Abstract
In this introductory chapter, I introduce the interactionist perspective on deviance in sociology, which I later use to build my conceptual framework. I review the existing IR attempts to employ interactionist theorizing in the field of international politics and provide a summary of my theoretical argument, drawing both on the interactionist perspective and the IR literature on norm contestation and dynamics. In turn, I introduce the notion of the “nonproliferation game,” an empirical setting of my case studies. I also elaborate in detail on my research strategy in this book and discuss the scholarly contribution of my book, as well as limits and caveats of my approach. Finally, I provide a brief outline of each individual chapter and the overall plan of the book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For the full statement and the rules of the competition, see the Disobedience Award FAQ at M.I.T. Media Lab website: https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/disobedience-award-faq/.
- 2.
The text of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is available at the United Nations Web site: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text.
- 3.
While the main focus of sociology as a discipline has been on the deviant behavior, the deviance also encompasses norm-violating attitudes (beliefs) and conditions (Adler and Adler 2014, p. 13). For a discussion over competing definitions of deviance in sociology, see Clinard and Meier (2011, pp. 6–9).
- 4.
The use of the concept of norm in the study of international politics has not been unproblematic, and many scholars highlighted various terminological and conceptual issues connected with the application of this concept in IR. See, for example, Goertz and Diehl (1992), Raymond (1997), Crawford (2004, p. 40), or Björkdahl (2010).
- 5.
A revised version of this and the next section was published in my recent article in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (Smetana and Onderco 2018).
- 6.
Some of the most influential achievements in this area of research are, for example, Edwin Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory explaining how individuals learn deviant behavior (cf. Matsueda 1988), Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) control theory that focuses on the social bonds and the (lack of) self-control; Robert Merton’s (1938) work on anomie and opportunity structures; or Ronald Akers’ (1977) social learning approach.
- 7.
Some authors promote the inclusion of positive deviance, as a distinct type of highly valued, yet rare behaviors, traits, and conditions (such as “genius” or “hero”) that signal exceptional over-conformity with shared norms. See, for example, Heckert and Heckert (2002). For a critique, see Dotter (2004, p. 88).
- 8.
In response to the post-Cold War securitization of the rogue state phenomenon, many IR scholars and policy experts have also actively engaged in the debates over the causes of and possible responses to the norm-breaking behavior of “international outlaws” such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, or Libya (see, for example, Klare 1996; Tanter 1998; Litwak 2000; Smith 2006; Lennon and Eiss 2004; Rotberg 2007). For a review of different perspectives on “rogues”, see Herring (2000).
- 9.
Some scholars (e.g., Kustermans 2014; Onderco 2014a) observed the similarities between the interactionist process of labeling and the use of speech act theory in IR, particularly in the securitization theories frequently used by the students of international security studies. Indeed, the securitization theory (Buzan et al. 1998; Williams 2003; Balzacq 2005; McDonald 2008) is concerned about intersubjective constructions of social categories by “labelling” certain subjects “security threats”, in a way that does not seem to be far from labeling practices in interactionist theorizing. However, as I also discuss in Chapter 2, the interactionist literature provides a much more dynamic and interactive conception of the construction of social phenomena, by granting much more meaningful agency to social audiences and well as to actors that are subject to labeling practices.
- 10.
In critical constructivist and poststructuralist accounts, however, the “other” is often treated as a passive entity without agency, with “self” independently (re)constructing its own identity through representational practices involving the image of the “other”. In symbolic interactionism, the “other” is actively involved in the process of identity negotiation, opposing, contesting, and subverting definitions imposed by the “self”. See also Connolly (2002), Rumelili (2007, pp. 30–31), and Adler-Nissen (2016).
- 11.
On the importance of studying processes of world politics in IR, see Crawford (2004, p. 2) and Lebow (2008, p. 59).
- 12.
The (meta-)theory behind this approach is discussed in further detail in Chapter 3.
- 13.
Most of the data I used in this project is publically available for download in pdf format at the Web site of United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt) and the Reaching Critical Will project (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora). I also made a research stay at the UN Library in Geneva in November 2016 to study relevant archival materials that are not available online. Furthermore, I conducted numerous interviews at the 2015 NPT Review Conference that helped me to get a closer look at the dynamics of negotiation among the NPT parties (see Smetana 2016).
- 14.
For a debate over the state of contemporary nuclear scholarship, see Sagan et al. (2014).
- 15.
See, for example, Sagan (1996), Ogilvie-White (1996), Solingen (2007), Hymans (2006a), Monteiro and Debs (2014), Jasper (2013), Potter and Mukhatzhanova (2010), Müller and Schmidt (2010), Jo and Gartzke (2007), or Kroenig (2010). For a review of the state of the art, see Sagan (2011) and Hymans (2006b).
- 16.
See, for example, Sagan and Waltz (2012), Waltz (1981, 2012), Mearsheimer (1990, 1993), Feaver (1993, 1995, 1997), Lavoy (1995), Knopf (2002), Karl (2011), Kroenig (2015), Cohen (2016), and Smetana et al. (2017).
- 17.
See, for example, Müller et al. (2013), Tannenwald (2013), Rublee (2009), Lantis (2011, 2015), or Kienzle (2014).
- 18.
See, for example, Fuhrmann and Berejikian (2012), Acton (2009a, b), Goldschmidt (2009), Ogilvie-White (2010, 2007), or Huntley (2006).
- 19.
For notable exceptions, see, for example, Wunderlich et al. (2013) or Wunderlich (2014, 2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smetana, M. (2020). Nuclear Deviance: An Introduction. In: Nuclear Deviance. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24225-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24225-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24224-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24225-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)