Recognising recognition through thick and thin: Insights from Sino-Japanese relations
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836715610594 |
| Author | Karl Gustafsson |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2016, Vol. 51(3) 255 –271
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836715610594
cac.sagepub.com
Recognising recognition
through thick and thin: Insights
from Sino-Japanese relations
Karl Gustafsson
Abstract
Research on recognition in International Relations has demonstrated that states are not exclusively
concerned about their physical security, but also anxious to be recognised by other states.
What counts as recognition and non-/mis-recognition, however, is not always clear. Scholars
of recognition seem to agree that recognition theory has not yet developed a persuasive way
of recognising recognition. Providing a satisfactory answer to the question of how we recognise
recognition and its denial is a necessary first step towards being able to convincingly theorise
about recognition. This is especially important since recognition is often treated as a dependent
variable—how states are recognised by other states is seen as influencing their behaviour,
sometimes with military conflict as the outcome. This article further develops the concepts
of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ recognition as it addresses the problem of how to recognise recognition.
Based on an analysis of empirical material on what, in Japan, has been interpreted as Chinese
non- and mis-recognition of Japan, the article shows how concrete expressions of thin and thick
recognition between established states can be recognised.
Keywords
China, identity, Japan, recognition, thick recognition, thin recognition
Introduction
The literature on recognition in International Relations (IR) has expanded considerably
in recent years. This research has provided novel interpretations of state behaviour. Most
importantly, perhaps, recognition theorists have demonstrated that states are not exclu-
sively concerned with survival, but also care about how they are recognised by other
states. At times, states will even go to war to be properly recognised (Lebow, 2010;
Lindemann, 2010; Murray, 2010, 2012; Ringmar, 1996, 2002), which makes recognition
literally a matter of life and death.
Corresponding author:
Karl Gustafsson, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, P.O. Box 27035, 10251 Stockholm, Sweden.
Email: karl.gustafsson@ui.se
610594CAC0010.1177/0010836715610594Cooperation and ConflictGustafsson
research-article2015
Article
256 Cooperation and Conflict 51(3)
Numerous scholars of recognition have noted that identifying recognition and
non-/mis-recognition is no simple matter. For example, Erik Ringmar has suggested
that it is hard to ‘know whether recognition is granted or not’ (1996: 81). Hans Agné
states that it is difficult to determine ‘whether feelings of recognition originate, as
assumed, in social interaction with adversaries, rather than somewhere else, for exam-
ple in exclusively psychological processes within the subjects’ (Agné, 2013: 102).
Furthermore, Axel Honneth has argued that, because of their amorphous nature, it is
particularly difficult to identify recognition between states (Honneth, 2012). There
seems to be a consensus among scholars of recognition that recognition theory has not
yet successfully developed a method for recognising recognition. We are, thus, pre-
sented with an important research problem: How do we recognise recognition and its
denial when we see them? In order to theorise convincingly about recognition, it is
absolutely crucial to be able to recognise it. This is especially important since recog-
nition is often treated as a dependent variable—how states are recognised by other
states is seen as an important factor that influences their behaviour, leading in some
cases to military conflict.
This article seeks to contribute to the ongoing debate about how to recognise recogni-
tion in IR by further theorising about the concepts of thin and thick recognition in a way
that clarifies how such recognition between established states can be recognised empiri-
cally. Thin recognition is fundamentally about identity with other actors, that is, about
being recognised as a full member of a community. Thick recognition, by contrast,
acknowledges difference or uniqueness, or a particular identity. Existing research has
defined the concepts, but has not gone very far in exploring concretely what thin or thick
recognition might constitute. In other words, the issue of how to recognise thin and thick
recognition empirically has not yet been sufficiently addressed. The article is informed
in particular by empirical material dealing with what, in Japan, has been interpreted as
Chinese non- and mis-recognition of Japan. While such acts and statements became
increasingly common in the 21st century, attempts were also made to improve bilateral
relations through recognition.
The next section critically discusses recent research that has sought to develop a
method for recognising recognition and begins to distinguish the approach taken in this
article to ontological and other key standpoints. The third section introduces and devel-
ops the concepts of thin and thick recognition and discusses how acts and statements of
thin and thick recognition can be recognised. In order to illustrate in greater detail how
recognition can be recognised, the fourth and fifth sections provide analyses of thin and
thick recognition, respectively, based on empirical study of Sino-Japanese relations. The
concluding section summarises the results of the study and discusses implications for
further research on recognition in IR.
Previous research on how to recognise recognition
Thomas Lindemann has addressed the question of how to recognise recognition in a
number of important publications (2012, 2014a, 2014b). In an article dealing specifically
with the question of how to recognise recognition, he suggests that it is possible to rec-
ognise situations of ‘nonrecognition where elementary agency or status is denied (denial
To continue reading
Request your trial