Identification in Worldwide Conflicts: A Case Research of the Cuban Missile Disaster

A number of IR theories have sought to grasp worldwide conflicts amongst states, and notably, the function of identification has gained momentum in theoretical debate (Berenskoetter, 2017). This essay compares poststructuralism, constructivism and neorealism and argues that, in understanding the function of identification in worldwide conflicts, poststructuralism gives probably the most compelling account. Considerably, poststructuralism explores the structure of a state’s identification, how identification can “make potential” for overseas insurance policies to hold out in worldwide conflicts and the mutually constitutive results between overseas insurance policies and identification (Campbell, 2013). Neorealism lacks these parts, and though constructivism discusses identification, its explorations will not be as complete as these of poststructuralism. This paper adopts the Cuban Missile Disaster to justify its argument, as this seminal occasion led to “the brink of nuclear battle” (Allison, 1971: 39) and precipitated “a better chance that extra human lives would finish all of a sudden than ever earlier than in historical past” (Allison, 1969: 689). The essay first critically explores the three theories above after which examines my empirical case research.

Neorealism

Neorealism believes that an “anarchic system” traps states in an “iron cage” with “unremitting competitors for energy” (Mearsheimer, 2013: 78, 80). As such, states residing in a “self-help world” with “ceaseless safety competitions” are pressured to give attention to the steadiness of energy (materials capabilities) to attain their “important aim”—survival (Mearsheimer, 2013: 79, 80). On this “aggressive world”, “all states are potential threats”; thus, “battle is frequent” (Mearsheimer, 1990: 12). Root causes of conflicts, then, lie within the structure of the worldwide system fairly than the character of particular person states (Mearsheimer, 1990: 12), as states are seen as “black containers”, “assumed to be alike” (Mearsheimer, 2013: 78) and regarded to be in pursuit of energy. Neorealist argue that elements that decide the chance of battle embrace “polarity of the system”, “energy steadiness”, “energy shifts” and “distribution of powers” amongst states (Mearsheimer, 2013: 84–88). When there may be peace, it is because of rational actors calculating the “value and advantages” and discovering the prices to be too excessive to enter the battle (Mearsheimer, 1990: 13).

In assuming that each one states are “self-interested” (Hopf, 1998: 175) and that materials energy is probably the most influential determinant of states’ behaviour (Hopf, 1998: 177), nonetheless, neorealism is problematic. With neorealism’s (neo) positivist epistemology, energy will not be solely mounted and noticed scientifically, however it’s nothing greater than materials powers and the state’s functionality to hold them out (Brooks, 1997: 447). Any ideational elements are ignored. Extra crucially, neorealism holds that “[the] state is ontologically previous to the worldwide system” (Ashely, 1984: 240), and states’ pursuits and existence are “handled as given” (Ashely, 1984: 238), impartial of any social establishments and social powers (Ashely, 1984: 243, 244). Neorealists assume that states are unitary actors with a “single everlasting that means” and “[the] similar prior pursuits” (Hopf, 1998: 176) looking for their “intrinsic wishes” (Ashely, 1984: 243). The function of identification is uncared for, as all states are assumed to be self-help actors with the identical objective. Social processes are ignored (Roush, 2020) and states are taken as a right (Hansen, 2017: 167). Ashely claims that the “[p]roposition that states is perhaps basically problematic…is excluded from neorealist concept” (1984: 238) and actually, “removed from questioning commonsense look”, the “neorealist orrery hypostasizes them” (Ashely, 1984: 237). Thus, neorealism clearly excludes the function of identification in worldwide conflicts.

Constructivism

Recognising the often-blurred boundary between vital constructivism and poststructuralism (each adapt the same discursive epistemology, e.g. Weldes, 1999a), this essay follows Hansen (2006) in not dividing them; thus, “constructivism” on this essay refers to standard constructivism. Constructivism and neorealism each goal to elucidate the causes of states’ actions; nonetheless, constructivism recognises “the significance of identification” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 12) and “concentrates on problems with identification in world politics” (Hopf, 1998: 172), as a world with out an identification can be “chaos” (Hopf, 1998: 175). In contrast to neorealism, constructivism appreciates “social forces” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 4) and argues that “intersubjective meanings outline social actuality” (Adler, 1997: 327). Moreover, whereas realising the “existence of the fabric world”, they argue that actors act primarily based on socially constituted “collective interpretations of the exterior world” (Adler, 1997: 330). Constructivism holds that identification is constituted by a cognitive understanding amongst actors (Adler, 1997: 332) whose identities are created on the “foundation of information that individuals have of themselves and others” (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 43). States acquire identification by means of social learnings that assist them perceive themselves in relation to others (Adler & Barnett, 1998: 47; Zehfuss, 2001: 319); thus, identification will not be given however made. Believing that social identities exist previous to conceptions of curiosity (Corridor, 1993: 51), constructivism argues that states’ pursuits and actions are identity-based (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 46; Worth & Reus-Smit, 1998: 259; Hopf, 2002: 16; 1998: 175; Koslowski & Kratochwil, 1994: 223; Flockhart, 2016: 87; Barnett, 2017). Additional, this comparatively “mounted or fixed” identification (Hopf, 1998:183) gives “steady expectations” in direction of others’ actions (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 34). Thus, the “identification of pal or foe” (Adler & Barnett: 1998: 46) determines whether or not states enter conflicts.

Though constructivism engages with the function of identification, its strategy nonetheless has limitations. It argues that actors acquire their social identities by means of interactions and states’ pursuits and behaviours happen accordingly. That is problematic because it nonetheless requires us to have “imagined [actors] on their very own” and “know” what actors are like earlier than coming to be a part of the context (Zehfuss, 2001: 332, 333). Constructivism “accepts the existence” and presents “no account” of identification’s origins (Hopf, 1998: 184). It presents identification as “harmless” and “comparatively freed from prior assumptions” (Zehfuss, 2001: 336) and excludes the preliminary strategy of “developing state identification” (Zehfuss, 2001: 335). Subsequently, a specific identification is already in place earlier than social interactions happen. Furthermore, to recognise identification adjustments in interactions, constructivism should “establish the identification an actor ‘has’ at any given level” (327). On this logic, particular person states are handled as a “unified entity” (Zehfuss, 2001: 337) “with out [a] distinction” (Zehfuss, 2001: 332). This “anthropomorphic” idea treats states as if they’re “unitary actors with minds, need and intentions” (Zehfuss, 2001: 335). It’s “not possible to acknowledge the complexity” of this “seemingly pure narrative of identification”, and the exclusion of the “strategy of development of states as a bearer of identification” additionally ignores the facility politics behind this articulation (Zehfuss, 2001:333, 335, 336). Constructivism’s “ontological basis… precludes investigation into energy as constitutive of topics” (Doty, 1993: 299) and thus fails to query how a state’s particular identification comes into being. Moreover, this view has led to constructivism posing “why questions” (why states behave this like this), which already presume this particular motion “may occur”(Doty, 1993: 298). As such, constructivism presupposes an actor’s potential to think about these actions, and thus, their identification “should already be in place” (Doty, 1993: 298). In brief, though constructivism engages with identification on a a lot bigger scale than neorealism, it nonetheless fails to discover identification formation previous to the social interplay and views the state as a “unitary actor” with a single identification.

Poststructuralism

Poststructuralism, like constructivism, goals to denaturalise the social world (Hopf, 1998: 182) however goes deeper than constructivism. It questions the ontological assumptions we make in regards to the world and the way sure issues that appear “pure” and “apparent” are problematic (Hansen, 2017: 171). It holds the non-foundationalist perspective that realities “don’t have any ontological standing” other than the acts that represent them (Campbell, 1998: 9). This isn’t to disclaim that objects exist externally to thought however that “objects may represent themselves as objects outdoors any discursive situation of emergence” (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985: 108), as “we will by no means know [the existence of the world]” past discourse (Campbell, 1998: 6). Poststructuralism argues that “we should not think about that the world turns towards us a legible face which we’d solely need to decipher” (Foucault, 1984: 127). With this “post-positivist epistemology”, poststructuralism makes use of a discursive practices strategy to unpack the “linguistic development of actuality” (Doty, 1993: 302). Thus, it denies the existence of an “goal yardstick” that may outline realities, crises or identities (Hansen, 2017: 159; Nabers, 2019: 2). For poststructuralism, “identification is an inescapable dimension of being”, however it “will not be mounted by nature” (Campbell, 1998: 9). Identification will not be given (Derrida, 1998: 28) however is performatively constituted and relies on discourses (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 374; Doty, 1993: 304; Hansen, 2017: 164, 169; Campbell, 1998: 5, 9; 2013: 234; Zehfuss, 2001, 336). Accordingly, a state is known as an “imagined political group” (Anderson, 1991) whose “identification” “is constituted in relation to distinction” (Campbell, 1998: 9; 2013, 238). In poststructuralism, “[the] structure of identification is achieved by means of the inscription of boundaries that serve to demarcate an ‘inside’ from an ‘outdoors’” (Campbell, 1998: 9), “self” from “different” and “us” from “them”. Furthermore, this boundary is “secured by the illustration of hazard” (Campbell, 1998: 3). Poststructuralism thereby explores the development of identification in a means that constructivism doesn’t.

Poststructuralism additionally understands that it’s “not possible [for states] to keep up a coherent identification” (Roush, 2020), as there exists no goal, steady actuality, dichotomy nor major identification (Hansen, 2017: 169; Campbell, 1998: 11). States are thus “at all times in [the] strategy of changing into” (Campbell, 1998: 12), which requires a “regulated strategy of repetition” (Butler, 1990: 136) of discursive practices to (re)produce this identification. States due to this fact want copy to “keep” their identification’s realness (Hansen, 2017: 169). Because of challenges in opposition to “apparent” and “goal” look; as poststructuralism argues, this “naturalness” is created and maintained by repeated articulations (Weldes, 1996: 285). States shouldn’t be handled as “unitary actors” with a single identification as they’re in neorealism and constructivism. 

This brings us to energy politics. Energy is “productive” (Doty, 1993; Hansen, 2017: 164). By means of energy discourse, particular information is exercised and produced (Edkins, 2005: 4). This energy/information nexus prioritises particular information that articulates meanings for objects whereas on the similar time “marginalis[ing]” different “realities” and “identities” (Foucault, 2004: 7). This energy discourse, whereas constituting seemingly “pure” realities (identities) (Hansen, 2017: 164), additionally workout routines authority. It determines what “actual” identification a state “has”. Different potential “identities” are thus denied. If we settle for that energy discourse creates a single identification for states and thus advantages some teams on the expense of others (Roush, 2020), then the “why questions” posed by constructivism are problematic (Doty, 1993). Energy discourse is commonly uncared for in “why questions”. Poststructuralism, nonetheless, asks “how questions”, e.g. how actuality is articulated and the way specific overseas insurance policies had been legitimised and allowed to occur (Doty, 1993: 298, 305). Poststructuralism additionally views the connection between identification and overseas coverage as mutually constituted: “identification is concurrently a product of and the justification for overseas insurance policies” (Hansen, 2017: 169). Recognising that constituted identification wants fixed (re)manufacturing and that it “permits” particular overseas insurance policies to occur, poststructuralism argues that overseas insurance policies and actions in conflicts and crises additionally (re)produce and (re)articulate states’ identities (Hansen, 2017: 169). This exploration of the three theories reveals that poststructuralism gives probably the most compelling account of identification in conflicts, because it compensates for the restrictions inside neorealism and constructivism.

Case Research: The Cuban Missile Disaster

Having critically engaged with these three theories, we now transfer to an empirical case research on the Cuban Missile Disaster, one of many largest “Chilly Warfare confrontations” between the US and Soviet Union that occurred in October 1962 (Historical past, 2019). It started when a US U-2 spy aircraft found the Soviets’ missile deployment in Cuba on 14 October. The US then urged the Soviets to take away the missiles. Throughout the disaster, the US was “quickly prepar[ing] [for] a considerable air assault and land invasion power” (Garthoff, 1992: 47) in opposition to Cuba whereas additionally enacting insurance policies equivalent to blockades. The disaster was heightened to the purpose the place it nearly led to a nuclear battle between the US and the Soviets (Allison, 1971: 39).

Having launched the background, neorealism’s limitations at the moment are examined by means of software to this case research. Inside neorealism’s theoretical mannequin, the “trigger” of conflicts and US aggression in direction of Cuba is considered the “aggressive nature of bipolar politics” between the US and Soviet Union (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365). Underneath the mannequin, the Soviet Union’s deployment of missiles in Cuba was threatening the US’s survival; thus, the US needed to counter the Soviets and power them to take away the missiles (Weldes & Saco, 1996:365). Nonetheless, this clarification not solely neglects the function of identification however can be incorrect. If bipolar superpower politics precipitated the conflicts, “then the top of the Chilly Warfare and Soviet threats ought to [have] sign[led] a decline” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365) in US hostility in direction of Cuba, however this antagonism has not modified instantly after the top of the Chilly battle (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 365). Furthermore, then US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara argued afterwards that the Soviet’s missile deployment “made no distinction”, as it could not have critically threatened the US: “Can anybody critically inform me that [Soviet] having 340 [missiles] would have made any distinction?” (Blight and Welch, 1990: 23). It’s due to this fact clear that analyzing solely the facility steadiness presents a restricted account of the disaster.

Having denied the usefulness of neorealism’s theoretical strategy, the next sections look at the function of identification to grasp the case. To totally perceive the function of identification in worldwide conflicts, a compelling concept ought to discover the preliminary strategy of identification “development”. This part will denaturalises the “identification” of the state by analyzing quite a few US discourses across the disaster interval, and poststructuralism’s superiority to constructivism will likely be evident as identification was constructed by means of discourses.

In US discourses, the Soviet Union has been articulated as an “different” that’s in distinction with “self” and has been given a adverse identification in distinction to the US. The Soviet missile deployment was usually articulated as threatening in US discourses; for instance, Dean Rusk, then the US Secretary of State said that it was an “aggressive intervention” into the Western Hemisphere (Weldes, 1996: 290). Douglas Dillon equally said that missile deployment is a “navy intrusion [from] a overseas nation” (Dillon, 1964). “Others” with “intrusion” traits are established on this discourse. Extra considerably, in Kennedy’s (1962) speech, the Soviet Union was related with “secrecy and deception”, with their missile deployments a “secret, swift and extraordinary” “fast offensive buildup”. Discourse represented these Soviet missiles as “clearly offensive” and looking for to “assault” “the Western Hemisphere”; thus, they had been a “risk to the peace and safety of all of the Americas” (Kennedy, 1962). The Soviets’ “clandestine choice” was depicted as a “provocative and unjustified” transfer, in opposition to the US’s “justified” additional motion. 

In distinction, the US, together with the “world group”, positioned itself as being “against battle”, claiming it consisted of “peaceable individuals” who hope “for a peaceable world” (ibid). The Soviets’ “misleading” and “secretive” traits had been additional contrasted with the US’s “openness” within the US Division of State’s (1962) discourses: “Our missiles overseas are established beneath open and introduced agreements”, whereas “Soviet missiles had been positioned in Cuba in secret with none public statements and with out an alliance” (7–8). By means of discourse, distinct identities are represented, as Robert Kennedy, then the US Legal professional Normal’s discourse clearly exhibits: “We (the US) had not been that type of nation [the Soviet Union]” (Weldes, 1999b: 41). These official discourses established a threatening, aggressive, secretive and duplicitous Soviet identification (Weldes, 1996: 290). Furthermore, by establishing “others”, the US was recognized as a “peaceable”, “justified” “international chief” (US Nationwide Safety Council, 1950: 390) in these dichotomous discourses (Weldes, 1996: 282, 299). 

Cuba’s identification, too, was constituted by US Chilly Warfare discourse. Cuba was articulated as an “imprisoned island” (Kennedy, 1962), managed and betrayed by the “Castro gang” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 385). As showcased in Eisenhower’s discourse earlier, Cuba is believed to be “serving Soviet functions” (380). Later, this “Soviet serving function” was reproduced in The New York Occasions (1961): Cuba is described as “a brand new satellite tv for pc” established by the Russians, “[governed] by Khrushchev’s chief puppet” (10). In these discourses, the Castro authorities controlling Cuba is thus constructed as being the “Soviets’ software”.

Therefore, the US’s identification will not be pre-given; its identification conceptions relaxation upon discursive (re)manufacturing of a relationship of distinction (Weldes, 1999b: 59). US discourses in “differentiating the US from the aggressive different [(Cuba controlled by Castro and Soviets)]… constituted a US identification” (Weldes, 1999b: 44). Thus, an identification is secured by reworking distinction “into otherness, into evil or one in all its quite a few surrogates” (Connolly, 1991: 64). Relatively than assuming the US has a peaceable, justified international management identification and the Soviet Union has a misleading, harmful communist identification when coming into social interactions, like constructivism may, poststructuralism by means of discourse evaluation unpacks identification development.   

Poststructuralism’s compelling account additionally lies in that it investigates the consequences of energy politics behind discourse that (re)assemble the US identification in a specific means. Poststructuralism argues that the state will not be a “unitary actor” with a single identification and that identification is unstable and is extra problematic than it appears to be (Zehfuss, 2001). By means of these highly effective (official, high-profile) discourses, the US got here to be represented as a state that acquires a peaceable democratic identification in opposition to the evil Soviet Union. These energy discourses have marginalised different discourses that articulate a special US identification. Energy discourses have usually articulated US overseas missile deployment in Turkey and Italy as “open” and “defensive” in distinction with the Soviets’ “offensive” ones. That is apparent when analyzing Stevenson, then US politician’s speech, the place he argued that the US’s overseas missiles are deployed “with out concealment or deceit” and are “publicly declared” and positioned “within the NATO space in response to the risk posed to NATO by Soviet missiles” (Stevenson, 1962: 729). This discourse constituted a “single identification” that’s “defensive” and legit to the US. This successfully oppressed different potential representational discourses. In truth, throughout the Chilly Warfare, there have been anti-nuclear protests within the US which included discourses like “No double requirements, US bases are not any totally different” (Estuary Press, n.d.) inside the US. These marginalised discourses might need articulated a special US identification, one which may have articulated US as an imperialist energy. Therefore, states’ identification is constituted by means of energy discourse. Constructivism and neorealism each treats states as unitary actors with a single identification, thus they overlook the facility politics behind discourse that represent a specific identification on the expense of others. Thereby, poststructuralism gives an in-depth exploration on identification. 

An extra means through which poststructuralism permits us to raised perceive the function of identification in conflicts is that they look at “how” a sure “identification” permits particular overseas insurance policies and conflicts. Importantly, solely by means of discussing how energy discourse marginalises different potential constituted “identit[ies]” can one perceive why “why questions” are problematic (Doty, 1993). By means of the development of an aggressive identification of the Soviet Union and Cuba, discourse permits for the “possib[le] situations for the existence of phenomena” (Majeski & Sylvan, 1991: 8)—that’s, US overseas insurance policies. These “hostile and aggressive [US] overseas insurance policies” (Weldes & Saco, 1996: 378) had been made potential by means of discourses that articulated the US as a world chief who must “defend” the Western Hemisphere and Cuba as an aggressive puppet for the Soviet Union. These “threatening” and “offensive” traits related to Soviet and Cuban identification made the US’s insurance policies seem not solely “smart” however even “seemingly unavoidable” (Weldes & Saco, 1996:  378). In spite of everything, in contrast to the Soviet Union or Castro’s Cuba, “[the US] stands for freedom” (Kennedy, 1961 in Weldes, 1999b: 42), and its missiles defend the Western Hemisphere in opposition to threats to “world peace” (Kennedy, 1962). With these contrasts, it appears affordable (certainly, inevitable and fascinating) that “the most recent Soviet risk should and will likely be met by [the US through] no matter motion is required” (Kennedy, 1962). Furthermore, the Castro authorities’s framing as “puppets and agent[s]” beneath an “worldwide conspiracy” and the US “shar[ing] [Cuban populations’] aspirations for liberty and justice” additional permits the US to invade Cuba to “save” the individuals from Soviet domination (Kennedy, 1962). Accordingly, it “appears” affordable for a “peaceable, authentic international chief” such because the US to implement overseas insurance policies, requiring the Soviets to take away missiles in Cuba and even their missile deployments in Turkey and Italy. 

As soon as we recognise how US identification was constituted by means of energy discourse, we will then realise that these insurance policies will not be as unproblematic as they appear to be. Overseas insurance policies had been made potential by this constituted US identification throughout the Chilly Warfare, with out which none of those overseas insurance policies can be justified or allowed. By asking why the US engaged in battle with the Soviets, constructivism assumes a unitary goal US identification. They may argue that the Soviets had been posing a risk to the US, as they’ve acquired a “totalitarian communist identification”, and that the US understands itself as a “democratic international chief” that should have interaction in conflicts. Nonetheless, this constructivist understanding is proscribed in that it fails to query how your complete battle was made potential. The Cuban Missile Disaster was made potential by an influence discourse constituted US identification. Poststructuralism efficiently gives a complete account of the function of identification within the conflicts; by means of its epistemology, identification will be denaturalised and the makings of the Cuban Missile Disaster will be understood.

Relatively than taking a look at a a method causal hyperlink between identification and overseas polices, poststructuralism expands our understanding by exploring their mutual constitutional relationship. US identification not solely permits overseas insurance policies to occur however is itself a results of overseas insurance policies. US missile deployment in Turkey and Italy considerably (re)constituted US identification as a protector of the West. Insurance policies in opposition to Cuba equivalent to “direct[ing] the Armed Forces to arrange for any eventualities” (Kennedy, 1962) and blockading illustrate the identical results. These discursive acts create the picture that the Soviets’ missile deployment in Cuba was offensive and that the US is a world chief that can reply to this risk with dedication. This identification was additionally being rearticulated by means of the US’s “continued and elevated shut surveillance of Cuba and its navy buildup” (Kennedy, 1962). This surveillance serves to assemble the Soviets as a risk that must be intently monitored and the US as a pacesetter taking over this duty. Extra considerably, by ultimately “forcing the elimination of the Soviet missiles”, the US identification as a hemispheric chief “in defence of freedom” was once more (re)articulated (Weldes, 1999b: 55). The Cuban Missile Disaster and US overseas insurance policies are mutually constituted with US identification. The disaster was “not solely enabled by a specific illustration of the US however concurrently made it potential for that identification itself actively to be (re)produced” (Weldes, 1999b: 53). Constructivism narrowly focuses on how a specific identification “causes” sure practices or conflicts, whereas poststructuralism recognises that these overseas insurance policies and conflicts are additionally (re)producing state’s identification. 

Thus, the exploration of those three theories and their software to the Cuban Missile Disaster reveal that poststructuralism gives probably the most compelling account of identification’s function in worldwide conflicts. Its strengths lie in its shut consideration to the preliminary development of identification, whereas neorealism utterly neglects it and constructivism, although it recognises identification, doesn’t look at the identification a state “has” previous to social interactions. Poststructuralism additionally recognises the facility politics behind particular articulations and problematises the seemingly “apparent” state identification, whereas each neorealism and constructivism deal with states as a unitary actor with a single identification. Poststructuralism additionally questions how worldwide conflicts and overseas insurance policies are made potential, whereas the others don’t. Moreover, solely poststructuralism explores the mutual establishing results between overseas insurance policies and identification. To totally perceive identification’s function in worldwide conflicts, we should discover “identification” itself and never deal with it as given or pure. The US didn’t enter social interactions with a given peaceable, democratic and international chief identification—it was established by means of energy discourses. Had different much less highly effective discourses not been marginalised, the US’s identification is perhaps understood in a different way. With out this optimistic identification, its overseas insurance policies could have been blocked, and the disaster doubtless would have had a special end result. Subsequently, this essay concludes that of neorealism, constructivism and poststructuralism, solely the latter can present a complete understanding of identification’s function in worldwide conflicts. 

Bibliography

Adler, E. (1997) “Seizing the Center Floor:: Constructivism in World Politics”, European Journal of Worldwide Relations 3(3): 319–363.

Adler, E. and Barnett, M. (eds.) (1998) Safety Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press).

Allison, Graham T. (1969) “Conceptual Fashions and the Cuban Missile Disaster”, The American Political Science Evaluate 63(3): 689-718.

Allison, Graham T. (1971) Essence of Resolution, 1^st version (Boston: Little, Brown & Firm).

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Unfold of Nationalism, revised version (New York: Verso).

Ashley, R. Ok. (1984) “The Poverty of Neorealism”, Worldwide Group 38(2): 225–286.

Barnett, M. (2017) “Social constructivism”, in Baylis, J., Owens, P., and Smith, S. (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to Worldwide Relations, 7^th version (Oxford: Oxford College Press), 144-158.

Berenskoetter, F. (2017) “Identification in Worldwide Relations”, Oxford Analysis Encyclopedia of Worldwide Research, 22 December, accessed at https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-218, 16 April 2021.

Blight, J. G. and Welch, D. A. (eds.) (1990) On the Brink: Individuals and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Disaster, 2nd version (New York: The Noonday Press). 

Brooks, S. G. (1997) “Dueling Realisms”, International Group 51(3): 445-477. 

Butler, J. (1990) Gender Bother: Feminism and the Subversion of Identification, 1^st version (New York: Routledge).

Campbell, D. (1998) Writing Safety: United States Overseas Coverage and the Politics of Identification (Manchester: Manchester College Press).

Campbell, D. (2013) “Poststructuralism”, in Dunne, T. et al (eds.) Worldwide Relations Theories: Self-discipline and Variety, third version (Oxford: Oxford College Press), 203-228.

Connolly, W. (1991) Identification, Distinction Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, 1^st version (Minneapolis: College of Minnesota Press).