Customer Reviews

Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Drawing heavily on Foucault and the philosophy of identity, this book provides a new and logically sound alternative to viewing international relations through the currently dominant neo-realist paradigm. It is well documented and provides a solid explanation of our foreign policy that takes into account such complex social factors as the quest for identity, as opposed to observing foreign policy as simply a political or economic power-play. It is an excellent book with a unique perspective, and should be read by anyone who desires a complete view of how nations relate with each other.

Campbell does a great job in meta-theory, and his critiques of the realist epistemic are very convincing. However, his reading of US foreign policy is very allegorical and his interpretation, much like other deconstructivist works, has an authority that is difficult to contest. Nevertheless, as a critical viewpoint in how danger is constructed in our society, it definitely gets you thinking.

I'm inclined to disagree with the reader form New York - while I can't imagine Campbell ever liking much about the Reagan administration's foreign policy, I nonetheless believe that his work asks questions which are not easily (read: comfortably) answered in american foreign policy.

That being said, this is NOT a book for the reader uninitiated to either abstractly theoretical examinations of internation political science, or to the postmodern/poststructuralist philosophy project.

All the same, though, a fascinating read for those in the field, or with an interest...

interesting use of discourse analysis in constructing a theory of the legitimization of sovereignty. theory of identity being a performance where identity is mutually constituted through self/other distinctions is not new, but the application to US State identity is.
Overall, the arguments are debatable, but the methods are interesting and thought provoking. The most interesting aspect of the book is idea that the US State uses an "evangelism of fear" to identify a danger/enemy and presents the State as the only legitimate protection against that danger/enemy. In this way the "war on terror" justifies obedience to the State, and constitutes identity by differing the self from the other, or the "us" from "them." The terrorists are the bad guys, and US foreign protects the good guys ("us")from "them." Therefore, US foreign policy serves to contruct identity.

This is a good book because it goes against the current of academic IR talk-talk, it is not attempting to become an IR pet-paradigm that is divorced from reality. Not that I am a 'post positivist' of sorts, i simply enjoyed reading Prof. Campbells book because I could learn something new. The book is accesible, it is not written in an esoteric and obsucrantist prose, contrary to some of his peers who are in fashion in mainstream IR. It is original and allows one to look through different glasses at a reality that is a reality, meaning a reality that is not pulled out of the head of some 'theorist' that needs, you guessed, his 'theory' to be made somehow comprehensible. Highly recommended for those IR students that want to learn in an original way something new about International Politcs.

This book's thesis is interesting and not entirely implausible: The Cold War is better understood as an attempt by the US to define its own identity than by great powers attempting to resist an objective, material threat. Unfortunately, now that you know that's the thesis, there is literally no reason for you to go out and read the book. It is one of the most incomprehensibly convoluted works I have ever read in any discipline.

For example, these two sentences are typical.
"In contrast to the statist discourse of international relations, this understanding proffers an entirely different orientation to the question of foreign policy. In addition to the historical discussion above, which suggested that it was possible to argue that the state was not prior to the interstate system, this interpretation means that instead of regarding foreign policy as the external view and rationalist orientation of a preestablished state, the identity of which is secure before it enters into relations with others, we can consider foreign policy as an integral part of the discourses of danger that serve to discipline the state."

This book was also heavily padded. It should have been condensed into a 15-30 page article. Also, the less I say about its painful mangling of Hobbes, the better. If you are interested in articulate constructivist thought, I highly recommend The Social Theory of International Politics; it makes much better use of historical evidence and the English language.

Campbell would probably be more persuasive if he were up-front enough to admit that he simply dislikes Reagan, Bush, and US social and foreign policy in general. Instead, he throws a superficial veneer of deconstruction over the discussion of various domestic and foreign events (e.g., war on drugs). He so easily exposes what he claims are others' motives, but is too hypocritical to admit his own. This book is not worth the time or money to read.