Revisiting state personhood and world politics: identity, personality and the IR subject

Abstract

The questions of whether states are persons, and whether they have emotions or other psychological traits, are old but ever relevant in International Relations (IR). The debate has attracted renewed interest in recent years, due to the increase in scholarship drawing on insights from psychology and psychoanalysis. Revisiting state personhood and world politics starts with the observation that states’ foreign policies are frequently described as ‘schizophrenic’ and questions what can be gained from treating states as full psychological persons. To this end, Bianca Naude offers an alternative way to approach the state-as-person debate: the author mobilizes the notion of ‘personality’, defined as an ‘ensemble of emotions, desires, beliefs, values, behaviors … that characterize a person's interactions with the outside environment’ (p. 10). Drawing on Heinz Kohut's elaboration of Sigmund Freud's theory of narcissism, Naude argues that narcissism is a normal aspect of psychological health, which creates aspirational self-images and thus the foundation for self-esteem. By relating to others, state persons develop a personality and identities that generate behavioural expectations. When they cannot live up to these expectations, states use ego defences to protect themselves and regain self-esteem. Consequently, ‘seemingly incomprehensible state behaviors are, in reality, reactions to the everyday stresses of life’ (p. 170). To illustrate this argument, Naude provides an in-depth analysis of two instances where South Africa seemingly acted ‘schizophrenically’: during its vote in favour of the United Nations Security Council resolution supporting military intervention in Libya (2011), and during its decision not to execute an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (2015).