Theorizing state stigmatization: A comparative perspective on South Africa and Israel
| Author | Michal Hatuel-Radoshitzky,Amal Jamal |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211028976 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211028976
International Relations
2022, Vol. 36(2) 214 –236
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178211028976
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Theorizing state
stigmatization: A comparative
perspective on South Africa
and Israel
Michal Hatuel-Radoshitzky
and Amal Jamal
Tel Aviv University
Abstract
This article deals with state stigmas in the international arena, and addresses the question: why
do state-stigmas develop and become sustained in some cases, whereas in other cases they
wither away? For parsimonious, analytical purposes we view the process of state stigmatisation
through two, interrelated stages: the stigma’s development – where transnational civil society
activists and the engagement of mainstream international media play an important role; and the
stigma's sustenance where these elements are joined by the target state’s coping strategy. For
theoretical consistency, we limit ourselves to exploring states that are (a) involved in conflicts
and (b) aspiring to be part of the Western-led ‘club’ of states. Through the analysis of press
articles and UN documents relating to two vastly different case studies: South Africa (1985–
1994) and Israel (2000–2019), we demonstrate that states in conflictual situations have limited
manoeuvring space in dealing with their developing stigmas; and that the choice of tools utilized
in the implementation of the same coping strategy can lead to different results.
Keywords
civil society, English school, Israel, soft power, South Africa, state stigma
Introduction
Since Erving Goffman’s definition of a stigma as referring to an ‘attribute that is deeply
discrediting’ and that reduces the bearer ‘from a whole and usual person to a tainted,
discounted one’,1 stigma-related research has remained primarily in the domain of psy-
chology and sociology and has been geared towards understanding how people construct
Corresponding author:
Michal Hatuel-Radoshitzky, Tel Aviv University, 14 Scheinfein Str. Kfar Saba, 4465227 Israel.
Email: mich.rado@gmail.com
1028976IRE0010.1177/00471178211028976International RelationsHatuel-Radoshitzky and Jamal
research-article2021
Article
Hatuel-Radoshitzky and Jamal 215
categories and link them to stereotyped beliefs.2 More recently, however, stigmatisation
has attracted interest from scholars in the fields of political science and international rela-
tions (IR) with research primarily focusing on how state stigmas impact norm diffusion
and the cohesion of the international order, and how stigmatised states cope with their
international status.3
To flesh out the phenomenon at hand, we propose that a state-stigma amplifies nega-
tive characteristics of the state, reducing it from a legitimate player to a discounted one,
and that this is a gradual, accumulative process, conducted with the strategic aim of
delegitimizing the state’s existence and leading to its submission to fundamental policy
change. As such, the full imposition of a state-stigma forces a crucial transformation of
how the target state is internationally perceived, ultimately translating into its isolation
by prominent powers in the Western-led international society. The onset of such a situa-
tion, can be expected to shape the target state’s identity and subsequent behaviour.
Nevertheless, we do not view stigmatisation as a binary (stigmatised/not-stigmatised)
situation. Rather, we propose that state-stigmatizing is a non-linear, non-deterministic
process in which states can become stigmatised to differing extents and adopt varying
approaches to address this challenge. As such, we ask: why do state-stigmas become
developed and sustained in some cases, whereas in other cases they wither away?
In this article we limit ourselves to exploring states that are (a) involved in conflicts and
(b) aspire to be part of the Western-led ‘club’ of states – traditionally led by the United
States and the European Union. While the second decade of the twentieth century, particu-
larly its latter half, is characterized by an increasingly multipolar world (governed by the
United States, Europe, Russia and China); a polarized Europe, and the weakening of United
States relations with traditional allies – the desire of states across the world to be affiliated
with the club of liberal, democratic, modern and progressive states is still very much a
feature of world politics. Assuming that complying with norms of the dominant world
order is central to states’ ability to thrive – it follows that states having both abovemen-
tioned characteristics are susceptible to stigmatisation processes which seek to expel them
from the desired ‘club’, or alternatively force them to reform their policies so that their
affiliation to the desired ‘club’ remains unharmed.
The focus on conflict, of course does not exclude the formation of state stigmatiza-
tion processes in other contexts too. Nevertheless, conflictual settings, particularly
asymmetrical ones, intensify the competition between rivalling parties over legitimacy
and recognition in the international arena.4 Conflict may thus be viewed as an impor-
tant contextual factor that contributes to the motivation of rivalling parties to engage
in state stigmatizing processes. Seeing as the aspiration to belong to the Western-led
‘club’ of states does not only entail formal recognition, but also popular approval – the
struggle over legitimacy and the ability of conflicting parties to stigmatize their oppo-
nents, as well as successfully deal with their own stigmas, contribute towards their
ability to thrive on the world stage. Hence, conflict and its framing by the conflicting
sides become important factors in determining the development and sustenance of
state stigmas. Furthermore, while conflictual settings provide unique leverage to the
militarily weaker side to stigmatize the militarily stronger state as a means to balance
the hard-power asymmetry, this practice can certainly be part of a comprehensive
To continue reading
Request your trial