Is normative power cosmopolitan? Rethinking European unity, norm diffusion, and international political theory
| Author | Kazushige Kobayashi |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720979008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720979008
Cooperation and Conflict
2021, Vol. 56(2) 181 –203
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836720979008
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Is normative power
cosmopolitan? Rethinking
European unity, norm
diffusion, and international
political theory
Kazushige Kobayashi
Abstract
Despite the apparent consensus that European Union (EU) normative power embodies a Kantian
cosmopolitan approach to world politics, such a consensus is typically presupposed by scholars,
rather than being critically examined by them. By offering macro-historical reflections, this article
argues that EU normative power deviates from the Kantian cosmopolitan ideal and in fact replicates
the Hobbesian logic of normative homogenization. Renouncing the medieval Vatican’s ambition to
construct a united Europe anchored in uniform normativity, Kantian theory celebrates multiple
normalcy as the basis for human freedom, perpetual peace, and mutual transformation. In contrast,
Hobbesian theory is driven by the conviction that a peaceful value-based community could be built
only through normative homogenization, behavioural conformism, and moral unity. In Hobbesian
theory, the Leviathan exercises a transformative power to socialize others, eliminate discords, and
build a commonwealth through norm diffusion and public education. In this vein, the EU’s aspiration
to build a normatively homogenous Europe seems to reflect Hobbes’s vision of normative unity,
rather than Kant’s vision of cosmopolitan diversity. Should the EU aspire to pursue a cosmopolitan
foreign policy, it needs to pay more attention to the power-political implications of its drive toward
normative homogenization and shift its focus from socialization to mutual transformation.
Keywords
Immanuel Kant, international political theory, norm diffusion, normative power, the European
Union (EU), Thomas Hobbes
Introduction: normative power and political theory
Since the early 2000s, research on the European Union (EU)’s normative power has
established itself firmly as an integral part of mainstream international relations (IR)
scholarship in Europe. Ian Manners’ Normative Power Europe (2002) – the normative
Corresponding author:
Kazushige Kobayashi, Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding, Graduate Institute of
International and Development Studies, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2A, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Email: kazushige.kobayashi@graduateinstitute.ch
979008CAC0010.1177/0010836720979008Cooperation and ConflictKobayashi
research-article2020
Article
182 Cooperation and Conflict 56(2)
power research programme’s central text – has garnered over 4300 citations since its
publication in 2002, becoming one of the most cited academic articles on the subject.
Manners’ call for a ‘Normative Power Europe’ has generated a vibrant research pro-
gramme encompassing scholars of different methodological and epistemological orien-
tations (see de Franco, Meyer and Smith, 2015; Lenz, 2013; Manners, 2006; Manners
and Lucarelli, 2006; Whitman, 2011; Wagnsson and Hellman, 2018).
The meteoric rise of the normative power research programme, however, has been
accompanied by attendant criticism. These critiques highlight at least three main theo-
retical deficits in the prevalent literature on the topic. First, empirical scholars have
shown that, though the EU’s normative power – defined by Manners as the ‘ability to
shape conceptions of normal in international relations’ (Manners, 2002: 239) – is sup-
posed to be wielded by employing normative means toward normative ends, its actual
practice relies heavily on material incentives in the form of EU membership prospects
and/or trade agreements. It is in this sense that the centrality of normative instruments to
EU foreign policy has been called into question (Smith and Youngs, 2018). Second, real-
ist scholars contend that the EU is ‘a realist actor in normative clothes’ (Seeberg, 2009),
employing normative means toward geopolitical ends (Hyde-Price, 2006: 227). Richard
Youngs found that EU policy often allocates aid in line with its geopolitical priorities,
and that its ‘focus on the ideational dimensions of the EU’s international presence has
unduly diverted attention away from the persistence of power politics instrumentalism’
(Youngs, 2004: 415). Third, critical scholars argue that, even when the EU demonstrates
consistency in pursuing normative ends through normative means, this process of norm
promotion tends to lack sensitivity to local contexts, resulting in a foreign policy that is
perceived – at least by local actors – as being ‘Eurocentric’ and a form of cultural impe-
rialism (Sjursen, 2006: 248; Pace, 2007: 1056).1 Such policies of ‘normative empire’
(Del Sarto, 2016) or ‘normative imperialism’ (Pänke, 2015) generate unintended conse-
quences that could undermine the overall credibility and attractiveness of the EU as a
whole (Larsen, 2013; Zielonka, 2013).
Though these critiques have been invaluable in highlighting important deficits within
the normative power research programme, they fall short of a closer examination that
addresses the ontological assumptions of normative power. While there appears to be a
fairly well-established consensus that the EU’s normative power embodies a Kantian or
cosmopolitan approach to world politics (Kagan, 2004; Menon et al., 2004: 9; Manners
and Lucarelli, 2006), this article demonstrates that such a consensus is typically presup-
posed by scholars and EU foreign policymakers, rather than being critically examined by
them. The question of whether the EU institutionally qualifies as a cosmopolitan polity
(Manners, 2013) or a Kantian ‘pacific union’ (Brown, 2014) has been systematically
explored; however, the cosmopolitan qualification of normative power remains under-
theorized. Is normative power cosmopolitan? By placing the concept of normative power
within a wider historical context and grounding it firmly in insights derived from inter-
national political theory, this article argues that the EU’s normative power – through its
emphasis on normative homogenization – can be interpreted as being anti-Kantian in its
theory, practice, and intellectual aspirations.
This is because the aspiration to build a normatively homogenous political space was
a defining characteristic of pre-Enlightenment politics. In the realm of transnational
To continue reading
Request your trial