Cultural Interventions

  • K. M. Fierke


Chapter 5 explored the distinction between a pluralist and a solidarist approach to questions of military intervention. That discussion posed the problem of who should intervene and to what end. The distinction also relates to contrasting assumptions about the possibility of community. In the communitarian view, the world is made up of many distinct cultures, each with its own language, moral system, and social structure. The inherent diversity of the international system, or communities within it, means it is impossible to define the “right” or “good” life in universal terms. A cultural and moral life are only possible within the state. Another more cosmopolitan perspective emphasizes the possibility of universal laws. In addition to being members of national and local communities, we also belong to a human community, which is the basis for defining a common global life.1


Cultural Intervention Sovereign State Ethnic Conflict Divided Society Adversarial Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    On the debate between communitarian and cosmopolitan positions, see: Chris Brown, “Cosmopolitan and Communitarian International Relations Theory,” International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1992), pp. 21–106; Molly Cohrane, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach, chapters 1 and 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Charles Bietz, “Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment,” Journal of Philosophy, 80 (1983), 591–600; Molly Cochrane, “Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism, in a Post-Cold War World,” in J. Macmillan and A. Linklater, eds, Boundaries in Questions: New Directions in International Relations (London: Pinter, 1995), pp. 40–53; D. Morice, “The Liberal-Communitarian Debate in Contemporary Political Philosophy and its Significance for International Relations,” Review of International Studies, 26 (2000), 233–51; C. F. Delaney, ed., The Liberalism-Communitarianism Debate (Boston, MA: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994); E. Frazer, The Problems of Communitarian Politics: Unity and Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); and D. Rasmussen, ed., Universalism vs. Communitarianism: Continuing Debates in Ethics (Boston, MA: MIT Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richard Shapcott, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valerie M. Hudson, “Culture and Foreign Policy: Developing a Research Agenda,” Culture and Foreign Policy (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1997), p. 2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For a discussion of thick and thin culture, see: Michael Walzer, Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The phrase has been attributed to the English diplomat, Henry Wotton (1568–1639).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    John Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 121–2.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (London: Methuen, 1982).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For a discussion of threats as promises, see: K. M. Fierke and Michael Nicholson, “Divided by a Common Language: Formal and Constructivist Approaches to Games,” Global Society (2000).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herbert Butterfield, “The New Diplomacy and Historical Diplomacy,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds, Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of lnternational Politics (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966), pp. 187–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Butterfield, “The New Diplomacy and Historical Diplomacy,” p. 189.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See, in particular: Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Andrew Linklater, “Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State,” European Journal of lnternational Relations, 2, 1 (1996), 86.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    Richard Ashley and R. B. J. Walker, “Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies,” International Studies Quarterly, 34 (1990), 391.Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    This argument is made by David Campbell in particular. See: David Campbell, “The Deterritorialisation of Responsibility: Levinas, Derrida and Ethics after the End of Philosophy,” Alternatives 19 (1994), 455–85; David Campbell, National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    For an analysis of this question, see: K. M. Fierke, “Logics of Dialogue and Force: The Iraq/UNSCOM Crisis as Social Interaction,” European Journal of International Relations, 6, 3 (2000), 335–71.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    Philip M. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), p. 15.Google Scholar
  17. 25.
    Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf (London: Pimlico, [1948] 1992).Google Scholar
  18. 28.
    Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983).Google Scholar
  19. 29.
    On nationalism and culture, see: Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983); and E. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    Alternatively, some have argued that bombardment with media images of mass suffering can either lead to compassion fatigue or to trivialization as it comes to be viewed as an unreal form of entertainment or voyeurism. See, for instance: Susan Moeller, Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sells Disease, Famine, War and Death (London: Routledge, 1999).Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    See: Mitchell Stevens, ed., Covering Catastrophe: How Broadcast Journals Covered September 11 (New York: Bonus Books, 2002).Google Scholar
  22. 32.
    For further reading on the role of the media in conflict areas, see: Larry Minear et al., The New Media: Civil War and Humanitarian Action (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996); Robert I. Rothberg et al., From Massacres to Genocide: The Media, Public Policy and Humanitarian Crises (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 1996); Susan Carruthers, The Media at War: Communication and Conflict in the 20th Century (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1999); Bradley Greenberg, ed., Communication and Terrorism: Public and Media Responses to 9/11 (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002); Danny Schechter, Media Wars: News at a Time of Terror (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003); Moeller, Compassion Fatigue; Tim Allen and Jean Seaton, eds, The Media in Conflict (London: Zed Books, 1999); Philip M. Taylor, War and Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998); and David D. Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy: Icons of Outrage in International Crises (New York: Praeger, 1998).Google Scholar
  23. 33.
    The Croat government was actually the first to hire a public relations firm, the Ruuder Finn, to portray the conflict. Aleksandar Pavkovic, “Wars for Independence, 1991–1995,” The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia: Nationalism and the War in the Balkans, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan, 2000), p. 147. See also: Spyros A. Sofos, “Culture, Media and the Politics of Disintegration and Ethnic Division in Former Yugoslavia,” in Allen and Seaton, The Media in Conflict, chapter 8.Google Scholar
  24. 34.
    Tim Judah, Kosovo: War and Revenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), p. 57.Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    Misha Glenny, The Fall of Yugoslavia (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), p. 44; Misha Glenny, The Balkans, 1804–1999: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers (London: Granta Books, 1999), p. 629.Google Scholar
  26. 36.
    Howard Clark, Civil Resistance in Kosovo (London: Pluto Press, 2000), p. 18.Google Scholar
  27. 37.
    Julie Mertus, How Myths and Truths Started a War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), p. 8.Google Scholar
  28. 43.
    See: Terrell Northrup, “The Dynamics of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict,” in Louis Kriesberg, Terrell Northrup, and Stuart Thorson, Intractable Conflicts and their Transformation (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1989). See also: Herbert C. Kelman, “Social-Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict,” in I. William Zartman and J. Lewis Rasmussen, eds, Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques (Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 1997), pp. 191–238.Google Scholar
  29. 44.
    Ball notes that ideological indoctrination and propaganda, with its corollary concept of distancing, are central to any explanation of genocide. He points to phrasing for victims in different contexts of genocide, for example, as undesirable parasites (Bosnia), dog food (Turkey), a creature not of this world with horns and tails (Rwanda-Hutu Power), less valuable than a pig because a pig is edible ( Japan). Howard Ball, Prosecuting War Crimes and Genocide: The Twentieth Century Experience (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, 1999), p. 220.Google Scholar
  30. 45.
    See: Yuen Fhong Kong, Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  31. 46.
    Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton, Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    Edward Albee, Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (New York: Penguin, 1962).Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar
  34. 49.
    See: Fred Dallmayr and T. A. McCarthy, eds, Understanding and Social Inquiry (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), p. 116; and Hannah Pitkin, Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  35. 51.
    For a discussion of the Adversarial model, see: Jay Rothman, From Confrontation to Cooperation: Resolving Ethnic and Regional Conflict (London: Sage, 1992).Google Scholar
  36. 52.
    For a discussion of the significance of asymmetry, see: Kumar Rupesinghe, Civil Wars, Civil Peace: An Introduction to Conflict Resolution (London: Pluto, 1998); and William Zartman, Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil War (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 1995).Google Scholar
  37. 53.
    John Burton, Conflict Resolution: Its Language and Process (Scarecrow, 1996); Jay Rothman, From Conflict to Cooperation: Resolving Ethnic and Regional Conflict (Boulder, CO: Sage, 1992).Google Scholar
  38. 54.
    Raymond Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World (Washington, DC: US Institute for Peace, 1997).Google Scholar
  39. 55.
    Richard Holbrooke, To End a War (New York: The Modern Library, 1998).Google Scholar
  40. 59.
    The concept of ripeness was developed by Zartman. See: I. William Zartman, Ripe for Resolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985/1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© K. M. Fierke 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Fierke
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Politics and International StudiesQueen’s UniversityBelfastIreland

Personalised recommendations