Jepperson, et. al.: Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security

Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, and Peter J. Katzenstein. Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security. in Peter Katzenstein (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in International Politics

“First, we argue that the security environments in which states are embedded are in important part cultural and institutional, rather than just material.” “Second, we argue that cultural environments affect not only the incentives for different kinds of state behavior but also the basic character of states-what we call state ‘identity’” (31).

They also argue that there are three different levels to international society. More specifically, “…three layers to the international cultural environments in which national security policies are made” (34). These are formal institutions/security regimes like NATO, or arms regimes like SALT, world political culture comprising international norms like sovereignty, etc., and lastly, “…international patterns of amity and enmity…” (34).

The identity of states is formed through these security regimes, “…as opposed to just the behavior of states” (34).

They do not claim to put forth a theory, but rather an “orientating framework that highlights a set of effects and mechanisms that have been neglected in mainstream security studies” (36).

They deploy a 2x2 box that highlights the distinction between the degree to that the environment shapes the identity of units (the x axis) and the degree to that the environment is culturally/institutionally dense. Marxism and sociological perspectives involve hi9gh degrees of unit/environment relations while realism and neoliberalism involve low degrees of unit relations with the environment (i.e., there is clearly a more material focus). Sociological and Neoliberal perspectives involve high cultural density and Marxist and Realist perspectives involve lower cultural/institutional densities (38).

The authors caution readers not to misread a focus on material forces to be solely about conflict and a focus on ideational forces to be solely about cooperation.

There is then a discussion of how this 2x2 grid can be applied to domestic policies.

The causal diagram that is presented on page 53 represents the effects of environmental structure on the construction of identity, interests and policies, and how these effects are then mostly over-determined. The first cause is that of the effects of norms: “cultural or institutional elements of states’ environment…shape the national security interests or the security policies of states” (52). Secondly, “cultural or institutional elements of states’ global or domestic environment…shape state identity” (52). Thirdly, “variation in state identity, or changes in state identity, affect the national security interests or policies of states” (52). Fourthly, “configurations of state identity affect interstate normative structures, such as regimes or security communities” (52). Finally, “state policies both reproduce and reconstruct cultural and institutional structure” (53).