Bringing the outsiders in: an interactionist perspective on deviance and normative change in international politics

Abstract

In this article, we draw on insights from the interactionist perspective in sociology and international relations (IR) norm contestation literature to explore the relationship between deviance and normative change in international politics. In IR, this is still largely unexplored territory: we already know a great deal about how norms change, yet we know much less about the actual role norm violations play in this process. In order to address this gap, we conceptualize three types of normative contestation and affirmation that take place in connection with deviance (re)construction: (1) applicatory contestation and affirmation, reconstructing the meanings of international norms; (2) justificatory contestation and affirmation, challenging and reaffirming the legitimacy of international norms; and (3) hierarchical contestation and affirmation, contesting and reaffirming the relative value and importance of international norms. We discuss how, as a consequence of these dynamics, deviance-making produces both stability and change in the normative structure of world politics.

Notes

1 We use the term ‘deviance’ in its traditional sociological sense of ‘certain deviations from social norms which encounter disapproval’ (Clinard 1957, vii). While the main focus of sociology as a discipline has been on deviant behaviour, deviance also encompasses norm-violating attitudes (beliefs) and conditions (Adler and Adler 2014, 13). For a discussion on competing definitions of deviance in sociology, see Clinard and Meier (2011, 6–9).

2 See, for example, Finnemore and Sikkink (1998), Risse and Sikkink (1999), Acharya (2004), Sandholtz (2008), Krook and True (2012), Müller and Wunderlich (2013) and Bloomfield (2015). For literature reviews, see Björkdahl (2010) and Widmaier and Park (2012).

3 For an IR application to the study of ‘rogue states’, see Wagner (2014) and Nincic (2005).

4 Some of the most influential achievements in this area of research include, for example, Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory explaining how individuals learn deviant behaviour (see Matsueda 1988); Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) control theory which focuses on the social bonds and (the lack of) self-control; Merton’s (1938) work on anomie and opportunity structures; and Akers’s (1977) social learning approach.

5 There is, however, also an explanatory dimension of interactionist scholarship, particularly with respect to ‘secondary deviance’, a concept closely tied to the labelling theory (see Lemert 1951; Lofland 1969; Farrell and Nelson 1976; Paternoster and Iovanni 1989).

6 Some authors promote the inclusion of positive deviance as a distinct type of highly valued, yet rare behaviours, traits and conditions (such as ‘genius’ or ‘hero’) that signal an exceptional degree of conformity with shared norms. See, for example, Heckert and Heckert (2002). For a critique, see Dotter (2004, 88).

7 For a review of different perspectives on ‘rogues’, see Herring (2000).

8 For notable exceptions, see Wagner et al (2014); Homolar (2011).

9 Importantly, Bloomfield (2015) notes that the depth of institutionalization of the norm matters for whether actors are seen as deviant or norm entrepreneurial.

10 Similar insights were adopted by realist scholars as well. See Gilpin (1983).

11 The discourses in these approaches are understood as ‘sense-making practices’ that construct meanings of social phenomena. The focus is, nevertheless, not just on ‘words’ actors say/write, but also on what actors ‘do’, insofar that their actions and (material) practices represent sites of meaning production. See Epstein (2008, 4–6).

12 In a yet unpublished paper, Deitelhoff and Zimmermann have tied their argument to the concept of norm robustness and changed the term ‘justificatory contestation’ to ‘validity contestation’. We are grateful to Deitelhoff and Zimmermann for sharing their unpublished paper with us.

13 For example, Harald Müller and Wolfgang Kötter have persuasively shown how scandals in nuclear supplies led to massive changes in German arms control practices relating to dual-use goods. Germany became, in a short span of time, a champion of strict export controls, in stark contrast to its earlier lax attitudes (Müller and Kötter, 1991).

14 In other cases, actors can plainly reject the norm—see, for example, Steele’s (2017) work on the embrace of torture in American public discourse.

15 India’s partial adoption of the global non-proliferation norms, demonstrated by the country’s attempts to join the very groups it used to denounce as cartels, shows that justificatory contestation may eventually weaken and turn into partial norm compliance (Lantis 2018; Hibbs 2018; Smetana 2018).

16 Hegemons usually fulfil this role; see Hurrell (2007).

17 Such changes are not necessarily enduring, and countries may return to their earlier ‘deviant’ practices (this time, however, glorifying them). We thank a reviewer for highlighting this point.

Additional information

Funding

Charles University Research Centre program UNCE/HUM/028 (Peace Research Center Prague/Faculty of Social Sciences).

Notes on contributors

Michal Smetana

Michal Smetana is Research Associate and Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, and Coordinator of the newly-established Peace Research Center Prague. His main research interests include nuclear arms control and disarmament, norms and deviance in international relations, and political psychology. Email: [email protected]

Michal Onderco

Michal Onderco is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Erasmus University Rotterdam. His research focuses on politics of international institutions, nuclear proliferation, and domestic instititions in foreign policy. Email: [email protected]