Twelfth Global Studies Conference

Abstract

One persistent problem in the study of international relations (IR) is that mainstream theories fail to explain ambiguous patterns in the foreign policy dispositions of liberal democracies. This study posits that a “realist-constructivist” approach can better explain the ambiguous pattern whereby the preeminent Western power tends neither to adhere consistently to a liberal foreign policy course nor to blatantly transgress its professed liberalism in its foreign relations. Mainstream IR approaches cannot explain such ambiguousness because they do not explore the practical implications of the basic constructivist postulate that interests and identities are co-constitutional. The frequency with which a Western power will subtly deviate from its professed liberalism can be largely explained by one side of co-constitution, in which the state’s interests influence cultural discourses in such a way that its casual deviations are not readily apparent to the society. However, the state is reluctant to transgress its professed liberalism in particularly obvious ways because the interests of cultural elites in maintaining some semblance of objectivity pose the risk of an identity-centered backlash against blatant deviations from the state’s professed principles. In seeking to illustrate the contributions of a realist-constructivist approach, I analyze how state interests and cultural identities interacted in shaping U.S. cultural discourses about Mexico and U.S. policy toward Mexico in the early post-Cold War era.