International identity construction: China’s pursuit of the responsible power identity and the American Other
| Author | Hoo Tiang Boon |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117029 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117029
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(4) 808 –833
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221117029
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
International identity
construction: China’s pursuit
of the responsible
power identity and the
American Other
Hoo Tiang Boon
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Abstract
How should one understand the construction of a state’s identity in the international
system—its international identity? In this article, I attempt to provide richer answers.
Drawing insights from social psychology, specifically Social Identity Theory and
Identity Theory, I provide a micro-account of identity construction to better specify
the mechanisms and logics through which international identity is constructed.
This framework proposes the following general arguments about international
identity formation. First, the construction of international identity is interpreted as
a process of role negotiation between the state Self and relevant Other, animated
by the mechanisms of self-categorization, alter’s casting, and role appraisal. Second,
the collective motivations of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-consistency drive state
identity change or continuity. As a plausibility probe, I apply the framework to a current
analysis of China’s construction of an international identity as a “responsible” power in
recent years, with a corresponding focus on the United States as the primary Other.
Keywords
International identity, social psychology, constructivism, responsibility, China, US–
China relations
Corresponding author:
Hoo Tiang Boon, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, 50
Nanyang Avenue, Block S4, Level B3, 639798 Singapore.
Email: istbhoo@ntu.edu.sg
1117029EJT0010.1177/13540661221117029European Journal of International RelationsBoon
research-article2022
Article
Boon 809
Discussion on identity in International Relations (IR) literature has generally centered on
how or how much it “matters” in international politics. Yet there is a secondary conversa-
tion that is no less significant: how identity has come to matter in the first place. In this
article, I will grapple with this issue by focusing on the notion of a state’s international
identity. Specifically, how does a state’s identity, in particular its identity in relation to
the international system, come about?
International identity is not a novel concept, having been adopted in various studies
including those on European identity and integration. However, the literature remains
underspecified in regard to the processes and logics by which international identities
develop (e.g. Coe and Neumann, 2011; Damro, 2001; Green and Bogard, 2012; Hagstrom,
2015; Legro, 2009; Manners and Whitman, 1998, 2003; Smits, 1995). By “literature,” I
am referring to studies focusing on international identity as opposed to the broader schol-
arship that includes national or domestic identity.
As cases in point: Manners and Whitman’s (1998) seminal work on the European
Union’s (EU) international identity suggests that “ascribing identity is a question of
standpoint” (pp. 236–238), of which one is a “self-definitional” perspective and the other
based on “external definition.” This account, however, conceives international identity
as a matter of “standpoint,” excluding the interaction between the self and external view-
points and how this interaction functions. Manners and Whitman’s follow-up 2003 study
(p. 380, pp. 384–391) argues that the construction of the EU’s international identity
“functions on the basis of addition” in which new supranational elements are augmented
to existing European identities, but again excludes consideration of how external percep-
tions might shape European self-perceptions. Smits’s (1995) study on a liberal democ-
racy’s international identity factors the role of external interactions in the production of
such identities, but by the author’s own admission, does not “theorize this process in
detail” (p. 59). Likewise, Green and Bogard (2012) look at when a state’s definition of
its own and others’ international identities could succeed, but do not address how its
production and re-production functions (pp. 279–284).
Legro (2009) arguably goes further than others in offering a general argument for
identity variability, noting that “ideas about means to goals” (p. 37) can affect how states
position themselves in international society. This account argues that states change their
international identities when the ideas associated with the old identities fail to achieve
outcomes desired by the state. While Legro’s account sheds valuable light on the reasons
behind identity change, it has at least two gaps. One is that it explains radical identity
change but tells little of how international identity is being produced on a more prosaic,
“everyday” basis;1 indeed Legro (2009) concedes that his account covers identity change
under “certain circumstances” (p. 37). Second, it also stops short of specifying the pro-
cesses through which a state’s international identity might change. Those processes are
given more treatment in Hagstrom’s (2015) study of Japan’s “abnormal state” identity in
the post-War order, who posits three “identity-producing” mechanisms in the discursive
construction of international identity (pp. 122–145). However, unlike Legro who theo-
rizes the reasons for identity change, Hagstrom leaves out the logics behind this
construction.
In this article, I attempt to extend the extant scholarship on international identity by
incorporating insights from social psychology. Building on Manners and Whitman’s
To continue reading
Request your trial