Stephan Engelkamp

Office Hours: How (Critical) Norm Research Can Regain Its Voice

Abstract Social Science research cannot be neutral. It always involves, so the argument of this article, the (re)production of social reality and thus has to be conceived as political practice. From this perspective, the present article looks into constructivist norm research. In the first part, we argue that constructivist norm research is political insofar as it tends to reproduce Western values that strengthen specific hegemonic discursive structures. However, this particular political position is hardly reflected on in norm research. Hence, it is our goal in the second part of the article to outline research strategies potentially useful in reflective and critical norm research. We propose a critical research program based upon three central methodological steps that are inspired by post-structuralism: first, the questioning of global hegemonic values; second, the reconstruction of marginalized knowledge; and third, the explicit reflection of one’s own research perspective.

Writing Norms Constructivist Norm Research and the Politics of Ambiguity

The language used by norm research exercises a form of epistemological violence that seeks to minimize normative ambiguity, hence foreclosing alternative ways of reading and writing about norms. Taking a seminal text of constructivist literature on norms as an example, this article examines how this research has been dominated by a specific “norm language.” To uncover the power of this language, we examine the normalizing effects and implications of a particularly influential work in norm research literature. Inspired by the work of Jacques Derrida, we inquire into the presuppositions of “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change” by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. A double reading of the text traces how it relies on logocentric dichotomies that need to be sustained by discursive moves of deferral, closure, and forgetting. We provide an alternative reading of some of the stories in the text that work to destabilize its underlying logics. Finally, we offer a perspective on “writing norms” calling for a culture of tolerance and an ethics of “hospitality” that celebrate normative ambiguity as a source for dialogue.

Memento Reloaded: Constructivism vs. Historical Materialism

Memento ist der Film, der ruckwarts lauft. Dies ist die zentrale Assoziation mit dem Film Memento und es gibt zahlreiche Interpretationen zu dem Film – auch in der Wissenschaft. Scheinbar erlaubt der Film durch seinen komplexen Aufbau einen sehr individuellen Zugang zu unterschiedlichen Gegenwartsproblemen. Vor dem Hintergrund einer (neo-)marxistischen Analyse wird zunachst eine weit verbreitete Lesart des Films diskutiert, um sie durch eine alternative Interpretation von Memento zu kontrastieren. Hier knupft das zweite Argument des Beitrags an und fragt aus einer konstruktivistischen Sicht nach der Moglichkeit des ‚richtigen‘ und ‚falschen‘ Verstehens eines Films. Somit wird der Beitrag mit zwei unterschiedlichen Betrachtungsweisen aus der kritischen IB-Theorie an Memento herantreten.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Abstract In their response to our article »Office Hours«, Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann issue three major points of critique towards our proposal of a critical approach to norm research: They criticize, firstly, our discussion of constructivist norm research, secondly, our use of the concepts of local and Western and, thirdly, the overall critical potential of our proposed approach, which they criticize as going merely beyond an unmasking gesture. We take our response to our critics, firstly, as an opportunity to clarify some of the arguments made in our article. Secondly, we confront the points of criticism outlined above and show that Deitelhoff’s and Zimmermann’s critique can only be maintained if one accepts their specific reading of our article. Moreover, it gets tangled up in three major contradictions and is built upon a problematic understanding of the relation between empirical facticity and normative evaluation.