simple 'thank you' are examples of globally shared norms. If these norms can have such an adverse effect on our lives, then they could possibly have an effect on the international system too. Norms exist between states also. If a state has a reputation of being untrustworthy, this shared feeling of wariness by states acts as a norm. This gives rise to Finnemore and Sikkink's three-staged 'Norm life cycle': the emergence of norms due to persuasion by norm entrepreneurs, 'norm cascade' and 'internalization' of the norm. They provide examples of previous womens rights activist movements, where the activists acted as norm entrepreneurs, furthering their cause in an attempt to create a norm for women equality. 'Organizational Behavior' highlights the role of motivating characteristics of a leader in creating values in the work environment. This same way, activists attract the attention of the public, appealing to one's 'cognitive' thinking, resulting in the emergence of a 'norm'.
The second stage begins when states are motivated to accept these norms, as they try to either better their legitimacy in the international arena, or try to respond to their domestic concerns. The shared feeling of untrustworthiness towards a state, as stated before, acts as an example of the second stage in the norm life cycle, leading to the third and final stage, internalization. A norm can be said to have been internalized when norms are no longer spoken about, and have a sort of general acceptance within those involved. Finnemore and Sikkink's use of women suffrage acts as a perfect example of this.
As stated in the introduction, Finnemore and Sikkink 'successfully' defended the role of constructivism as an important part of International Relations. This piece provides us readers with the ability to think ourselves also, making it possible for us to relate these norms to our everyday lives, and even surprisingly convince us that norms do play a major role in a states political decisions. Finnemore and Sikkinks constructivism made it possible for us to understand the effect of the domestic arena on international politics, delving deeper into 'The man, the state and the system'. Maybe it all does start from man? Sadly, we will never know.
Solid post, but even if there is no definitive answer on the "man, state, or system" question, can't we posit tentative guesses? Can't we say that norms are a significant factor that influence state behavior?
ReplyDelete