Rethinking Diplomacy: Iver Neumann (2012), At Home With the Diplomats...
I
enjoyed reading this book. Please, consider the following assertion about the
word diploma: “a document…[that] had to
be folded and kept in a wooden contraption that shielded it against the wind” (p
21), this is a metaphor for a discursive attempt to fix the meaning of a concept
or a variable. Even though Neumann is very specific in his case study (the
Norwegian MFA), he convincingly problematizes knowledge production that is
based on unquestioned assumptions. In this work, Neumann espoused three processes
that deserve attention. In reconstructing the historiography of “diplomacy,”
both as a discourse and a praxis, 1) Neumann addresses the canon, he challenges
Satow (1917) and Harold Nicolson (1939) fixed notion of diplomacy (p. 21). 2) He
identifies credible recessive voices, citing James Der Derian (p. 24) and
Ragnar Numelin (p. 23). 3) Finally, he engages in a peripheral conversation about the
Norwegian diplomacy, including gender and sexuality. Although I like the book,
I am not quite sure whether I grasp the practice and discourse interplay, does Neumann
mean that a discourse necessarily leads to practice, paves the way for
practice, comes from practice, or contains practice, and vice versa?
Neumann argues
that in defining “diplomacy as the conduct of official relations between the
governments of independent states” (p. 4), Satow (1917) excludes forms of diplomacies
that might have developed prior to the emergence of the Westephalian state.
Here is my question, since by definition a definition is a conscientious effort
to establish the contours of a concept or phenomenon, how do we meet Neuman’s
challenge when we define IR concepts?
Neumann’s
definitional challenge leads me to ask another question. When we analyze an
argument should we consider first the internal logic of the argument at hand to
see whether its conclusions flow logically from the premises, or do we focus
primarily on assumptions upon which the premises are predicated? In other
words, is Neumann’s definitional challenge pertinent for the internal logic of an
argument?
Finally, Neumann
demonstrates that the effectiveness of the dominant discourse of diplomacy is
based on a centralized narrative (p. 23) that elides substantial differences
(p. 24), and erases discursive instabilities (p. 25). Now if we add the
definitional challenge to this equation, while we consider a theory as a centralizing
attempt, is it even possible to construct theory?
posted by Patrick Litanga at 11:36 AM
2 Comments:
I'm with Patrick--while I think the articulation of the link between practice and discourse, and between ethnography and history, is one of the most important contributions of the book, I am not sure I'm 100% sold on this articulation of the link. I would really like to unpack this further in class, as I'm not sure whether I don't get it or I just don't buy it.
I also have an extension of Patrick's second question. In trying to meet this challenge, what should our goal even be? Is it enough to simply acknowledge the situatedness of the system we are studying, recognize that it is of a time, place, and power dynamic, and then proceed to define concepts within that space to describe only that situated system, combating the false assumption of ahistoricity Neumann is highlighting? Or should we be seeking to identify and define concepts that cut across not just how things are but how they were and how they could be? Or, something else entirely?
In a different line of thought, the book's focus on the mechanisms of knowledge production, and the way the organizational structures limited the type, form, and content of knowledge that could be produced in a particular context, was incredibly interesting to me in light of my own work--especially the identity disconnect created by the transition between the two "worlds" of knowledge production, at home and abroad. This is something else I would like to explore in class--the link between identity and knowledge production. What are the ramifications of understanding identity formation/socialization/participation and knowledge production as linked activities?
I also enjoyed reading the book a lot! However, I agree with Patrick's critique on Neumann's understanding of 'discourse' as separate from 'practice'. Thinking it further, it may lead to the very common understanding of discourse as 'only' language and thus to the equally common dichotomization between 'discourse'and 'action'(i.e. 'what people say' vs.'what they do') In most cases you then end up with the question of prioritizing either or, or asking for the impact of 'discourse' on 'action' and vice versa, often in the form of the 'ideas' vs. 'materiality' debate. Discourse scholars who eschew this dichotomy argue for an understanding of discourse AS practice instead.
As someone originally being 'trained' as a historian and having done a lot of work in archives and with old catalogues, I very much appreciated Neumann's remarks on "archival order and anachronistic knowledge production" (p.42ff.), thus taking into account that an archive is not a simple record of 'facts', but also an artefact/a practice that was itself set up within a specific context and a certain understanding of what it was catalouging.
The same might be said of museums, and this actually brought into my mind an interesting exhibition "Connecting Cultures" that I saw a couple of weeks ago at the Brooklyn Museum. It was their way of presenting 'artefacts' that made it a different experience from most other museums. Part of the introduction to the exhibition read like this:
"[...] Museums carefully organize and present these works of art in ways that make them more understandable.Traditionally, gallery presentations have been organized in several ways: by geography, or by medium, or by chronology, or sometimes a combination of these. Such categories are useful because they allow the viewer to make important comparisions within a group of closely related works. At the same time, however, those traditional categories can be limiting, because they do not offer an opportunity to make larger comparisons - across different cultures, mediums or time periods.
This gallery challenges those traditional approaches and offers an alternative option meant to augment other organizational themes in the Museum. Here. works of different places, types, and times from across the Museum's collections are gathered into broad themes, emphasizing connections across cultures, which allow us to see the ways in which art refelcts our shared humanity[...]".
At first, seeing an exhibition 'organized' in this way, did cause a bit of an 'disorganized' feeling with me, but that I guess was part of the purpose to challenge the approaches we are used to.
And this actually brings me back to the discussion on Laura Sjöberg's book last week, as her manner of 'organizing' feminist security studies did at first also seem 'disorganized' - in the sense of not being what I expected it to be - to me. But I guess this is part of the "dialogical engagement" and "difference as substance" approach.
Looking forward on continuing the discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home