Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond National Policymaking: Conceptions of Myth in Interpretive Policy Analysis and Their Value for IR

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Myth and Narrative in International Politics

Abstract

The ‘interpretive turn’ in policy analysis highlights how language and discourse shape our knowledge of the social world and influence policymaking. In challenging the traditional assumption that problems are part of a pre-given neutral reality to which policymaking responds, authors have started to pay attention to argumentation and persuasion and to elements such as narratives and myths that structure discourse. With the umbrella term interpretive policy analysis uniting interpretive-hermeneutic and poststructuralist approaches, advocates of this kind of research have been very prolific in developing conceptions of myths. As policymaking need not be restricted by national boundaries, this chapter takes stock of the contribution of interpretive policy analysis to the study of myth and how this could be compatible with questions in International Relations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term constructionism is used widely in the sociology of social problems. Synonymously, one could talk of social constructivism.

  2. 2.

    The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning is the title of a collected volume by Fischer and Forester (1993) that introduced post-positivism in policy analysis. Argumentative policy analysis serves as an umbrella term for some authors, while others use the term interpretive policy analysis synonymously. This is also reflected in the name of their international conferences—IPA.

  3. 3.

    Personalised myths are not always ‘heroic’ in the positive sense, however, as the example of the warlord myth shows; cf. Goetze (Chap. 7) on warlords and states. Dany and Freistein (Chap. 12) argue that heroic deeds can also be attributed to collectives such as civil society organisations in global governance.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Bliesemann de Guevara (Chap. 2) on the myths of ‘1648’ (the Peace of Westphalia) and ‘1919’ (the birth of the IR discipline).

  5. 5.

    Cf. Kühn (Chap. 8) on Afghanistan as ‘graveyard of empires’.

  6. 6.

    Yanow (1992) develops the notion of ‘verboten goal’ leaning on Harold Garfinkel’s ‘publicly unmentionable goal’.

  7. 7.

    On the methodical challenges of studying myths, cf. Müller (Chap. 6).

  8. 8.

    Kössler (2014) demonstrates how development as a concept is itself a myth.

Bibliography

  • Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. and extended ed.). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C. L. (2015). The turn to problematization: Political implications of contrasting interpretive and poststructural adaptations. Open Journal of Political Science, 2015(5), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbehön, M., Münch, S., & Lamping, W. (2015). Problem definition and agenda-setting in critical perspective. In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, M. Orsini, & A. Durnova (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, M. (2014). Migration und Mythen. Annäherungen. In M. Beer (Ed.), Migration und Mythen. Geschichte und Gegenwart—Lokal und Global (pp. 7–12). Ulm: Süddeutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Ulm im Jan Thorbecke Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglieri, P., & Perelló, G. (2011). The names of the real in Laclau’s theory: Antagonism, dislocation, and heterogeneity. Filozofski Vestnik, 32(2), 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosso, C. J. (1994). The contextual base of problem definition. In D. A. Rochefort & R. W. Cobb (Eds.), The politics of problem definition. Shaping the policy agenda (pp. 182–203). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colebatch, H. K. (2005). Policy analysis, policy practice and political science. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (2007). Gender myths and feminist fables: The struggle for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change, 38(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Sala, V. (2010). Political myth, mythology and the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 213–232). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dye, T. (1976). Policy analysis. What governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elter, A., & Köhler, A. (2015). Kollektiverzählungen und mythische Narrative in Politikerreden: Angela Merkel und Peer Steinbrück im Wahlkampf 2013. In K.-R. Korte (Ed.), Die Bundestagswahl 2013. Analysen der Wahl-, Parteien-, Kommunikations- und Regierungsforschung (pp. 387–406). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in post positivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.). (2012a). The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012b). Introduction. The argumentative turn revisited. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 1–27). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gadinger, F., Jarzebski, S., & Yildiz, T. (2014). Politische Narrative. Konturen einer politikwissenschaftlichen Erzähltheorie. In F. Gadinger, S. Jarzebski, & T. Yildiz (Eds.), Politische Narrative. Konzepte—Analysen—Forschungspraxis (pp. 3–38). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J., Howarth, D, Norval, A., & Speed, E. (2009). Discourse analysis: Varieties and methods: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review paper. NCRM/014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J., Klimecki, R., & Willmott, H. (2012). Cooling out the marks. Journal of Cultural Economy, 5(3), 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis, H. (2006). Argumentative policy analysis. In B. Guy Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 461–479). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 237–250). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenemeyer, A. (2003). Einleitung—Soziologie sozialer Probleme als Mehrebenenanalyse: Ein pragmatischer Vorschlag zur Weiterentwicklung des Konstruktivismus. In A. Groenemyer (Ed.), Soziale Probleme, Gesundheit und Sozialpolitik. Materialien und Forschungsberichte (pp. 3–15). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronau, J., & Nonhoff, M. (2011, October 6–7). Von Schurken und Schlampern: Metaphorische Verdichtungen von Erzählungen internationaler Finanzkrisen. Unpublished paper prepared for the 3rd Open Session, International Relations Section of the German Political Science Association, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view. Policy Sciences, 19(4), 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, S. L. (2009). Policy debates on reprogenetics: The problematisation of new research in Great Britain and Germany. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, J. (1995). Implicit theories in policy discourse: An inquiry into the interpretations of reality in German technology policy. Policy Sciences, 28(2), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D., & Griggs, S. (2012). Poststructuralist policy analysis. Discourse, hegemony, and critical explanation. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 305–342). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and political analysis. In D. R. Howarth, A. J. Norval, & Y. Stavrakakis (Eds.), Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change (pp. 1–37). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy. Policy cycles & policy subsystems (3rd ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülsse, R. (2006). Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra-nationalist identity. Journal of International Relations and Development, 2006(9), 396–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1989). Spielarten des Konstruktivismus: Einige Notizen und Anmerkungen. Soziale Welt, 40(1–2), 86–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kössler, R. (2014). Entwicklung—zur Genealogie einer toten Metapher und den Folgen. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 48(special issue), 435–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langewiesche, D. (2014). Geschichtsmythen. Entstehung, Funktion, Wirkung. In M. Beer (Ed.), Migration und Mythen. Geschichte und Gegenwart—Lokal und global (pp. 13–26). Ulm: Süddeutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Ulm im Jan Thorbecke Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenschow, A., & Sprungk, C. (2010). The myth of a green Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 133–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepperhoff, J. (2006). Soziale Sicherheit in Deutschland und Frankreich—eine vergleichende Analyse der aktuellen Sozialstaatsdebatte. In B. Kerchner & S. Schneider (Eds.), Foucault: Diskursanalyse der Politik (pp. 251–268). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Loseke, D. R. (2003). Thinking about social problems: An introduction to constructionist perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, C. (2014). Interpreting international politics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, G. (2000). Metaphor, morality and myth: A critical discourse analysis of public housing policy in Queensland. Critical Social Policy, 20(3), 349–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, J. V., & Wildavsky, A. B. (Eds.). (1979). The policy cycle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, M. D. (2000). Domestic policy narratives and international relations theory: Chinese ecological agriculture as a case study. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neustadt, R. E., & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time. The use of history for decision makers. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schram, S. F. (1993). Postmodern policy analysis: Discourse and identity in welfare policy. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segesten, A. D. (2011). Myth, identity, and conflict: A comparative analysis of Romanian and Serbian textbooks. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shantz, J. (2000). A post-sorelian theory of social movement unity: Social myth reconfigured in the work of Laclau and Mouffe. Dialectical Anthropology, 25(1), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (2006 [1977]). Constructing social problems (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics. Identity, policy and governance (pp. 1–31). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Viehöver, W. (2004). Die Wissenschaft und die Wiederverzauberung des sublunaren Raumes. Der Klimadiskurs im Licht der narrativen Diskursanalyse. In R. Keller, A. Hierseland, W. Schneider, & W. Viehöver (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse (pp. 233–269). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–33). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrana, D., Ziem, A., Reisigl, M., Nonhoff, M., & Angermüller, J. (2014). DiskursNetz. Wörterbuch der interdisziplinären Diskursforschung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (1992). Silences in public policy discourse: Organizational and policy myths. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), 399–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (1995). Practices of policy interpretation. Policy Sciences, 28(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of Democracy, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    Sybille Münch

Authors
  1. Sybille Münch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sybille Münch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aberystwyth University , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom

    Berit Bliesemann de Guevara

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Münch, S. (2016). Beyond National Policymaking: Conceptions of Myth in Interpretive Policy Analysis and Their Value for IR. In: Bliesemann de Guevara, B. (eds) Myth and Narrative in International Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53752-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation