Taking the pressure: Unpacking the relation between norms, social hierarchies, and social pressures on states
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066116682070 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Bahar Rumelili,Ann E. Towns |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116682070
European Journal of
International Relations
2017, Vol. 23(4) 756 –779
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066116682070
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Taking the pressure: Unpacking
the relation between norms,
social hierarchies, and social
pressures on states
Ann E. Towns
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Bahar Rumelili
Koc University, Turkey
Abstract
This article advances a hierarchy-centered approach to the study of international social
pressure on states. Prior scholarship has centered on the exposure of a gap between
word and deed as key for social pressure. We argue that the scholarship on social
pressure would benefit from paying more attention to the centrality of social hierarchies
in the dynamics and effects of social pressure on states. It is through comparative
assessments — the normative ordering of states as superior and inferior and placement
in a social hierarchy — that social pressure is exerted and states are prodded into
action. States positioned at the top or in the middle of normative hierarchies may be
subjected to different social pressure than states positioned at the bottom. Developing
this claim, we contend that normative hierarchies come in several forms. Reflecting on
the dynamics of these normative hierarchies is important in and of itself, in our view,
as it provides a deeper understanding of how norms generate shame, embarrassment,
or status anxiety. That said, understanding normative hierarchies also gives us added
purchase on explaining how states manage the social pressure of being ranked.
Keywords
Absolute norms, homogenizing/heterogenizing norms, international hierarchy, norms,
relative norms, status
Corresponding author:
Ann E. Towns, Goteborgs Universitet, Box 711, Goteborg, 405 30, Sweden.
Email: ann.towns@gu.se
682070EJT0010.1177/1354066116682070European Journal of International RelationsTowns and Rumelili
research-article2017
Article
Towns and Rumelili 757
Introduction
International life is rife with social pressures on states. A myriad of norms set standards
of behavior for states, ranging from gender-equality expectations to sovereign credit
standards and norms of conduct in conflict. Norms are garnered to exert social pressure
in transnational advocacy campaigns that “name and shame” underperformers and norm
violators (e.g. Busby and Greenhill, 2015; Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Friman, 2015;
Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Price, 1998). Intergovernmental organizations, non-govern-
mental organizations, private actors, and some states also increasingly use performance
indicators and rankings as a lever of social pressure to promote change in countries’
performance or institutions (e.g. Cooley and Snyder, 2015; Kelley and Simmons, 2015).
There are now hundreds of such indicators, most of which were created after 1990
(Cooley, 2015).
States manage these pressures in various ways. States may recognize and give in to
normative pressure, they may design strategies to give the appearance of norm abidance
while minimizing costly or disruptive change, they may try to modify the norms them-
selves in order to improve their performance, they may reject the legitimacy and viability
of the norms altogether and propose alternative standards, or they may simply ignore the
standard (e.g. Cooley, 2015). States may even turn social stigma into a point of pride,
turning norm transgression into a virtue (Adler-Nissen, 2014). Furthermore, state adapta-
tions to norms may come in stages or sequences, combining some of the responses listed
earlier over time (e.g. Keck and Sikkink, 1998: 26; Risse et al., 1999). Indeed, a broad
research agenda on international normative pressure has developed to describe state
responses and to explain the variation in how states react to social pressure and shame.
In this article, we take a step back to ask a more fundamental question: what, more
specifically, is it about social pressure as such that may prompt states to modify their
behavior? What generates shame and embarrassment? An interest in exploring this ques-
tion is something that should unite scholars across theoretical divides as social pressure
has developed into a major and broad research agenda in International Relations (IR). A
common point of departure in existing literature on social pressure is that public expo-
sure of a gap between international normative standards and deeds renders the targeted
state as a transgressor or underperformer, which produces embarrassment, shame, or
status anxiety (e.g. Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Shame can
also be generated by public attention to hypocrisy: a gap between stated commitments
and actual behavior (e.g. Busby and Greenhill, 2015; Finnemore, 2009; Friman, 2015).
In either case, shame and anxiety are understood to be produced through attention to and
mobilization around these discrepancies between word and deed.
In this article, we argue that prior scholarship has paid insufficient attention to the
central role of social hierarchies in producing social pressure. States do not simply
respond to the exposure of a gap between a norm or commitment and actual deeds —
they react to being compared as inferior or superior to other states by means of norms.
Thus, we argue that the placement of states in a social hierarchy is a key dynamic in
social pressure and in the generation of shame. As we will show later, prior literature on
social pressure has tended to handle comparative normative judgments in two ways. A
number of scholars observe the importance of international status in passing, alluding to
To continue reading
Request your trial