foreign policy as social construction: a post-positivist analysis of u.s. counterinsurgency policy...

8/15/2019 Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines

1/25

Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. CounterinsurgencyPolicy in the PhilippinesAuthor(s): Roxanne Lynn DotySource: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 297-320Published by: Wiley on behalf of The International Studies Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600810 .Accessed: 03/09/2014 04:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to International Studies Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2600810?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2600810?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/25

Internationaltudies

Quarterly1993) 37,

297-320

Foreign olicy s

Social Construction:

APost-Positivistnalysis fU.S.

Counterinsurgency

olicy n thePhilippines

ROXANNE YNNDoTy

Arizona tate

University

Much of the criticism irected at

post-positivistnternational elations

has called formore detailed explorationof its mplications or specific

areas

of

investigation.

t the same time, he study f

foreign olicy

has

been largely naffected y the critical

nsights ffered ypost-positivism.

This paper

attempts o bridgethisgap byexamining hree

pproaches to

foreign olicy nalysis nd the

metatheoreticalssues

underlying ach

of

them. It is

suggested that an approach informedby

post-positivist

insights an provide a useful

alternative o traditional

waysof studying

foreign olicy nd can facilitate

more critical nterpretationfforeign

policy practices. The first two

approaches,

the

Cognitive

Decision-

makingApproach

and the Social

Performance pproach,were chosen

as

a

way

of

differentiatingnd highlightingheontological nd

theoretical

issues that are relevant o

understanding nd situating he Discursive

PracticesApproach. After xaminingthe three approaches,I use the

Discursive

PracticesApproach to

analyze United States' counterinsur-

gencypolicy

n

the

Philippines irca

1950.

On

July 4, 1946, for the first time in

history, an imperial nation

voluntarily

relinquished possession

of its colonial

conquest (Karnow, 1989:323). As the

United

States

granted independence to

the

Philippines

the new

relationship

between the

two

was

widely

heralded

as

one of

partnership

and

equality.

The

Filipino people,

it

was said, had demonstrated theircapacityfordemocratic self-government nd had

earned

the

right

of

independence

(MacArthur, 1946).

The

emergence

of the

Philippines as

a

sovereign nation

was

hailed

as

conclusive proof

that the United

States stood

for

fair

play, liberty

and

freedom,

and

progress

and

prosperity

for

other

peoples

(McDonough, 1946).

Despite

this

optimisticbeginning,

the

United States

was soon to embark

on an

interventionist

ourse that

displayed little

respect

for

Philippine sovereignty.

The

question

arises

as

to how this interventionist

policy

came to be deemed

necessary

and

nonintervention unthinkable.

How,

amidst all

the

profession

of

sovereign

Author'sote: would like to thank he following ndividuals or their omments n variousdrafts f thispaper:

RichardAshley, rancisBeer,Jack Crittenen, aymondDuvall, David Sylvan,

tephen Walker,CynthiaWeber, and

Alexander

Wendt. would also

like

to thank three anonymousreviewers nd theeditors t ISQ especiallyRichard

Herrmann.

?

1993

nternational tudiesAssociation.

Publishedby

Blackwell ublishers, 38 Main Street, ambridge,MA 02142, USA, and 108

CowleyRoad, OxfordOX4

1JF, K.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

298 Foreign olicy

s Social

Construction

equality, id the post-colonialUnited States-Philippine elationship ome to be

constructedn so hierarchical mannerthat he U.S. was icensedto diagnose and

judge the internal ituation f the Philippines?How, indeed, did it come to be

constructed uch that,upon judging the situation,United States' policy makers

could regard ounterinsurgency easures s the onlyreasonablecourse of action?

Conventional pproaches to foreign olicy nalysis o not pose thiskind of how-

question. oreignpolicy nalysis s generally oncerned with xplainingwhy artic-

ular decisionsresultingn specific oursesof actionwere made. Depending on the

approach, explanation might focus on the relativeposition of a state in the

international ower hierarchy,nfightingmong variousgovernment gencies,or

the

perceptions

of

decision makers. What

is

common

to

alt

of

these

kinds

of

explanations s that hey eek an answer o a particular ategory f question, why-

question. he problem for analysis s to show that a certain policy decision was

predictablegiven a particular et of circumstances.While the attempt s made to

identifyufficientonditions, n mostcases analysts an only uggest hat utcomes

willoccur

with certain mountofprobabilityLittle, 991:4).

Explanations for why-questionsre incomplete n an important ense. They

generally ake s unproblematic hepossibilityhat particular ecision

or

course of

action

could happen.1 They presuppose a particular ubjectivityi.e.,

a mode of

being),

a

background

of

social/discursive ractices

nd

meanings

which make

possible the practices s well as the social actors themselves.

n

contrast o

more

conventional pproaches to the analysis f foreign olicy, he approach

I

take

n

this rticle

poses

a

how-possibleuestion.

n

posing such

a

question,

examine how

meanings are produced and attached to various social subjects/objects, hus

constituting articular nterpretive ispositionswhich create certain possibilities

and preclude others.What s explained is not why particular utcome obtained,

but rather how the subjects,objects, and interpretive ispositionswere socially

constructed such that certain practices were made possible. The claims

of

sovereign quality

would seem to have made

a

policy

f

nterventionn the

part

of

the

United States impossible. his suggests hatother constructionswere being

produced thatwerenot thoseheralded at the timeof Philippine ndependence.

The difference etween why- nd how-questions s important

n

judging

a

successful xplanation. his differencean

be

illustrated ith

brief

xample.

One

could

pose

the

question

Why

id

the United

States invade

Panama? Some

possible explanationsmight ointto the U.S. desire to stopthedrug trafficking

f

Noriega, Bush's desire to overcome his wimp mage,

or the U.S.

desire to

overcome theVietnam syndrome. ll of theseexplanations re incomplete n

that

they

ake as

unproblematic

he

possibility

hatthe invasion ould

take

place.

One

could

point

to U.S.

militaryapabilities

s an

explanation

or

he

how-possible

question. Still,

his s

incomplete

n

that he U.S.

does not

imagine nvading very

country

o

which t s

militarilyuperior

nd withwhich

t has a serious

grievance.

The

possibility

f

practicespresupposes

he

ability

f

an

agent

to

imagine

certain

courses

of

action.

Certain background meanings,

kinds of social actors

and

relationships, ust lready

e

in

place.

lUsefuldiscussions f why- nd how-questions

an be found n Little 1991:chap. 1)

and Cross (1991). Also see

Wendt (1987:362-363)

for a discussion of the distinction between

why- nd how-questions as they pertain

to

structural s. historical xplanations.Also

relevant s Sylvan nd Glassner's 1985:7-9)

discussionof possibilism,

n

explanation that

should be familiar o students of international

relations. George

(1979:103) suggests that an

individual's perationalcode introduces

ropensities,ot determinants,

f decision making.This is consistentwith

n

explanation thatfocuses

on possibilities.imilarly,prout and Sprout's (1965) environmentai ossibilism uggests

that he environmentoes not

deternine

ehavior,

ut rather ermits,

upports,r resistsertain ehaviors.




4/25

ROXANNEYNN

OTY 299

How-possible uestions

are

concerned with

explaining

how these

meanings,

subjects,

nd

interpretiveispositions

re constructed. o address the

question of

how

the U.S.

invasion of

Panama

was made

possible,

an

adequate explanation

would

have to

inquire

nto the

production

f these

things.

n the Panama case

one

might xaminethediscursive onstructionfManuel Noriega himself, oting he

shift

rom anti-communisteader to

drug

rafficker.

How-questions,o posed, go to an important spectofpower hatwhy-questions

too

often

neglect.Theygo

to the

way

n

which

power

works o

constitute articular

modes of subjectivitynd interpretive ispositions. ndeed, the kind of how-

question pose

in

this rticle s

implicitly question

of

power.This is not the kind

of

power

hat

works hroughocial agents, power hat ocial actorspossess nd use.

Rather, t s a kind of powerthat s productive f meanings, ubject dentities, heir

interrelationships,nd a range of maginable onduct.Power s productives central

to

the

kind of

how-question

aised

n

this

tudy.2Why-questions,y taking ubjects

as given, s theontological oundation ftheir nalysis, reclude nvestigationnto

power

s constitutive

f

subjects.

Moving

from

why-questions

o

how-possible uestions

has

important mplica-

tions

for

foreign policy analysis.By making

more elements of

policy making

problematic nd takingess as given, n approach thatposes how-questionss more

critical han an

approach

confined

o the

question

of

why.

When

we

ask

why

tates

or

decision makersengage

in

certain

practiceswith

other

states,we

assume

the

existence

of those states and decision makers. When we

pose

a

how-possible

question,

we

can still sk

why,

ut

we must

n

addition

nquire

nto

the

practices

that enable social actors to

act,

to frame

policy

as

they do,

and to wield the

capabilities hey

do. Perforce

more critical, his

mode of

questioning

akes us to

relations fpower-power initsproductive spect thatwhy-questionseglect.

This

study akesup twohow-possible uestions. 1) How were particular ubjects

and modes of

subjectivity

onstituted o as to make

possible

United States'

interventionistolicy

n

the Philippines irca 1950? and, equally important, 2)

How

did

the

practices

nvolved

n this

specific nstance

of

policymaking

further

the construction

nd

hierarchical

positioning

of

subjects,

thus

locating

some

sovereign quals

as the

rightfulnterpreters

nd

udgers

of others?

To address

hese questions take

a

Discursiveractices pproach,n approach

that

perhaps

needs

to

be situated nd clarified.

oward

that

end,

I

shall

brieflyuxta-

pose

it

alongside two alternative pproaches

to

foreignpolicyanalysis, sing

the

contrast to draw out some of the issues that need to be

appreciated

in

understandingmy approach.The purpose of thisuxtaposition s not to prepare

the

way

or n

application

f each

approach

n

a

causal analysis

f this

ase,

then to

determinewhich

offers

he best

explanation. Rather, my purpose

is

simply

o

highlight

he

ontological

nd theoretical ssues that

re

relevant o

understanding

and

situating

the Discursive ractices

pproach.

he first

wo

approaches,

the

Cognitiveecision-makingpproach

nd

the Social

Performancepproach,

ere chosen

because

they

o this

nicely.

The

Cognitive ecision-making pproach

Internationalrelations scholars who have been influencedby the cognitive

revolution n

psychology

nd

other fields have

long

been sensitive

to the

2The conceptualization f power

being suggestedhere is that ffered yMichel Foucault. Originalworks

nclude

thosepublished n 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1983). Useful econdary ources

re Dreyfus nd Rabinow 1983) and Clegg

(1989:chap. 7).




5/25

300

Foreign

olicy

s Social Construction

importance f the cognitive spects of individuals nvolved n the formulation f

foreign policy. Notwithstanding he methodological problems, conventional

scholars continue to integrate nsights gleaned from a focus on individual

cognition with theories of international relations. Of significance for my

immediate purposes is what the cognitive revolutionproblematized that had

previously een leftunexamined.The cognitive evolutionmade problematic he

subjective nvironmentf individuals nd in doing so called our attention o the

world s perceived nd representedy those actors nvolved

n

foreign olicydecision-

making rocesses Axelrod nd Keohane, 1985:228-32,247-48).3

In

directing ur attention o the importance f worlds s they re perceived

and constructed

y individual

decision

makers,

he

cognitive pproach suggests

that objective eality s not the locus of meaning and therefore ot the key to

understanding olitical

behavior nd

practices.Rather,

ndividuals re the source

of

meaning.

Such a

suggestion mplicitlypens up

for

further

crutiny

hree

mportant

ssues

whichscholarsworkingwithin hisapproach have not addressed. 1) In order to

have anything o perceive, ubjectsmust be situatedwithin he social order. This

calls

our

attention o

the

construction

f that ocial order

the environment)tself.

(2)

The

privileging

f the

subject's perceptions

rendersvulnerable he

very

on-

cept

of

an objective eality. his vulnerability

s

exhibited

n

the iteraturetself y

suggestions

hat

analysts disregard

the so-called 'real world' external to the

environed

ndividual

r

decisionalgroup Sprout

and

Sprout,1965:119). (3)

The

subject itself becomes problematic. The decision-making iterature tself has

highlighted his issue through ts focus on modal actors and shared images.

Moving

toward construction f

reality

which s

not

necessarily

he

product

of a

particular ndividual uggests hat the subject maybe a social collective, .e., a

group of decision makers, bureaucracy, r the state.This raises the possibility

that the source of

meaning,

he social

register

f

value,

and

agent

of

action may

not be the ndividual. erhaps subjects

n

general,whether ndividual r collective,

are themselves onstructed.

To so

regard the subject

is to render that

subject

a

problem

in

need of

an

accounting.

uch

a

problematization

s

not

possible

within he

cognitive

ecision-

makingframework ecause itwould destabilize hevery round upon which this

frameworktands, .e., the ndividual

r collective

ubject.

The

consequence of this

is

that the

kind of

how-possible uestion discussed

earlier and the

question

of

power

hat t

mplies

annotbe raised.

The

Social

Performance

pproach

While

this

approach

has not had extensive

mpact

on international

elations,

ts

implicationswould be to move analyses,

n

significant ays, eyond

the

cognitive

decision-making

ramework

nd

toward

ssues that re further

xplored

n

the so-

called

post-positivist

iterature.4

rguing gainst

he

predisposition

o

identifyogni-

tive

process solely

with

ndividuals, nalyticphilosopher

Rom Harre

(1981:212)

suggests

hat

ognitive rocesses

re not

nner nd

private

ut

public

and collective.

Social

cognition

husbecomes

mportant.

he

way

hat his erm s

understood

n

the

3The concern with n-dividual ognition has been particularly vident n the operational code and cognitive

mapping approaches to foreignpolicy decision making George, 1979; Bonham and Shapiro, 1973; Holsti, 1976;

Walker, 977). These approaches llustrate ow

scholars

ttempt

o

get

at

individual

worldviews nd how ndividuals

define their mmediatedecision-making ituation(s). Approaches

more

directly eflecting he cognitive evolution

include thoseofJervis1976), Larson (1985), Rosati 1987), Herrmann 1985, 1988), and Cottam 1977).

4An xception s Walker 1990), who drawsupon

Harre n

developing theory

f

self-and-othern foreign olicy.




6/25

ROXANNE

LYNNDOTY 301

Social Performance pproach differsignificantlyrom he way t is understood n

the North American

cognitive psychology iterature,where

it

refers to how

individuals rganizetheirknowledge f theirworld.The concept of schema gets

at this

organization.

n

the

North American iterature, owever,

he

origins of

schema re not themselvesheobjectofanalysis.

The Social PerformanceApproach suggeststhat there is a large degree

of

intersubjective nderstanding resent

n

social practiceswhich s manifested

n

social

scripts hatactorsfollow.

An

analysis f statementmaking an explain how

these

scripts are produced by revealing an overall structure enerated from

preformedmental emplates Harre, 1980:130). Socially ompetent eople contain

shared

template tructures hich re manifested

n

their ognitive esources.

One of the implications f this approach for foreignpolicy analysis s that t

would

shift

ur

focus to the inextricable

ink

between ndividuals nd their ocial

context(s). Meaning, as both cognitivelynd culturallymediated,has a distinctly

social

dimension.This moves n the directionof addressing he construction f

subjects hemselves y recognizing he mutually onstitutiveelationship etween

individuals nd their ocial order Harre, 1980:7).5

Another

mplication

f

thisapproach would be to broaden our understanding

of what

foreignpolicymaking s. What policymakers re doing

n

any particular

situation

oes beyond merelymaking

hoices

among variouspolicyoptions.They

are also

performingccording o a social scriptwhich s itself artof a larger

ocial

order.

By

virtue f this

performance hey re involved

n

a ritualreproduction or

repudiation) of that social order. Foreign policy thus becomes a practice that

produces a social order as well as one throughwhich individual nd collective

subjects hemselves re produced and reproduced.This moves toward ddressing

the

how-question iscussedabove. Finally, t is important o note the significance

this pproach places on statementmaking, huscalling our attention o language

and

signifying ractices

n

the more general sense. While cognitivedecision-

making pproaches oftenuse documents s data and thus lso focuson statement

making,

he

implicit heory f language is referential.anguage is transparent

n

that

t reflects

erceptions,motivations,nd belief ystems. anguage merely ives

names to the meanings lreadypossessedby actors nd is not itself onstitutivef

meaning.By contrast, tatementmakingfor the Social Performance pproach is

productive,nvolving he shared nterpretationsf members f society nd,

in

turn,

the

reproduction

f

that ociety.

It should

be noted, however, that this approach does not fundamentally

challengethe conceptof a unitary, re-given ubject albeit a collective ubject)

(Henriques

et

al., 1984:24). It remainswedded to the notionthat emplates

re sus-

ceptible

f a

unique

determinative

eading, s

if

they

were

monologically roduced

by

a

single author ;

his author

eing

a

preexistingnterpretiveommunity.

he

question

of

how these shared

templates

hemselves

et

constructed

s deferred

nd

with t

the

question

of

the

productive

ole of

power

n

such a construction.

This

point

has

important mplications or the way that anguage

enters

nto

analysis.

Whilethis

pproach understandsanguage to be productive,

t s

only

o

by

virtueof its

connection with

preformed emplates.

No

autonomy

s

granted

to

language

tself.

ignifiersi.e., words, mages) must ltimatelyefer ack to signified

(i.e.,

shared

templates).This is in contrast o the Discursive racticesApproach

which uggestshatwords, anguage, nd discourse signifiers)ave a forcewhich s

not

reducible o either

tructuresrcognitive ttributessignifieds)

f

social

actors.

5Harre's ocial psychological pproach is verymuch nfluenced

y

tructurationistocial theorywhich

recognizes

the

mutually onstitutive elationship

etween

gents nd structures. ee Giddens (1979). The works f Kratochwill

and Ruggie 1986), Wendt 1987, 1992), and Dessler 1989) link this pproach to international elations.




7/25

302 Foreign olicy s Social Construction

The Discursive racticesApproach

A Discursive racticesApproach emphasizes he linguistic onstructionfreality.6he

productive ature of language does not depend on nor necessarily

oincide with

the motivations, erceptions, ntentions,or understandings f social actors.

Language s seen as a set of signswhich re partof a system orgenerating ubjects,

objects,

nd worlds

Shapiro, 1984:222).

The

Discursive racticesApproach thus

obviatesthe need

for

recourse to the interiority

f a

conscious,

meaning-giving

subject, ither

n

terms f

psychological

nd

cognitive

haracteristicsf ndividuals

or

shared mental

templates

f social collectivities.Whetheror not these exist s

somewhat

eside

the point

because the Discursive ractices

Approach

s not tied to

them.7

This kind of approach addresses

the

how-question iscussed arlier

because it

does not

presuppose

that

particular ubjects

re

already

n

place.

It thus

does not

looktoindividual r collective ubjects s the oci of meaning.Regardinganguage

practicesthemselves s relatively utonomous admits the question of a kind of

power

thatconstitutes

ubjects,

modes

of

subjectivity,

nd

reality.

n

contrast

o

the

Social Performance

Approach

in which

signifierswords,

mages) ultimately

referback to signifieds shared templates), n the Discursive racticesApproach

signifierseferonly

to

othersignifiers,ence the

notion

of intertextuality,.e.,

a

complex

and

infinitelyxpanding

web

of

possible meanings.

That

meaning

does

often

ppear

to be fixed nd decideable rather

han

an infinite

lay

of

signifiers

s

indicative

f

the workings

f

power. This presentsus with a

radicallynew con-

ception

of

powerwhich

s inherent

n

the

linguistic ractices y

whichagentsare

constructed nd become

articulated

ithin

articular

iscourses.

This approach, like any approach, has its analyticform.The form of this

approach

is a

discursive

ractice.

A

discursive

ractice

s

not traceable

o

a

fixed

and stable

center, .g.,

individual onsciousness

r

a social collective.Discursive

practices hat onstitute ubjects nd modes of subjectivityre dispersed,

cattered

throughout arious ocales.

This is

why he

notion

of intertextualitys important.

Texts

always

eferback

to other textswhich themselves efer o stillother texts.

The

power

that s inherent

n

language

is thus not

something

hat s centralized,

emanating

rom

pre-givenubject.Rather,

ike

the discursive

ractices

n

which t

inheres, ower

s

dispersed nd,

most

mportant,

s

productive

f subjects nd their

worlds.

A

discourse, .e.,

a

system

f

statements

n

which

each individual tatement

makes ense, produces nterpretiveossibilities y making tvirtuallympossible o

think utside of it.

A

discourse

provides

discursive

paces, .e., concepts, ategories,

metaphors,models,

nd

analogies by

which

meanings

re

created.The production

of

discourses and

of

subjectivity

nd

sociality

s

indissoluble

Henriques

et

al.,

6Myunderstanding f the DiscursivePracticesApproach is drawn primarilyrom he works f Michel Foucault

(1972, 1981) andJacques Derrida (1978, 1981, 1982) and fromdiscussions n

Dreyfus nd Rabinow 1983). See also

Shapiro, Bonham,

and Heradstveit

1988),

Der Derian

(1987), Shapiro (1989), Campbell (1990, 1992), Chaloupka

(1992), Ashley nd Walker 1990), and Weber 1990, 1992).

7To accept that t s ultimatelyhe speaking nd writingndividual ubject thatproduces the documents nd texts

thatgiverise to social discoursedoes not ead to the conclusion

that

nalysismustrestwith

he

ndividual.

A

parallel

can be made here

with

ne scholar's criticism

f

methodological

ndividualism. ven if

one

accepts

the

ontological

thesis hat ocial entities re nothingbut ensembles

of

individuals

n

various relations

o one

another,

t

does

not

follow

hat ll

social

factsmust

ultimately

e

explicable

in terms f facts bout individuals the explanatory hesis)

(Little, 1991:183-200). It is commonly ccepted by nternational elations cholars who approach analysis rom

systemic evel that social actions have unintended consequences which

escape control

of

individuals actually

performing hose actions. It is not such a big leap

from

this to

the

notion

that anguage escapes the control of

individuals nd has a force f tsown.




8/25

ROXANNE

LYNN DOTY

303

1984:106).

This

is because discourses

reate

variouskindsof

subjects

nd

simulta-

neously position

these

subjectsvis-a-vis

ne another. For

example,

a

traditional

discourse

on the

family

would contain

spaces

for a

subject

with traits con-

ventionally

efined s male nd anotherkindof

subject

with raits

onventionally

defined s female. hese subjectswould be positionedvis-a-visne another n a

particularway, .g.,

female

ubservient

o

male. Within he traditional iscourse n

thefamily

t is

impossible

o think utside of these

categories xcept

in terms f

deviance

or

abnormality.

ithin

his

discourse,

here s

no discursive

pace

for he

single

mother

by

choice or the

gay

or lesbian

couple

with children

except

as

departures

rom he normal

amily

r as

deviants.

ubjects, hen, an be thought

of as positions

within

particular

discourses, ntelligible nly with reference o a

specific

et of

categories, oncepts,

nd

practices.

Policymakers lso functionwithin

discursive pace that mposes meanings n

theirworld

and thus creates

eality

Shapiro, 1988:100, 116).

An

approach that

focuseson discursive ractices

s a unit of

analysis

an

get at

how his

reality s

produced and maintained nd how t makesvariouspractices ossible.The analytic

question

addressed s not

why articular

ecisions re

made;

the

policy

decision

n

itselfbecomes a secondaryconcern.

What is central s the discourse(s) which

construct

particular reality.

n

analysis

f discourses an reveal the

necessary

but not sufficient

onditions

fvarious

practices.

Applying his pproach to the

study

f

foreign olicy,

not

only

do we broaden

our

conception

of what

foreign

policy s,

the sites of

foreignpolicy, .e.,

where

foreignpolicy

takes

place,

also become

much

more

extensive.

This

approach

suggests

hatwhat

foreignpolicy

s need

not be limited o

the actual

making

of

specific

ecisionsnor

the

analysis

f

temporally

nd

spatially

ounded events.

Similarly, foreign olicymakers need not be limitedto prominent ecision

makers,

ut

could also include those

rather

nonymousmembersof

the

various

bureaucracieswho write

he

numerous

memorandums, ntelligence eports,

nd

research

papers

that irculatewithin

olicy

ircles.The discourse

s)

instantiatedn

these

variousdocuments

producemeanings

nd

in

doing

so

actively

onstruct

he

reality pon whichforeign olicy s based.

Moreover, oreignpolicymaking

can also extend

beyond

the realm of official

government

nstitutions.

he

reception

as

meaningful

f

statements

evolving

around

policy

ituations

epends

on how well

they

fit nto

the

general system

f

representation

n

a

given society.

ven

speeches

and

press

conference

tatements

produced for specificpurposes, n

order to

be

taken seriously,must make sense

and fitwith what the general public takes as reality. hus, the analysisof

statements

an entail

the

examination

f

what

was said and

written

ithin

road

policy-making

ontexts

s wellas statementsmade

in

societymore generally.8

Below

I

employthe Discursive

racticesApproach

in

an analysis f U.S. coun-

terinsurgencyolicy

n

the

Philippines

irca 1950.

In

doing so,

I intend to

show

how

foreign olicypractices

onstructed n

important spect

of nternational

ela-

tions.

The

aspect

of international elations hat s of concern to me is its hierar-

chical nature.

In

international

elations,

ierarchy

as been more

of

a

background

ondition

from

which analyses proceed rather than

something

which is itself n

need

of

examination.For

example,

classical

realism

tacitly ccepted

the

right

of

Great

8In

a

sense this swhy public

opinion becomes relevant

o

policymakers.When the public strongly bjects to

U.S.

policy,

t is

often,

t least n

part,because

official

epresentations o not fitwell

with ociety's epresentations.

The examplethatmostreadily omes to mind s

Vietnam.As

the

war dragged

on

differentepresentation(s)

f

the

situation

egan

to

compete with

he official

ne,

thus

making

t

ncreasingly ifficult orU.S. officials o

portray

he

situation s a

simpleone

of

communism ersus emocracy r good versus vil.




9/25

304

Foreign olicy s SocialConstruction

Powers to special privilegeswithin the

international ommunity.Neorealism,

despite tsconceptionof the nternational ealm

as anarchical, ees states inkedto

one another

hierarchically

ased

upon

power differentials.Marxist-oriented

approaches to international elationsbegin with the assumptionthat capitalist

relations f production nd/or exchangeresult n a hierarchicalworld consisting

of both classes and nation-states.9 ll of

these approaches exhibit an unspoken

agreementnotto problematize he

construction f the subjects hat onstitute he

world

nd the

categorieshroughwhich hese ubjects nd objects re constructed.

suggest

that

we need to denaturalize

hierarchy.We need to examine the

content(s) of hierarchy, r, more accurately,

f specifichierarchies, he practices

thatproduced them, nd the practices heymake possible.

The second how-possiblequestion

posed earlier is implied here. How is

international ierarchytselfmade possible?As

the title

f

this rticle s meant to

suggest, onceptualizing oreign olicy

s social

construction

eeks

to

place foreign

policypracticeswithin he arger ontext fconstructing particular ind of nter-

national order consisting f variouskinds of

internationaldentities. he second

how-possible uestion addresses thisconcern.

Addressing his question,however,

can

onlybe accomplishedby examiningparticular nstances f foreign olicy. n

examining particular ase we also

find

that

the discursive ractices urrounding

thatcase made possible the more immediate,

ase-specific ractices, hus address-

ing

the

first

ow-possible uestion.

Two important spects to this analysis ollowfromthe above discussion.One

aspect

s

the

detailed

explication

f

the discourse tself. his consists f

examining

varioustextualmechanisms t

work

n

the

discourse

that

construct dentities

or

subjects

nd

position hese subjects is-a-vis

ne

another.The second aspect entails

an examination fhow,from his onstructionnd positioning, ariouspossibilities

of

practice merge.

The

following xample

is

helpful

in

clarifying he distinction etween my

approach,

which examines what

linguistic racticesdo,

and an

approach

which

seeks

to reveal

what

inguistic ractices

ell

us about the beliefs nd

understandings

of

decisionmakers.

Shafer

1988) analyzed

U.S.

counterinsurgencyolicy

n

the

Philippines sing

a

cognitive

ontent

pproach which

s

consistentwith

he first

pproach

discussed

above. He

used this pproach

to

explain why .S.

assessment nd

prescriptions

or

various

nsurgencies including

the

Philippines)

have

been so inaccurate nd

yet

despite

this have remained

virtually

nchanged.

He examined the statements

contained n various foreignpolicydocumentsas a wayofgetting t the shared

ideas

and

analytic rameworks ithwhichpolicymakers nalyzed

he nternational

situation,generated policy options,

and

chose

among

those

options (Shafer,

1988:32-34).

The

statements ontained

n

the documentswere

signifiers or, .e.,

referred ack to, the misunderstandingsfpolicy makersregarding

he situation

in the

Philippines.

Decision makers acted

upon

these

misunderstandings

nd

proceeded

to

analyze

the success

of

counterinsurgencyolicy

n terms

of

these

same

misunderstandings,udging

t

a success nd a model for

future

olicy.

A

Discursive ractices

Approach

would

not

necessarily ispute

such an

analysis

or

argue against

ts

utility. ather,

t

suggests

hat

his

was not

all thatwas

going

on

in this particularforeign policydiscourse. What this discourse was

doing

was

constructing articular ubject identities,

ositioning

hese

subjects

vis-a-vis

ne

9An exception to the more well known

conceptions of hierarchy n international elations s Onuf and Klink

(1989), who suggest hat paradigm

based

on

Weber's

three deal types f rule

can facilitate n understanding f

international ierarchical elations.




10/25

ROXANNELYNN DOTY

305

another

nd thereby onstructing particular reality n which hispolicybecame

possible, s

well

as

a

larger reality

n

whichfuture olicies would be justified n

advance. n the one case language revealsnd is at least potentially eutral. n

the

other ase language does hings nd is inherently owerful.

There is another mportant nd related difference etween the two kinds of

analyses.

hafer

s asking

why-question.

he question

am

posing s

a

howpossible

question.Garfinkel1981:22) points ut thatwhat spectof a given tate f affairss

taken

to

be

problematic radically alters the success or failure

of

potential

explanations.

hafer s

taking

he

shared deas

and

analytical rameworkf policy

makers o be problematic. hus, a successful xplanationmust ocus n these

hings

and

explainwhy hey ed

to

or increased he probabilityf particular olicies.

What I

take

to be

problematic

s the existence of

subjects themselves,

heir

positioning is-a-visne another, nd the reality hatmade certain tructuresnd

meaningspossible. How we know what these arrangements nd meaningsare is

through he categories, oncepts,metaphors, nd analogies providedby anguage.

Since, for the Discursive racticesApproach, subjectsdo not exist prior to their

production n particular iscourses, nd the constitutive ole of language is

not

tied to perceptions nd othercognitive eatures, cannot drawupon such

features

of

preexisting ubjects

o

explain

how hose

subjects

hemselves nd

their

practices

are made

possible.

A

successful

xplanation

must

focus

on

how

anguage

works

o

produce subjects

nd

their elationships.

In

one sense

my how-possible xplanation

s

a

structural ne and is consistent

with

Little's

1991:4-5) suggestion

hat

how-possible uestions

re associatedwith

the behavior

f

complex ystems,tructures,nd socialorganizations. owever,

t s

important o distinguishmy explanation from those that tend to subordinate

specific ontent nd practices o abstractnd a priori tructural eeds. I am not a

priori ositing structure ith ertainneeds

and then

uggesting ow

t

determines

meanings

nd

practices.Rather,

n

emphasizing iscursive ractices, am suggest-

ingthat tructuretselfs constructedlong with he meaningswhich

imultaneously

produce subject's dentities nd their ositions

is-a-vis

ne another. ossibilitiesre

not

explainedby the prior xistence f structuresr social actors, ut rather y the

continual

nd

simultaneous roduction f subjects nd structures.10

Research

Design

Discourse nalyticmethodsfacilitateheexamination f the variousmechanismst

work

in

texts. This

said, however,

t would

be

misleading

to

suggest

that

interpretation

s not an

important art

of

my nalysis. nterpretation,

n the

part

of

the

analyst,

s an

important spect

of all three

of

the

approaches

discussed

n

this rticle.The difference

ith

he Discursive ractices

Approach

s that

am not

providing

an

interpretation

f the

consciously motivated, elf-servingmages

constructed

y

the

participants. ather,

am

providing

n

interpretation

f what

the

discursive ractices do, which does

not

necessarily

oincide with

ndividual

motivations,erceptions,

nd

intentions.

IOAnotable contrast an be made here with wo of the dominant structural heoriesof international elations.

The neorealist onceptionof structures individualist,educible to the properties f states or agents) (Ashley, 984;

Wendt, 1987). World-systemheory's onception

of

structure

s

of

a

deep structure

hat

generatesboth

state

nd

class actors.As Wendt 1987) correctly ointsout,each of these two pproaches treats ts primitive nits s given

and unproblematic. he Discursive racticesApproach permitsme to address the simultaneous onstruction f both

subjects and structureswithout bringing analysis to rest with either, and without holding one constant while

addressing he productionof the other,or bracketing. n the notion of bracketing ee Wendt (1987:364-365)

and Giddens 1979:80-81).




11/25


The conceptsof

presupposition,redication,

nd

subject ositioning

rovide nalytic

categories hat nable me to get at how discursive ractices onstitute ubjects nd

objects and organize them nto a grid of intelligibility. hese concepts can be

thought f as textualmechanisms.

Statements arely peak for themselves.Even the most straightforwardnd

ostensibly clear statements bring with them all sorts of presuppositionsor

backgroundknowledge hat s taken to be true.When one uses language, one is

implying omething bout the existenceof subjects, bjects, nd theirrelation o

one another. To use a perhaps too-simplisticxample, the question, Have you

stopped beating your dog? presupposes several things: omething alled a dog

exists;you have one; and you engage in the practice f beating t. Further, he pre-

supposition

s made that he

questionerhas the presumptive ight f nterrogation.

To use anotherexample, the statement, The logic of realpolitik etains asting

relevancebecause

it

captures est the essentialnatureof the nternational olitical

system creates the background knowledge that there is somethingcalled

realpolitik, thas a logic, there xists n international olitical ystem hathas an

essential nature, and the author is in the position to assert this as fact. n the

absence of the truth f

the backgroundknowledge nd the world

t

presupposes,

the above statementswould make no sense.

Presupposition,

herefore, s an

important extualmechanism hat reatesbackgroundknowledge nd

in

doing

so

constructs

particular

ind

ofworld

n

which ertain

hings

re

recognized

s true.

Another

way

n

which

texts

constructworlds

s

by attaching

various abels to

subjects

hrough redication.

redication nvolves he

inking

f

certain

ualities

to

particular ubjectsthrough

he use of

predicates

nd the adverbsand

adjectives

that

modify

hem

(Milliken, 1990).

A

predicate

affirms

quality, ttribute,

r

property f a person or thing.For example, to state that the United States has

stood

for

fair

play,

for aid to the

weak,

for

iberty,

nd freedom stablishes

he

United States s a

particular

ind

of subjectwith hesequalities.Attributesttached

to

subjects

are

important

or

constructing

dentities or those

subjects

and for

telling

s what

ubjects

an do.

Texts also work o create a

reality y inking articular ubjects

nd objects to

one another.

The

production

of

subjects

and

objects

is

always

vis-a-vis

ther

subjects nd

objects.

What defines

particular

ind of

subject s,

n

large part,

he

relationships hat subject

is

positioned

in

relative

to other kinds of

subjects.

Presupposition

nd

predication,

n

addition to

constructingubjects

nd

objects,

establish ariouskindsof

relationships

etween

ubjects

nd between

ubjects

nd

objects.We can think f this s

subject ositioning.

ome of the important indsof

relationshipshatposition subjectsare those of opposition, dentity,imilarity,

nd

complementarity.

One can deconstruct

exts

n

order to locate some of these

relationships.

ne

way

that deconstructionworks s

by identifying

he

oppositional structuring

n a

textwhichresults

n the hierarchization f one term

n

relation

o another

Culler,

1982:86).

The

dominant term s

highlighted y

the subordinate

term

which

is

deemed the

other,

he

deviant,

r the inferior, o the first erm. Relations

of

identity, imilarity,

nd

complementarity

an

also be located

in

the rhetorical

operations

of texts.Barthesuses the termcultural codefor the

conceptual system

organized around key oppositionsand other relations.For example, the term

woman

s defined

n

opposition

o the term

man.

Each

of

these terms

s

aligned

with

a cluster of

attributes, .g., emotional, weak, pliant, sensitive,nurturing

re

clustered

round

woman while

rational, trong,

irm re clustered round man

(Silverman, 983:36; Barthes, 974).

Taken

together,

hese textual

mechanisms,

redication, resupposition,

nd subject

positioning

produce

a

world

y providing ositions

forvariouskinds of

subjects




12/25

ROXANNE

LYNN

OTY 307

and endowing them with particular

ttributes.While for analyticpurposes

it

is

useful o discuss

these mechanisms eparately,n actuality,

ll threework ogether

and simultaneously.

he discussion f thisframework

an perhapsbe made

clearer

with

n

illustrationhat s more related

to the Philippines. his example

llustrates

the methods have used to analyze and compare the texts n thisstudy.,,The

following xcerpt s from ohn Foreman,

British ravelwriter, ho wrote

during

the timeof the

Spanish-American

War. His writingsn the Philippineswere

widely

read, and he was

cited as an authorityt the Paris Peace

Conference, twhich t

was decided that he Philippineswouldbe annexed by

the United States-without,

it

mightbe added,

consultation

with the Filipino people. In this passage

he is

discussing heFilipino native.

The whole

time he treats ou with he deferencedue to

the superiority hich he

recognizes. He knows the

duties of no occupationswith efficiencynd he

is

perfectly illing

o

be a

'jack

of all trades. So

long as

he

gets his

food and fair

treatment,nd his stipulatedwages paid in advance,he is content to act as a

general-utility

an. If not

pressed

too hard, he will follow his superior ike

a

faithful og.

If

treatedwith

kindness, ccording

to European notions,he

is lost.

The nativenever ooks ahead;

he

is never

nxious about the future; ut

if

eft o

himself,

e will

do all sorts

f mprudent hings, rom heer wantof reflection

n

the consequences.

The native

has no idea of organization n a large scale,

hence a

successful

evolution

s not

possible

fconfined o the

pure

indigenouspopulation

unaided

by others,

uch as creoles and foreigners. nder good European

officers

they

make excellent oldiers.There

is

nothing hey

delight

n more than

pillage,

destruction nd

bloodshed,

and

when once

they

ecome masters

f the situation

in an

affray,

here s no limit o their

reed

and

savage

cruelty.

Predication

In the above excerptthe native

s endowed withthe following ualities:

neffi-

ciency,

ontent and doglike follower,

ever ooks ahead, does

not reflect

pon

consequences,

has

no

idea of

organization

n a

largescale, naturally

elights

n

pillage,

destruction,

nd

bloodshed, naturally greedy

and

cruel,

and does

imprudent

hings

f eft o

himself.

Together these qualities, or cluster

of predicates,constitute he

native as

a

particular

ind

of

subject.

n

contrast,

he

European,

here

the

speaking ubject,

s

inscribed

with

uite

different

ualities.

This s often

mplicit

ather

han

explicit.

n

the first entence you refers

o the

European,

thuscreating

relation f dentity

among the reader, the author,and the European and a relationof opposition

betweenthese subjects nd

the Filipino native,

here the

object

of discussion.

The

reader, uthor,

nd

European

as speaking,writing,

nd

knowledgeable

ubjects

re

self

o the

Filipino

other who is

the

object

of their

knowledge.

he

European

is

established

s a

subject

who can know

he

Filipino,

s

able

to

accurately

escribe

the true nature

of the

Filipino,

nd

from hatnaturederivevarious

practices

hat

are

appropriate.

Presupposition

Whatbackgroundknowledge s created

n the above

excerpt?

The

superiority

f

the

European

is takenfor

granted,

fact ot

open

toquestion.The construction

lThe

particular

methods use

here are

by

no means the onlyway o engage

in a

post-positivist

nalysis.

Nor do

I mean to suggest

hat hey

re superior o other possible methods.

merelywishto suggest hat his s

one way o

examine the

mplications f post-positivismor specific

rea of nvestigation.




13/25


of

the European as a superiorkind of subject s repeated throughout, .g., in

the

statement hat the native will followhis superior like a faithful og. It is

presupposed here that there exist superior and inferior inds of subjects.The

sentence Under good European officers . . presupposes the existence of one

kind of subject a superiorone) that can be a good officer nd another kind of

subject

hat

an

only

be

a soldier.

Subject

ositioning

In constitutingarticular inds f subjects, he excerpt lso positions hese ubjects

vis-a-visne another

by assigning hem varying egrees of agency.For example,

a

subjectwho does not reflect pon consequences and is a content nd doglike

follower

as a much

simpler egree of agency han a subjectwho has the qualities

it

takes to

be

an officer. he very actthat the European is the speaking ubject

and the native hesubject/object fthisdiscoursepositions hese ubjects is-a-vis

one another.

Here,

the

qualities

that

define the twokinds

of

subjects re opposi-

tionalones.

We

do find

other

relations, owever,

n

this

xcerpt.

The

native

s

positioned

in

a relation

f similarity ith dog. Like a dog, the native equires ood and fair

treatment.

f

treated roperly, ewillbe faithfulohismaster. Proper reatment,

however,

must not be

kindness, according

o

European notions. The native

would

be lost f

thiswas

done.

The

fair

reatment o be accorded

to

natives

s

more

akin to the treatment

European

would

give

to a

dog

than to another

European.

The above passage, as part of a largerdiscourse, reates world n the sense

that a particular reality must be accepted in order for the statements o make

sense.

Certain

practiceswere

made

possible,because

in the

world

nstantiated

y

these texts

hey

eemed

reasonable

and

probably uite unremarkable.As noted

above,

there

were

to be different

tandards f fair reatment or he native

nd

for

the

European.

Since the native was the kind

of subject who

was

naturally

prone

to

pillage, destruction, nd bloodshed, then discipline nd controlon

the

part

of the

European

would be

justified.

f the

natives did not understand

kindness,

hen force and violence would be

justified.Colonization thus

became

thinkable.

This example,

n

large part due to its transparency,icely llustrates ow predi-

cation, presupposition,

nd

subject positioning

work. From this llustration

ne

might nfer that these methodswould not take us veryfaranalytically imply

because

the

findings

re so

obvious.

There are three

important oints

to be

made

in

responseto thispossible nference: 1) Granted,we often

do

not have

to

look

very

ar

to

find

these

textual

mechanisms

t work.

They

are

frequently ight

there on

the

surface.

2)

More

important hough,my approach permits

me to

track

hese

mechanisms

n less

transparent

ases.

(3) Finally,

his

pproach permits

one to

explain how, despite

such

obviousness,

hese constructions

an become

widely

irculated nd constitutivef an attitude

f

self oward

other,

husmak-

ing particular ractices ossible.

This last

point implies

that

ndividual exts

do not exist

n

a vacuum.

Rather,

they re intertwined ith other textsforming complexweb of intertextuality.

Different

extswithin

he same

arena (i.e., site)

and texts

from

differentrenas

may

share the same

logic according

to

which meaning

is created and

subjects

constructed.

f

the same kinds

of

subjects, bjects,

nd relations re found

to exist

in

different

exts,

his

s indicative

f a

particular ogic

at work.

We

can think

f

texts hat

llustrate

he

same

kindof

ogicas constituting controlling

r dominant

discourse.

or

example,

number

f differentnd distinct iscourses

may

function




14/25

ROXANNE LYNN OTY 309

to constitute ender difference ccording to the same logic. We can imagine a

discourseon thefamily, discourseon workplace egulations, nd a discourse n

women

n the

military.

t

is possiblethat n examinationwould showthat lthough

the discoursesdeal withquite differentssues, the same logic regarding

enderdivisionmight e found n all of them. fthatwere the case, we could reasonably

suggest

hat

underlying

he diverse

iscourseswas

a dominant iscourse n

gender

that constructed male and female s particularkindsof subjects.

The

same

thing pplies to foreign olicydiscourse. f differencesre constructed ccording

to

the

same logic

in

a variety f texts,we can reasonably uggest hat there s a

dominant

iscourse.

Language,Counterinsurgency,ractice

Counterinsurgencyolicieshavebeen a majorelement f postWorldWar I foreign

policy towardthe countries ollectively eferred o as the Third World. Such

policieswere considered ssentialwithin he context f a worlddividedalong the

geopolitical

ines

of East versusWestwith ach side seeking o win the hearts nd

mindsof

those not yetfully ommitted o either amp. Many conversations ave

taken

place

and

documentshave been

generatedwithin

he contextof

specific

counterinsurgencyperations.Adhering

o

the understanding f anguage

outlined

in the

Discursive racticesApproach, hese textsprovide useful ource of data

fromwhich o examinetheway inguistic ractices ctivelyonstruct orld(s).

Counterinsurgencyenerally ccurswithin he context f profoundmilitarynd

economic

powerdifferentials.he hierarchy f militarynd economic power

that

existsbetween the U.S. and the Third World is for the most part indisputable.

What

has not been previously xamined, however, s the way n which anguage

works o

construct

kind

of hierarchy hatmayor maynot coincide withmilitary

and/or economic hierarchies.When these hierarchiesdo coincide important

implications ollow or he kinds f practicesmade possible.

One of

the earliest nd paradigmaticnstances f U.S. counterinsurgencyolicy

occurred n

thePhilippinesduringthe Huk Rebellion of the early

1950s.12

After

independence, the Philippines became an important ymbolof United States'

benevolence

regarding ts position as a former olonial power. They were an

important

ource

of

both

prestige nd identity ortheU.S.13The Huk Rebellion,

therefore, resented

he

U.S. with

dilemma.

On

the one hand,

overt ntervention

would call into question the sovereigntynd independence of the Philippines,

which

n

turn

would

call into

question

the

success of the U.S. effort o

civilize

people

and cultivate

democracy. n

the

otherhand, the loss of the Philippines

to

communismwould also mean a failure

on

the

part

of

the

U.S. The discourse

instantiated

n

response to this dilemma worked to simultaneously

onstruct

identitiesnd position ubjects

is-a-vis

ne another.

Subjects

of a

discourse hould not be confusedwith ndividuals. n

individual

mayhave multiple ubjectivities.imilarly,here maybe multiplephysical

ndivid-

'20ne of the best studies n the Huk Rebellion s Kerkvliet1977). Also see Schirmer nd Shalom (1987), Welch

(1984), Karnow 1989), Shalom (1976, 1977), and Bonner (1987). It is noteworthyhatEdwardLansdale, the

hero

of the U.S. counterinsurgency

n

the Philippines, was a major figure n U.S. Vietnam policy. Lansdale was also

brought

n

byRonald Reagan to offer dvice on how to get rid of the Sandinistas.

'3The Philippineswere also important orgeopolitical nd economic reasons.The reconstructionfJapan nd its

reintegration nto the regional economy meant that Southeast Asia would become an important ource of raw

materials nd markets ecause Japan would be free of dependence on U.S. aid. It was deemed essential to U.S.

security hatJapan ecome an alternativenchor forU.S. power n Asia as China had ceased to play hat ole.




15/25


uals thatconstitute single subject.The state, s an international ubject, s con-

structed y the discursive ractices f those who speak about, write bout, and act

on itsbehalf.U.S. foreign olicy ractices re important lements n the production

and reproduction

f

the self-identity

f

the U.S. At

the

same time this dentitys

created againstthe other, .e., other states.The qualitiesthatare linked to a

people, e.g., the Filipinos,

an

become attached

o a

geographical ocationand

therebyerve s thebasisfor onstructinghePhilippines.

Analysis

I

begin this analysis

n

a purelyempiricistmanner. My data is the ensemble of

statements

ound

n

the

documents

urrounding

his

particular

iteof U.S.

foreign

policy.14

All

of

these documents were read

with

an

eye toward the

textual

mechanisms iscussed bove:predication, resupposition,nd subject ositioning.

Predication

Table

1

shows he

predicates

nd

practices

hat

were

inked o

the differentubjects.

These predicates

nd

practices

were

compiled by extracting rom he documents

the

descriptive haracteristics,djectives, dverbs,

nd

capabilities

ttributed

o

the

various

ubjects.

The numbers

n

brackets efer o the textual ource of the state-

ments.

These

sources re listed

n

the Appendix. Consistentwith he epistemology

of

the

Discursive ractices

pproach,

do not want o claim that

he data

in Table

1

represents

he social

cognitions

f the

participantso

this

discourse.Recall that

t

s

language tself hat sproductiveather hanthe ndividuals house language.

While

the

predicates

and

practices

for each

subject

are not

identical from

document

to

document,

there is evidence of a coherence

among them. The

predicates nd practices istedunder Philippines nd Filipinos hangtogether n a

certain

way.

None seem

radically

ut of

place.

For

example, inept nd wasteful,

precocious children, nd a veryhard people to deal with are certainly ot

identical erms nd indeed could imply ery ifferent indsof subjects. et, n this

discourse

there is a

family

resemblance

among

them that

is

indicative

of a

particular

kind of

subject, .e.,

a

subject

that can

simultaneously

e a

source

of

pride

over

progress

hus

far

made, concern

with

shortcomings,

ear

of eventual

failure,

nd desire to

protect

and

guide.

The

identity

f

the

Philippines

was

constructed ythe tension thatexistedamong these terms.The kind of subject

that embodies

these terms s the child. The child

by

virtueof the kind of

subject

t

inherently

s resists

losure. The child

dentity

s

incomplete,

often

ambiguous

and

contradictory.

o borrowfrom

Althusser,

ne

might ay

that the

child s

a kind

of

subject

esists

omplete nterpellation.

The predicates nd practices ttached o the U.S.

also exhibit

coherence.

Has

moral

obligations,

a

world

citizen,

has credit

and

influence,

has

benign

intentions hare a certain

family

esemblance.

They

are indicativeof

a

very

different

ind of

subject

from

the

Philippines.

The United States

has a

firmly

established, elatively ixed,

nd stable

dentity.

his

identity ermits

he U.S. to

'4Empirical data forthis studywas collected

from earches for relevantmaterial

fromthe following ources:

Foreign elations f heUnited

tates 946-1954,

U.S. Office f Strategic ervices OSS)/State Department ntelligence

researchreports 941-1961,

National

Security

ouncil

reports

nd

correspondence

1946-1953, reports nd records

of

thejoint

Chiefs f Staff

946-1953,

Central

ntelligence

Agency/Department

f Defense

reports 946-1953.

Other

sources

nclude the

Department

f tate ulletin

948-1954 and the

Congressional

ecord 948-1954. The major

arena

of

discourse

forthis

tudywere

official

overnment

exts. hiswasnot determined priori,ut rather fter

thorough

searchforrelevant exts.




16/25

ROXANNJEYNN

DOTY

311

(.0

clr

clr

C'J

C-4

CJ

bJD

ct ct C)

cn cn

Z

S Z

6,

bC

ct ct

Ct

:)

Ct

ct

biD

m

CJ

.4

biD

ct

c)

>

'l

45

ct rc

ct

t

m

z

2 ct

biD

Ct

cli

ct

E

z

r.

Q

4.

1

ct

u

ct

t

ct

ct

t-,

t

ct

ct

t

biD

cli

an

4_4

bJD

-

-

0

Z

C

U

:z

ZiD

ct

>,

Ct

u

UO

ct

biO

-C

biO

ct

ct

C-4

ho

- z

ct E

_'C5

E z

.

ct ho

U U u ct M C)

42 -

C/)

ct biD

biD

C

C/)

C)

ct

ct

bio

4-J

14.

u

ct

u

Q

Q) QC

14.

ct

ct

biD

ct

0

ct ct

ct

biD

Q

u

q,-

ct

14.

Q Q

biD

>1 ct bo

ct ct

C

3

u

14.

'r,

U

4-J

Z

r-,

m

41.1

Z --,

u

Ln

C'4

Cl

cq

4-,

biD

>, .7-'

ct

21-

U Q

7

Z

bD

bO

M

m

C)

C)

Ch

Q) U

C/) Z

z

ct

Q ct

biO

7Z 0

4-4

Cj)

C)

ct

4-,

fj

Ce)

bo

ct

ul

u

..j

C'I

U

bo

4

--, z

bJO

cn

Cl

u

C)

C).

C).

--

C)

0

n cn

cn b.0

4 , z z

0 -

- -

ct ct

m

CZ

z

m

M

CZ

ct

C'4

ct

-,

a.

4

M.

M

u

Q Q Q

Iz




17/25


engage

in

certain practices, e.g., noble causes, and precludes others, e.g.,

aggression r coercion.

In contrast, different lusterof attributeswas linked to

the U.S.S.R. While

some

of the

elements

were

the

same as the

U.S., e.g., has an orbit, he

cluster

f

predicates hatdefinedthe U.S. was not identicalwith he clusterhatdefinedthe

U.S.S.R. The

practices

hat he

U.S.S.R. could

engage in, then,

were different

rom

those

of the U.S.

The

U.S.S.R. could

spread propaganda

while the

U.S.

could

build a worldorder. The U.S.S.R.

could

coerce while the U.S. could protect.

The

actual

behaviorr

physical ontent

f

these practices, .g.,

providing conomic

or

military

id and

training roops,might

e

identical, ut

what hepractice as was

determined y

the kind of

subject ngaging

n it.

How we

know what practice s

and the kindofsubject ngaging

n

it sthrough anguage.

The coherence among the attributesnd practices hown n

Table

1

is indicative

of

a dominant iscourse.

imilar

or

complementary

ttributes ere

attached to

the

subjects

n

multiple

exts.Whether he texts ealt with

conomic, ecurity,

r

other

issues, herewasa particularogicatwork ccording o which ubjectswere divided

from

ne

another.

This

ogic

was based

upon

a seriesof

binary

ppositions nd was

operative

crosstexts.

Since

this studydoes

not examine texts

generated by

Filipinos themselves r

othernon-Western olitical ctors,

can

make

no

claims regarding therpossible

discourses.

t is

possible

and

likely hat

other discourses

xisted

thatwould resist

the

kind

of constructionshown

n Table 1.

The

important oint

s that here

did

exist dominant

iscourse n United States

policy

ircles nd thiswas the discourse

that

et

the

parameters

or

U.S.

practices.

Presupposition

In

analyzing hesedocuments, ne finds hatmeanings re dependentupon binary

oppositions.

The

specific

ontent

of

these oppositions ndicates

the

dimensions

along

whichthe construction

f

subjects

akes

place. Underlying

he

attributes

nd

practices hown

in Table

1,

one can locate

metaphysical resuppositions

ased

upon

such

binary ppositions.

These binarieswere the

operativeprinciples,

he

logic, constituting

he

deep

structure f the discourse.

By operativeprinciple,

mean the

principle according

to which

things

are

given

meaning

and

simul-

taneously ositioned

vis-a-visther

things.

he

conceptual ystem

pon

whichU.S.

foreignpolicywas based

was

organized

around two

guiding

or

core

oppositions,

which tructuredhe

discourse nd served

s a frame f

thinking, disciplined

nd

economicalway n which o divide elf rom ther(s).Severalotheroppositions an

be subsumed

under

the

core

oppositions.

hese are discussed elow.

Reason/Passion.

he

presupposition

as

made

that here xisted

different

inds

of

mentalities.

Asian

thinking

iffered

undamentally

romnon-Asian

hinking

and was characterized

y

the

prevalence

of

passion

and

emotion,

n

contrast o

reason

and

rationality.

he existence

of

this rather

primitive

ind of

mentality

made it

mperative

hat

U.S. influence

e

brought

o bear

in

the

Philippines.

The

theory

f

two

ypes

f

mentalitys,

of

course,

not

unique

to this

particular

ase.

It

was

prevalent mong anthropologists

n the

1920s

and 1930s and

was

applied

to

the west

nd

its

others, .g., negroes,

American

ndians, Melanesians,

nd

Australian lackfellows Mudimbe, 1988:136). This is also a concrete and con-

temporaneous

manifestation

f

the

phenomenon

described

by

Said

(1978).

This

opposition

has

historically

acilitated

arious

practices

of

interference, anging

from ormal olonization

o more

subtle

forms

f domination.

As noted

above,

several

of

the

orienting oppositions

that were

prevalent

throughout

he texts

can be

grouped

under

this

core

opposition.

The

most

recurring

ne rested

on

the

parental metaphor

discussed

earlier.

Filipinos

were




18/25

ROXANNELYNN DOTY 313

regarded s precociouschildrenwho

had assimilated he superficial spectsof the

U.S.

culturebut had failedto grasp tsmore fundamentalmplications FR51, Part

2: 1561).

The

U.S. had to be

patient

and

sympathetic, et firm,

n

using its

constructivend guiding nfluenceon

its formerward. The ostensibly urturing

relationship nvoked by the parent/child opposition obscured and justified

practices f domination. ast practices

f domination, .g., colonialism tself, ere

justified by pointing to the progress

hat had already been made. Future

intervention as ustified ythe

promise f even greater progress.

Complementary o the childlikeattributes ttached to Filipinos was that of

ineptitude and inefficiencywhich characterized Philippine leadership. The

inferiorityf leadership was

extended to non-Communist sian countriesmore

generally.t

remained

taskof the United States o consider meansto

encourage

the development f competent eadership nd to stimulate tsrise n the countries

of

Asia (FR51, Part 1:45). The development f the competent eadershiprequired

of

world citizenswould take place

under guidance of the U.S. through ts firm

patience nd sympatheticnderstanding FR51, Part2:1561).

Another et of oppositions ncompassedby the reason/passion ore opposition

was

foreign policy as social construction: a post-positivist analysis of u.s. counterinsurgency policy...

Documents