Taking Identity and Our Critics Seriously
In: Cooperation and conflict: journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, Volume 35, Issue 3, p. 321-329
ISSN: 0010-8367
Emanuel Alder & Michael Barnett respond to the comments & criticism of their edited volume, Security Communities (1998). Hakan Wiberg (2000) noted that Alder & Barnett's explanation of how security communities are formed does not appear to explain the establishment of such a community in Scandinavia. The authors respond that this is due in part to the timing: their analysis focuses on the post-WWII period while a security community in Scandinavia arose in 1905 if not earlier. Nevertheless, they welcome the questions concerning the importance of language, religion, & culture, as well as concerning the significance of a "core of strength" that the Scandinavian case poses. Janice Bially Mattern (2000) called for greater attention to the relationship between identity & the development of security communities, as well as for a reconsideration of the role of power. The authors agree with the general conclusions of these arguments. However, they note that it does not necessarily follow that they should endorse Mattern's discursive approach as the only way to ascertain reality. The authors heartily disagree with Morten Boas's (2000) analysis of their work. They counter Boas's assertion that security communities serve only the needs of ruling elites by pointing out that even Marxists have argued that peace often benefits the masses. They disagree with Boas's characterizations of their arguments concerning their explanations of causation & their theoretical approach, particularly the idea that their arguments are simply a variation of democratic peace theory. Finally, they note that Boas's use of West Africa as a case study is of little use because they never claimed that West Africa should be thought of as a security community. K. A. Larsen