Misrecognition, ontological security and state foreign policy: the case of post-Soviet Russia

ABSTRACT

Drawing on ontological security and recognition scholarships, this paper develops a theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between changing collective identity and foreign policy. I argue that the underlying impetus for changes in identity and foreign policy is the need for ontological security. A strong sense of ontological security emerges from the confluence of reflexive and social aspects of identity, suggesting that an ontologically secure Self is also a recognised Self. In IR ontological security-seeking at the state, societal and individual levels is closely intertwined, making individuals, societies, and states susceptible to international recognition. Since the state is responsible for negotiating external recognition of collective self-image and ensuring ontological security for individuals and groups subscribing to that self-image, misrecognition, or partial recognition of collective identity, will prompt the state to make three interrelated decisions concerning 1) the degree of state compliance with external recognition claims, 2) the extent of relative agential autonomy the state in question will choose to exercise in determining collective identity, and 3) the choice of foreign policy strategy to manage misrecognition and ontological insecurity. Drawing on Social Identity Theory (SIT) and stigma management literature, I distinguish between the strategies of emulative alignment, innovative creativity, and conflictual competition. This framework is used to explain recent changes in Russian identity and foreign policy.

KEYWORDS:

• Ontological security
• (mis)recognition
• foreign policy
• Russia

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This is not the first proposal to move beyond a simple dichotomy between recognition and non-recognition. Special issue of the Review of International Studies focuses on misrecognition as a central driver in IR (Epstein, Lindemann, and Sending 2018). However, a poststructuralist ontology underwriting individual contributions erases sovereign agency as the effect of discursive practices, leaving no analytical space to reflect on the state choice of a collective self-image and foreign policy when facing misrecognition.

2 Continuity of identity does not mean fixity. What defines ontological security is reflexivity towards identity, i.e. the ability to reimagine one's identity in changing international and domestic environments (see Narozhna 2020).

3 This does not mean that Europe, at any point in modern history, had a single stable identity. In fact, as European states gradually evolved from monarchic into liberal democratic polities, Europe was torn between progressive and conservative camps. Therefore, Russia's self-identification against Europe often required a choice between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe. This presented Russia with a major dilemma in terms of its own identity, ontological security, and foreign policy.

4 Ressentiment towards the West persists till today as nationalist identity discourse treats the West as Russia's significant other, celebrating Russia's cultural and spiritual superiority over the West and dismissing Western economic, political, and technological preeminence.

5 The 1993 Constitution confirms the President's dominant role in setting foreign and security policy.

6 The 1993 Foreign Policy Concept asserted this role.

7 Opposition to civilizational identity is minimal and includes liberal and neo-monarchist groups as well as non-Russian autonomies, especially Bashkiriya and Tatarstan (see Narozhna 2020).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tanya Narozhna

Tanya Narozhna is Associate Professor of global politics at the University of Winnipeg. She is the co-author of Female Suicide Bombings: A Critical Gender Approach (with W. Andy Knight). She received the Faculty of Arts Achievement in Scholarly or Creative Activity Award (2017) and the Outstanding Scholarship Prize of the Women's and Gender Studies et Recherches Féministes Association (2018) for the book.