Recognition through dialogue: How transatlantic relations anchor the EU’s identity
| Author | Emmanuelle Blanc |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211058015 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211058015
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2023, Vol. 25(1) 102 –120
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481211058015
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Recognition through dialogue:
How transatlantic relations
anchor the EU’s identity
Emmanuelle Blanc
Abstract
In spite of being criticised as ‘talking shops’ and easily replaced by technological innovations,
dialogues – defined as face-to-face interactions in an institutionalised framework – remain a staple
of international politics. While prevailing accounts have shown that dialogues help states advance
their quest for security and profit, the key role dialogues play in the quest for recognition has been
overlooked and remains undertheorised. Emphasising the socio-psychological need for ontological
security, this article argues that institutions relentlessly engage in dialogues because it allows
them to seek, gain and anchor the recognition of their identity. The significance for international
relations is illustrated through the emblematic case of the European Union–US dialogues,
specifically the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue. The multi-method qualitative analysis based on
original interviews, participant observations, visuals and official documents demonstrates how the
European Union exploits these dialogues with its ‘Significant Other’ to seek, gain and anchor the
recognition of its complex institutional identity.
Keywords
dialogue, diplomacy, European Union, identity, parliament, recognition, transatlantic relations
Introduction
Every day brings news of another diplomatic meeting held somewhere in the world
involving representatives of states and/or international institutions. Be it the recent US–
Russia Summit in Geneva in June 2021 or the traditional United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA) meetings in September, diplomats maintain a long tradition of face-
to-face encounters. The persistence of diplomatic dialogues is puzzling, as they have been
criticised as cheap talking shops and empty performances (Morrow, 1999) – even more so
with the advance of communication technologies. Still, face-to-face meetings between
diplomats, and large gatherings of international representatives remain a staple of inter-
national politics. So, why do states and international institutions still resort with so much
insistence to old-fashioned face-to-face dialogues?
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK
Corresponding author:
Emmanuelle Blanc, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Houghton Street, London
WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: e.blanc1@lse.ac.uk
1058015BPI0010.1177/13691481211058015The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsBlanc
research-article2021
Original Article
Blanc 103
This article analyses diplomatic dialogues, arguing that one of their functions is to
recognise and anchor institutional identity. Dialogues – defined as a face-to-face interac-
tion in an institutionalised setting – are part of the struggle for recognition in which both
states and institutions relentlessly engage in world politics. Collective actors extensively
resort to dialogues to seek, gain and anchor the recognition of their identity, thereby meet-
ing their socio-psychological needs. This conceptualisation draws from scholarship on
dialogue (Barston, 2006; Fierke, 1999; Watson, 1982) and recognition theories (Agné,
2013; Greenhill, 2008; Gustafsson, 2016a; Lindemann and Ringmar, 2012), while adding
insights from socio-psychology to challenge our established understanding of the role of
dialogue in international politics. So far, international relations (IR) theorists have empha-
sised the role of dialogues in the pursuit of security and profit, conceptualising them as a
reflection of power constellations (see realists like Fierke, 1999; Langholtz and Stout,
2004: 3), as an engine for cooperation through information exchange (see liberal institu-
tionalists’ accounts like Crawford, 2011: 29; Keohane, 1988), and as a process of persua-
sion and arguing, leading to shared understandings (see constructivists, such as Adler,
1997; Risse, 2000). Yet, little attention has been given to the role dialogues play in the
quest for recognition in international politics. Institutions and states are sensitive to iden-
tity matters and therefore take advantage of dialogues as rich social settings to seek, gain
and anchor the recognition of their identity.
The socio-psychological approach adopted here proposes a full appreciation of dia-
logues’ human and emotional dimensions, especially in the way micro-practices anchor
the institutional identity of international organisations, such as the European Union (EU).
Drawing on Goffman (1959), we conceptualise the practice of dialogue as a symbolically
framed interaction through which institutional identity is recognised and anchored.
Participants fulfil a symbolic function as carriers of institutional identity seeking recogni-
tion on behalf of their institutions. This explains why institutions are keen in participating
in these dialogues and in turning each event within the dialogue into a success story to be
amplified through not only official documents, but also through social media. While the
literature focuses on formal and informal modes of recognition at the macro-level (Fabry,
2010; Gustafsson, 2016a; Newman and Visoka, 2018), we suggest recognition processes
occur also at the micro-level in everyday diplomatic practice. This study therefore broad-
ens the universe of instances in which recognition is sought, granted and routinised.
Given the global backlash against liberal assertiveness (Alter and Zürn, 2020) and recog-
nition struggles coming from both West and semi-periphery (Adler-Nissen and Zarakol,
2021), this research is particularly timely.
To illustrate how dialogues are used to seek recognition of institutional identity, we
focus on the EU as it has set up an entire ‘dialogue system’ (Monar, 1997: 272), becom-
ing one of the international actors conducting the highest number of diplomatic dia-
logues. We examine the transatlantic dialogue, featuring an intensity of consultations
unprecedented in the history of diplomacy writ large (Ginsberg, 2001). Specifically, we
look at the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD), which is among the most thriving
dialogues institutionalised between the EU and the United States. Methodologically,
the article relies on ethnographic methods, including participant observations in confi-
dential meetings and interviews with European and American lawmakers participating
in these dialogues, to collect data about the socio-psychological dynamics underpinning
these interactions. Beyond the description of the dialogue’s formalities, it offers a novel
and textured analysis of the practitioners’ perspectives to understand what they do and
how they understand what they do – thereby, shedding light on the relevance of the
To continue reading
Request your trial