Abstract
AbstractIn this article, I argue that much of the discourse observable within the UN constitutes neither unnecessary and unproductive ‘talk’ nor efforts to convince outside audiences of its legitimacy, but actually a form of institutional self-legitimation that is key to its ability to function. Using the case of the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), I show that because the organisation has a multifaceted organisational identity, it faces situations where it is forced to choose between multiple but equally appropriate courses of action, and it uses self-legitimation alongside other mechanisms to overcome these tensions. I specify three sets of circumstances in which this occurs, showing how DPKO uses discourse that simplifies and exceptionalises in a bid to reconcile or downplay these contradictions and reassert a cohesive and legitimate organisational identity internally. This simplification and exceptionalisation in turn serve an enabling function, allowing DPKO to continue operating in conditions of complexity by decreasing risk aversion and instilling a deep sense of professional loyalty in staff. At the same time, such discursive processes are costly and may entrench inefficient practices, rendering the effects of self-legitimising discourse paradoxical: they may enable action, but they reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of that action.
Highlights
The UN is frequently derided for being an unwieldy and ineffective bureaucracy
In the case of UN peacekeeping, some of these discursive practices may be externally visible, but they are aimed at an internal audience, sometimes exclusively, in a bid to reassure staff that they are acting in accordance with particular socially embedded norms and values that are appropriate to their organisational identity
Actors in the international system engage in exogenous legitimation aimed at convincing those subject to their authority of their legitimacy, and endogenous legitimation aimed at convincing themselves of their own legitimacy
Summary
The UN is frequently derided for being an unwieldy and ineffective bureaucracy. Some of this criticism relates to the tendency of member states to engage in lengthy negotiations and debates, but some derives from what appear to be laborious internal discussions and seemingly unproductive discursive activities within the Secretariat. In the case of UN peacekeeping, some of these discursive practices may be externally visible, but they are aimed at an internal audience, sometimes exclusively, in a bid to reassure staff that they are acting in accordance with particular socially embedded norms and values that are appropriate to their organisational identity.28 This self-legitimising discourse achieves these aims through simplification and exceptionalisation. While these references mostly refer to external complexity – that is, a characteristic of the operational context in which peacekeeping occurs – it applies to complexity that derives from within an organisation – in this case from the multiple and conflicting operational, normative, and institutional obligations entailed by the different sides of DPKO’s identity Simplifying discourse in this regard enables staff to view their identity as cohesive and unitary rather than fragmented and incoherent, and to maintain a sense of their own legitimacy in the face of difficult choices. I describe how this discourse fills both an enabling function, allowing DPKO staff to function in spite of the trade-offs they face, but how it simultaneously reduces effectiveness and efficiency, reversing some of the positive effects of self-legitimation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
