‘States have emotions too’: an affect-centred approach to South African foreign relations

ABSTRACT

Building on established scholarship in international relations theory, notably Alexander Wendt's assertion that ‘states are people too’, this paper explores South African foreign policy decisions that are routinely dismissed as being ‘schizophrenic’, and makes two claims: first, that existing scholarship fails to adequately address causal factors of South African foreign policy and, second, that we need to turn to emotions and affect to do so. As such, the theoretical framework adopted for the purposes of the paper treats ‘state-level’ affect as a central explanatory factor, in contrast to established scholarship on emotion theorisation, which treats states as ontologically subordinate to their constituent members and thus subject to the private affects and cognitions of the individuals that make decisions on behalf of the state. Existing literature on collective emotion seems to support the possibility of state emotion. This notion of transsubjective emotionality facilitates the argument that states have emotions too, and that these emotions condition not only identities but also actions in international relations.

KEYWORDS:

• South African Foreign Policy
• constructivism
• collective emotion
• affect theory
• identity
• international relations theory

Acknowledgements

This paper is a revised version of a paper presented at the 70th Annual Conference of the New York State Political Science Association (NYSPSA 2016). The author thanks Scott Monje and panelists at NYSPSA 2016, colleagues and anonymous peer reviewers for insightful comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Note on contributor

Bianca Naudé is a lecturer of political studies and governance at the QwaQwa campus of the University of the Free State. She holds an Advanced Masters in European and International Affairs – summa cum laude – from the European Institute in Nice, and a Masters in Political Sociology from the University of Lyon II, France. Her doctoral thesis, carrying the working title ‘The Narcissistic State and Foreign Policy Making’, employs a grounded theory approach to explore the motivations behind South African foreign policymaking, and incorporates psychoanalytic theories of personality to understand South Africa's relations with peers in international affairs.

ORCID

Bianca Naudé http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8870-1690

Notes

1. See South African Journal of International Affairs, Virtual Special Issue: South African Foreign Policy over 20 years of democracy (1994–2014), http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/pgas/rsaj-vsi-80th-anniversary.

2. On this point, see Nathan L, ‘Anti-imperialism trumps human rights: South Africa’s approach to the Darfur conflict’, Working Paper, Crisis States Working Paper Series 2, 31, February 2008.

3. Referring to South Africa's vote in favor of UNSC Resolution 1973 of 2011.

4. Note, here, the capitalisation of ‘Foreign Policy’ as distinct from the earlier use of ‘foreign policy’ in the lower case. Both uses will be maintained throughout the article, where the lower ‘foreign policy’ signals specific reference to the South African foreign policy document, its strategies and tools for implementation while the capitalised form is employed to signify a discussion of all acts and discourses relating to and issued from the foreign relations of the state. See Laffey M, ‘Locating identity: Performativity, foreign policy and state action’, Review of International Studies, 26, 2000, pp. 429–44.

5. This observation is drawn from informal conversations with diplomats based in New York and Brussels. See also Baker PH & PN Lyman, ‘South Africa: From beacon of hope to rogue democracy?’, Stanley Foundation Working Paper, December 2008; Wirsching E, ‘South Africa … Quo vadis?’, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Conference Report, 24 September 2015.

6. Notably Nathan L, ‘Consistency and inconsistencies in South African foreign policy’, International Affairs, 82.2, 2005, pp. 361–72; ‘African solutions to African problems: South Africa's foreign policy’, WeltTrends, 92, September/October 2013, pp. 48–55.

7. ANC, ‘ANC international relations: A better Africa in a better and just world’, NGC 2015 Discussion Document, p. 175.

8. On this commitment to Africa and African unity, see Laurie Nathan's discussion on ‘African solutions to African problems: South Africa's foreign policy’, WeltTrends, 92, September/October 2013, pp. 48–55.

9. While it is acknowledged that some distinction should be made between the state as a unit, the government with its different spheres of preference, and the ANC as political party, I will not have the occasion to venture into this distinction in this paper. The fusion between state, government and party in the South African case, renders the distinction between these spheres of government less important than in other liberal democracies. On this point, see Brooks H, ‘The dominant party system: Challenges for South Africa's second decade of democracy’, EISA Occasional Paper 25, October 2004; Matshiqi A, ‘Reflections on the relationship between the State and the Party’, Focus, 67, November 2012, pp. 4–9.

10. ANC, ‘ANC international relations: A better Africa in a better and just world’, NGC 2015 Discussion Document, p. 175.

11. Important exceptions may be the work of Laurie Nathan, as well as Van Wyk JA, ‘South Africa's post-apartheid foreign policy: A constructivist analysis', Politea, 23.3, 2004, pp. 103–36; Klotz A, ‘State identity in South African foreign policy’, in Carlsnaes W & P Nel (eds) In Full Flight: South African Foreign Policy After Apartheid. Midrand: IGD, 2006; Serrao O & PH Bischoff, ‘Foreign policy ambiguity on the part of an emergent Middle Power: South African foreign policy through other lenses’, Politikon, 36.3, 2009, pp. 363–80; Smith K, ‘Soft power: The essence of South Africa's foreign policy’, in Landsberg C & JA van Wyk (eds) South African Foreign Policy Review Volume 1. Pretoria: AISA and IGD, 2012.

12. The distinction between ‘substantialism’ and ‘materialism’ in Whiteheadean philosophy is noted. This article will follow FB Wallack to use the term ‘materialism’ as a blanket term for both substantialism and dualism as interrelated scientific concepts. The interested reader is referred to Wallack FB, The Epochal Nature of Process in Whitehead's Metaphysics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1980.

13. Adler-Nissen R, ‘Conclusion: Relationalism: Why diplomats find IR theory so strange’, in Ole JS, V Pouliot and IB Neumann (eds) Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. London: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 284–308.

14. This paper rejects Adler-Nissen's argument that states cannot be treated as unitary actors (p. 307), which which is duly addressed hereafter.

15. Heise DR & SJ Lerner, ‘Affect control in international interactions’, Social Forces, 85.2, 2006, pp. 993–1010.

16. Baldacchino JP, ‘The eidetic of belonging: Towards a phenomenological psychology of affect and ethno-national identity’, Ethnicities, 11.1, 2011, pp. 80–81.

17. Anderson B & P Harrison, ‘Questioning affect and emotion’, Area, 38.3, 2006, pp. 333–5.

18. Ibid., pp. 334–5.

19. Notably, Crawford NC, ‘The passion of world politics: Propositions on emotion and emotional relationships’, International Security, 24.4, 2000, pp. 116–56; Lebow RN, ‘Reason, emotion and cooperation’, International Politics, 42, 2005, pp. 283–313; Mercer J, ‘Rationality and psychology in international relations’, International Organization, 59.1, 2005, pp. 77–106 and ‘Emotional beliefs’, International Organization, 64.1, 2010, pp. 1–31; Ross AAG, ‘Coming in from the cold: Constructivism and emotions’, European Journal of International Relations, 12.2, 2006, pp. 197–222; Bleiker R & E Hutchison, ‘Fear no more: Emotions and world politics’, Review of International Studies, 34.S1, 2008, pp. 115–35; McDermott R, ‘New directions for experimental work in international relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 55, 2011, pp. 503–20; Hall TH & AAG Ross, ‘Affective politics after 9/11’, International Organization, 69.4, 2015, pp. 847–79.

20. Mercer J, ‘Rationality and psychology in international relations’, International Organization, 59.1, 2005, pp. 77–106 and ‘Emotional beliefs’, International Organization, 64.1, 2010, pp. 1–31; Bleiker R & E Hutchison, ‘Fear no more: Emotions and world politics’, Review of International Studies, 34.S1, 2008, pp. 115–35; Hall TH & AAG Ross, ‘Affective politics after 9/11’, International Organization, 69.4, 2015, pp. 847–79.

21. See Bleiker's and Hutchinson's overview of literature on emotion theorisation in IR scholarship: ‘Fear no more: Emotions and world politics’, Review of International Studies, 34.S1, 2008, pp. 118–20. An exception may be a paper by Hutchison E & R Bleiker, ‘Theorizing emotions in world politics’, International Theory 6.3, 2014, pp. 491–514.

22. See Hollway W, ‘Relationality: The intersubjective foundations of identity’, in Wetherell M & CT Mohanty (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Identities. London: SAGE, 2010.

23. See Lomas P, ‘Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: A Reply to Alexander Wendt’, Review of International Studies, 31.2, 2005, pp. 349–55; Guzzini S & A Leander (eds) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics. New York: Routledge, 2006; Ringmar E, ‘The international politics of recognition’, in E Ringmar & T Lindemann (eds), The International Politics of Recognition. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2010, pp. 3–23; Oprisko RL & K Kaliher, ‘State as person? Anthropomorphic personification vs. concrete durational being’, Journal of International and Global Studies, 6.1, 2014, pp. 30–49.

24. Wendt A, Social Theory of International Politics. London: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in International Relations, No. 67), 1999; ‘The state as person in international theory’, Review of International Studies, 30, 2004, pp. 289–316; ‘Agency, teleology and the world state: A reply to Shannon’, European Journal of International Relations, 11.4, 2005, pp. 589–98; ‘Social Theory as Cartesian science: An auto-critique from a quantum perspective’, in Guzzini S & A Leander (eds) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics. New York: Routledge, 2006; Jackson PT, ‘Hegel's House or “People are States Too”’, Review of International Studies, 30.2, 2004, pp. 281–7; Mitzen J, ‘Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma’, European Journal of International Relations, 12.3, 2006, pp. 341–70; Kustermans J, ‘The state as citizen: State personhood and ideology’, International Relations and Development, 13.2, 2011, pp. 1–27.

25. E.g. Panksepp J, Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

26. Baldacchino JP, ‘The eidetic of belonging: Towards a phenomenological psychology of affect and ethno-national identity’, Ethnicities, 11.1, 2011, p. 89; also Sullivan G, ‘Emotional fundamentalism? Critical remarks on affect and collective emotion in the phenomenological–psychoanalytic account of ethno-national identity’, Ethnicities, 11.1, 2011, pp. 126 –8; Thrift N, ‘Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect’, Geografiska Annaler Series B, 86, 2004, pp. 57–78.

27. See, among others, Volkan VD, ‘Bosnia’Herzegovina: Ancient fuel of a modern inferno’, Mind and Human Interaction, 7, 1996, pp. 110–27; Vertzberger YYI, ‘The antinomies of collective political trauma: A pre-theory’, Political Psychology, 18.4, 1997, pp. 863–76; Volkan VD, ‘Post-traumatic states: Beyond individual PTSD in societies ravaged by ethnic conflict’, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 7.1, 1999, pp. 27–38; Kidron CA, ‘Surviving a distant past: A case study of the cultural construction of trauma descendent identity’, Ethos, 31.4, 2003, pp. 513–44; Eyerman R, ‘The past in the present: Culture and the transmission of memory’, Acta Sociologica, 47.2, 2004, pp. 159–69; Volkan VD, ‘Large-group identity, large-group regression and massive violence’, paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, 23 January 2005; Kosicki PH & A Jasinska-Kania, ‘Guest editors’ introduction: Aggressors, victims and trauma in collective memory’, International Journal of Sociology, 37.1, 2007, pp. 3–9.

28. Thien D, ‘After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion in geography’, Area, 37.4, 2005, pp. 450–54; also, Heise DR & SJ Lerner, ‘Affect control in international interactions’, Social Forces, 85.2, 2006, p. 997.

29. Notably Baldacchino JP, ‘The eidetic of belonging: Towards a phenomenological psychology of affect and ethno-national identity’, Ethnicities, 11.1, 2011, pp. 92–99.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., pp. 88.

32. Frijda NH, The Laws of Emotion. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2007.

33. Thoits PA, ‘The sociology of emotions’, Annual Review of Sociology 15, 1989, p. 317.

34. Leys R, ‘The turn to affect: A critique’, Critical Inquiry, 37.3, 2011, pp. 434–72.

35. Heise DR & SJ Lerner, ‘Affect control in international interactions’, Social Forces, 85.2, 2006, pp. 993–1010; also Thoits PA, ‘The sociology of emotions’, Annual Review of Sociology 15, 1989, p. 333.

36. Frijda NH, ‘Passions: What emotions really are’, in Schwarzer R & PA Frensch, Personality, Human Development and Culture. International Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 2, 2010, pp. 45–63; also Frijda NH, The Laws of Emotion. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 4.

37. Frijda NH, The Laws of Emotion. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 27.

38. Frijda NH, The Emotions (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). London: Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 6.

39. Frijda NH, The Emotions (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). London: Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 2; Thoits PA, ‘The sociology of emotions’, Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1989, p. 320.

40. Frijda NH, The Emotions (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). London: Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 2.

41. Sources comprise the ANC’s 1994 ‘Foreign policy perspective in a democratic South Africa’, African National Congress Policy Document, 1994, http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=230; DIRCO Strategic Plan 2010–2013 and 2012–2017; DIRCO Annual Report 2011/2012; DIRCO, ‘Building a better world: The diplomacy of Ubuntu’, White Paper on South Africa’s Foreign Policy: Final Draft, 2011; ANC, ‘ANC international relations: A better Africa in a better and just world’, NGC 2015 Discussion Document; also, Ebrahim EI, ‘Libya, the United Nations, the African Union and South Africa: Wrong moves? Wrong motives?’, Public Lecture at the University of Pretoria, 16 September 2011; Ebrahim EI, ‘South Africa and the United Nations Security Council: Promoting Peace in the Middle East and North Africa’, Remarks at the South African Institute of International Affairs, 3 September 2012; Nkoane-Mashabane M, ‘Celebrating the legacy of liberation movements in Africa: Freedom through diplomacy’, Public lecture at the University of Cape Town, 6 May 2014. Discourses, particularly as relates to declarations and speeches by officials, were selected based on accessibility and availability, as well as their relevance to the international events discussed in the paper.

42. ANC, ‘Foreign policy perspective in a democratic South Africa’ African National Congress Policy Document, 1994, http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=230

43. See notably Ebrahim EI, ‘Libya, the United Nations, the African Union and South Africa: Wrong moves? Wrong motives?’, Public Lecture at the University of Pretoria, 16 September 2011; Ebrahim EI, ‘Twenty years of South African involvement in conflict resolution: Lessons learned and the case of Syria’, Speech delivered at the University of Pretoria, 24 February 2014.

44. ANC, ‘ANC international relations: A better Africa in a better and just world’, NGC 2015 Discussion Document, p. 188.

45. Particularly Norbert Elias, Jacques Lacan and Sigmund Freud. On this point, see notably Volkan VD, ‘Large-group identity, international relations and psychoanalysis’, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 18.4, 2009, pp. 206–13; Caputi M, ‘National identity in contemporary theory’, Political Psychology, 17.4, December 1996, pp. 683–94.

46. Naudé B, ‘Reflections on the problem of reality in International Relations: A three-level approach to South African foreign policy making’, published Master's thesis. Nice: European Institute, 2014, pp. 32–49. See also Volkan VD, ‘The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach’, Political Psychology, 6.2(Special Issue: A Notebook on the Psychology of the U.S.–Soviet Relationship), June 1985, 219–47; and ‘Large-group identity, large-group regression and massive violence’, paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, 23 January 2005.

47. The notion of language as the symbolic signifier employed by the subject to communicate or express his subjectivity to Others is as central to the current paper as it is to Lacanian psychoanalysis on the whole. Refer to Lacan J, Écrits. First complete edition in English, translated by B Fink, in collaboration with H Fink, R Grigg. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006; see also Naudé B, ‘Reflections on the problem of reality in International Relations: A three-level analysis of South African foreign policy making’, published Master's thesis. Nice: European Institute, 2014, pp. 32–49.

48. Laffey M, ‘Locating identity: Performativity, foreign policy and state action’, Review of International Studies, 26, 2000, p. 431.

49. While the focus here is on the construction of a South African identity based on difference to a foreign Other, research into the production of a South African identity based on difference from within is sorely needed.

50. See also Nathan L, ‘Anti-imperialism trumps human rights: South Africa's approach to the Darfur conflict’, Working Paper, Crisis States Working Paper Series 2, 31, February 2008 and ‘African solutions to African problems: South Africa's foreign policy’, WeltTrends, 92, September/October 2013, pp. 48–55.

51. Nathan L, ‘Anti-imperialism trumps human rights: South Africa's approach to the Darfur conflict’, Working Paper, Crisis States Working Paper Series 2, 31, February 2008, pp. 6–7.

52. Heise DR & SJ Lerner, ‘Affect control in international interactions’, Social Forces, 85.2, 2006, p. 1005.

53. Baldacchino JP, ‘The eidetic of belonging: Towards a phenomenological psychology of affect and ethno-national identity’, Ethnicities, 11.1, 2011, p. 94.

54. Thoits PA, ‘The sociology of emotions’, Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1989, p. 332.

55. DFA, South Africa in the United Nations Security Council – 2007 and 2008. Pretoria: GCIS, 2009, p. 2.

56. Ebrahim EI, ‘Twenty years of South African involvement in conflict resolution: Lessons learned and the case of Syria’, Speech delivered at the University of Pretoria, 24 February 2014. See also DIRCO, ‘Building a better world: The diplomacy of Ubuntu’, White Paper on South Africa's Foreign Policy: Final Draft, 2011.

57. Monyela C, ‘Why SA voted for UN Resolution 1973 – DIRCO’, Statement issued by the spokesperson for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, 18 March 2011. See also Ebrahim EI, ‘South Africa's position vis-à-vis recent UNSC resolutions on Libya and the Libyan crisis as a test of South Africa's leadership role on “African solutions to African problems”’, Speech delivered at the University of Venda, 2 August 2011.

58. For a full discussion of South Africa's vote on UNSC Resolution 1973, refer to Neethling T, ‘Reflections on norm dynamics: South African foreign policy and the no-fly zone over Libya’, South African Journal of International Affairs, 19.1, 2012, pp. 25–42; Smith K, ‘South Africa and the responsibility to protect: From champion to sceptic’, International Relations, 30.3, 2016, pp. 391–405.

59. Thoits PA, ‘The sociology of emotions’, Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1989, p. 332.

60. Ibid.

61. Monyela C, ‘Why SA voted for UN Resolution 1973 – DIRCO’, Statement issued by the spokesperson for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, 18 March 2011.

62. Ebrahim EI, ‘Libya, the United Nations, the African Union and South Africa: Wrong moves? Wrong motives?’, Public Lecture at the University of Pretoria, 16 September 2011.

63. DIRCO, ‘Building a better world: The diplomacy of Ubuntu’, White Paper on South Africa's Foreign Policy: Final Draft, 2011, p. 25.

64. Ebrahim EI, ‘South Africa's position vis-à-vis recent UNSC resolutions on Libya and the Libyan crisis as a test of South Africa's leadership role on “African solutions to African problems”’, Speech delivered at the University of Venda, 2 August 2011.

65. Ibid.

66. Thoits PA, ‘The sociology of emotions’, Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1989, p. 323.

67. DIRCO, ‘Building a better world: The diplomacy of Ubuntu’, White Paper on South Africa's Foreign Policy: Final Draft, 2011, p. 3.

68. Ebrahim EI, ‘South Africa and the United Nations Security Council: Promoting peace in the Middle East and North Africa’, Remarks at the South African Institute of International Affairs, 3 September 2012.

69. ANC, ‘Foreign policy perspective in a democratic South Africa’, African National Congress Policy Document, 1994, http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=230

70. DIRCO, ‘Building a better world: The diplomacy of Ubuntu’, White Paper on South Africa's Foreign Policy: Final Draft, 2011.

71. ANC, ‘Foreign policy perspective in a democratic South Africa’ African National Congress Policy Document, 1994, http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=230

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.

74. DIRCO, ‘Building a better world: The diplomacy of Ubuntu’, White Paper on South Africa's Foreign Policy: Final Draft, 2011, pp. 4, 10.

75. Ibid, p. 7.

76. Ibid, p. 24.

77. Ibid, pp. 26–7.