J. LAPID e F. KRATOCHWIL - The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory

Prévia do material em texto

��	��	������
�
������	� ���� ��	������
�� �����	����
�"�&����( 	�"$���&�'�$(
��(
�"��( 	���&��$(
�( ����( ����� �( ��!��#(���%�!(
The Return of 
Culture and Identity 
in IR Theory 
--- () ---
edited by 
Yosef Lapid 
Friedrich Kratochwil 
R!ENNER 
PUBLISHERS ; 
BOULDER 
LONDON 
L–`|mŽkfežlž kfž Slfež P[fŽž ƒgž5f‡mc[žl‚ž%44/ž `ž
Gfž Onff‡ž L–`{lŽkfˆŽ�ž ?c�ž
%2#$ž*#kžP‰ff�ž 6ƒ–{ef‰�ž 8ƒ{ƒ‰[eƒž2$+#&ž
[ež lž•fž Slfež Eljeƒ€ž `ž
HfžOlff‰žL–a{lŽkf‰Ž�ž ?b�ž
+ž >f‰of[ž P‰ff	ž 8ƒ˜fž =[ˆef
ž Hƒeƒž V8):ž2HTž
()%33/ž ažGfž Olff‡ž L–`{lŽkf‡Ž�ž ?c"ž5{{ž ‡ojk‘Žž‡fŽf‰šfež
������')��)������!)��"�����������
&�����#���)��#�)
Rkfž ‰f–Œžƒgžc–{’–‰fž [ežleflž lž ?Ož kfƒ‰ž 	) felfež až
XƒŽfgž G[„pe�ž ;‰pfe‡pckž F[ƒck›q{!ž
�c‰lmc\{ž …f‡Ž…fcl™fŽžƒ‚ž ›ƒ‡{ež „ƒ{l’lcŽ�ž
@c{–efŽž `l`{lƒj‰[„krc[{ž ‰fhf‡fcfŽž [ežsefœ�ž
?P7Jž '�...20�.))�Wž �\{y�ž „[…f‰�ž
��) ?f[lƒ\{ž ‹{\lƒŽ�Mkl{ƒŽƒ„k�ž )�ž ?fŒ[lƒ\~ž
‰f{[“tƒ‚Žž[ež c–|–‰f�ž +�ž :kocp�ž 
�)H]…le
ž YƒŽfg �ž
@B�ž E‰[ƒck›l{�ž <‰lfe‡lckž��) ??C�ž Pf‡lfŽ�ž
DWA+4.�O,),ž %34.ž
+)1�%�#%�d)$ž 4.�4#+*ž
���$� �)��#����%���) ��)
&�����#���)��#�)
5ž8\[{ƒj–ojžož L–`}pc[oƒž ‰fcƒ‰ež iƒ‰žkuŽž`ƒƒzž
sŽž[™[x{\`{fžg‰ƒž‘kfž 6‰lsŽkžGl`ˆ[‰�ž
L‰lfež[ež `ƒ–ežlžkfž UlfežP[fŽž ƒgž5€f‰lc\ž
9?Lž
Qkfž „[„f‰ž –Žfež lž klž „—`{lc[lƒž ffŽž kfž ‰f†–l‡ffŽž
ƒgž kfž5f‡pc_ž K\vƒ[{ž P[e[‡ež gƒ‡ž LfŠ€[fcfžƒhž
L[…f‡ž gƒ‰ž N‰l”fežHw`‡\‡žI[f‰l^Žž Z*3"-2�(32, ž
.ž ,ž *ž )ž %ž
��	������	
���������
�� "& �& ��" ��$�#���&
\;W\H&�Re �*,G�e
�&W]HBUe B$e�&G Q]H&Re -Be �BY&MB V.EB 8e�&8 V.EBRe�*&EIce
�4>�#	�5'�J �&
�& �*&e� RWe Re�J&8\$&e XEe W*&e �\V]H'�e
�$'BY/Y.&Se B$e�Ed 8V.&Re ,Ce�8F" 9e �E<4W0#Re
��.�J��
��7$C>43J�&�'�%�7�J	�
��3>���%J ��
�� "& �& 
$�"% ���&��������!��&
�& �$'CW0Wce B$e �ZH]#V\J 8e
+ B)&e ,Be �BY'N Y1EB 8e�E92Y3#Re
�.�G�3��8J � 3�@J ��
�
 �BEa1B)e
D#E]BV'HR�e
	&cEB$e� HE#+. =,R@e 4Be �BW&O Y4EB 9e�&:![.EBRe�*&EHce
�!�2J /3�H�@C0��%J�&��E*�J
�J �.�3�IJ 
�&
	& �\8V^H.B)e �BW&P Y.FB 8e�'8 Y,EBRe�*&EHc�e
�e
 >?e (FKe
bW&BR5EBe
�D,�@�J�&�-=���9A(J��>)�J �	&
& �'_6T,W.B)e Y*&e �� Y6EB 8��e
�Ea H$e Be �%'BW.Zce�)&B$ e 7Be�'EL& 8.UA�e
�4? #J��6*�J�& �:+"�;*�&J�<�B4�%F*1J ��	&
`53e
I+//M �
���	
��
��#%)�) ��()��#�����$)���)��#$"��%�'�$)
�� 
><H8"M �#%9F,FK�M ��FH?%�M �6�!%�M �;"M �=�!%M -9M��F,<9�3/B7M
��)��'F��=�)�DF ���)
�) �"%9F/FKM /8M �;F%?9�F/<9�4M �%5�F.<9CM�)%<AK�M
�%7/9/CFM�%?D=%!F,J%DM
��)�**F
 �%)�0F ���)
�� �/<5%9FM�%?&<?7�9!%E�M �$%9F/FK�M �<I%?%/(9FK�M �%D=<9D/ 23/FKM
��@ �F�
(/��''F �
	)
���) �/G/L%:D*0=�M �9MF*%M
<>"%>M<'M�@"%>M
�1!��2"��F�3�8+��A$'F ���)
��#%)�� � ���&$�!�)
��� �CM F*%M�*,=M<&M�H6FH?%M �FM �%�M<>M�%FHA819(	M
�1���4!��F	1�9,��B#'F
� �'!-�5
/�EF
���F�,*:1!�>;-67F
�)��CF
��,?<F ;��F�.-&F
���)
��
)
���)
���)
��	)
��
����������
��
�$�#$���!& �����&
��#$��!& ���& �����#$��"& ��&
��#����#�����& ����#���!& 	����%&
� ��&����
&
������	��" �
��"
��" ������!" ���
" ���" ���" ��	"���	"��" ���
" ���"��" �� 
����!" ��"
���" ������"
��� #
2#'--'.0,*2%+&2���$1(&)'/2 �����"����2
�Š\…Šw7ž *m3ž M48n†K†–ž +x7ž …*AKmAž *ž 3y*h*†M1ž 1si8.*1Zž Lož s1M+\ž †E7sz–ž *p3ž
tw*1†M17ž*†ž †E7ž8p4žs:ž †F7ž …‘7p…K7†Ež17p…Šy˜�ž %E7ž †y7m3žF+žps†ž u+75ž Šmmsš
…K173ž .–ž sj7ž 1sp17€73ž *m…Ewsts]sBM‰ž ’Esž G*Ž7ž hs73ž …sž �y71*t…‹{7�ž
†E7Myž 1\*K1*]ž …s1[�Km
†y*37ž �Mht7yM*cR™83ž /–ž s†E7wž 3K1Mt\Mm7�ž ��s”�ž
���
�2
���2 'E7ž No†7y3M1Ot^Kq*z–ž 1sn…7†ž ;swž ‡H7‚8ž 1so17t†ž Kž Mož :Œ\\ž ‘MmA
ž
Fs’77y�ž +p3ž …F7žv*|†M1Kt+m†ž79hžA7mŠMp7\–ž1spŽKm173ž †F+…ž †E7ž ‡*Z7ž +w7ž
:+yž <zshž p7A\TAL/_7ž ��y7h7y
ž ������2
�mžM7‘žs:ž ‡H7ž:*1…ž…E*†ž1Š\†Šy9ž*p3žK37o…M†–žE*Ž7ž ;*K^73ž †sž ;MAŠy8žuyshK›
p7m‡\–ž Pmž Mo…9wm+†Psp*\ž w8\*†Msp�ž hsƒ†ž y717p†ž �37.+…7�ž � Y\\7ppKŠh	ž
���� �����2 M…ž Kž sh7’E*†žŠytyMMmBž †sž =Mo3ž �#ž 1Fs^*yž *hspAž †E7ž EKBF\–ž
Mp†7y8†73žt*y†M7ž Kqž †I7ž sŠ…1sh8ž s:ž †F7ž */s7ž1sm…ys7}—�ž��‘QpCž s:ž …E7ž
t7p3Š`‹kž †s‘*y6ž 1Š]†Šy7ž *p3ž R37m…M…–ž R
ž Es‘8Ž8x
ž †yM[KpA\–ž 7S37o‡ž Kmž
ts†��s_3ž (+yž �#ž …F7syP™MpA�ž &E7ž …y8p3ž 1Š†ž *1ysž >*kM]M*yž 3M1Mt\Mp*y–ž
3MKKspž *m3ž Kp1\37ž .sˆFžh*Ko†y7*hž sy…Gs3s”R7ž +o3ž o7’\–ž 8†+.dPF83ž
1yM†K1+\žŽsM19ž��RmZ\*†7y
ž ����2��ž!seM†K1*\žy7*^K†�‘Js
žŠm37yž†E7žMit+1…žs:ž
†E7Kyž )+^†™M+ož hsŽ7ž †sž m7sy7*\Ohž E*7ž E*zJ\–ž j+xAMp+bQ™73ž 1‹_…Šy7ž *r3ž
M37n…K†–�*y7ž 1+Š…KsŠ]–ž t*y†,ZKoAž Mmž …FKž †y7m3ž �79�ž �E*t�ž �� Kpž †EMž Žs^œ
‹h7��fž $TiMg*w^–
ž :s]]s“MmAž *ž t7zMs3ž s=ž Es†Mb7ž Kp3K::7z7o17ž †sž �K37*†Ksm*]ž
7”t^+m*†Pso�ž…E7ž…Kh7ž<syž�K37*�ž77hž…sžE*7ž1sh7ž*xsŠp3žsm17ž+A+KmžLrž
�o†7yp+…Msm*^ž "s\K…M1+\ž �1spsh–ž ��*2s.7p�ž ����!�����2�p3ž :sy7MAož us^M1—ž
+o*e–†
ž ’FsžF*Ž7ž 077ož asnDž 1sp†7o†ž …sž †y7*†ž 1Š\†Šw7ž *ž �*mž 8”u\-m*†Usqžs?ž
\*†žy7sz†	�ž88hžns’ž37†7yhMm73ž �…sžhs7ž:sy‘+y3ž Vpž †E7ž…Š3–žs@ž1‹b‰Šy
*_ž7::71†ž Mmž :sw7KAmžts\K1–�ž ��Š3so�ž ����!��	2
(L…Fž ‰F7Wyž v~Rl7ž Mp‰7y7†ž Kpž 7•tb+MoMpAž ‡F7ž �s1X*\M†–�ž s?ž „…+†9	ž \K.8y*bž
+m3žp8s\M/7y*\ž*tts*1E7žE*Ž7ž.71sh7žOp1x7+MoB_–ž*…‰8n†MŽ8ž†sž †E7ž1sp…M�
�2
�* ��
�	�����
��
ÇÑÇxÕ_é ±­_é ­cé WґÇѱ_é P£\é y\_£ÇyÈÜé |¤é Ø­²\é PdePz±ºé �3P®­±Pº­�é �!!�'* OPWq_±é
P£\é CPÊÇq_Ø�é �!"���*Kqyºé Ç_£\_£WÝé }ºé Ø_“é WQ®ÇÒ±_\é SÝé ±_W_£Çé P¯®z£nºé ­eé
9Hé \z¾W}¯z¤P±Üé DZ_¤\º"ºÒWqé Pºé 0‘_±	ºé �qҝP£yºÇyW�é ��"!��* P¥\é @_o’_Ý
ºé
�¥`­y]_P‘z»É�é 
é�!"��*�ž­ž_£Çº�#P£^é}Çéz£Ö­‘Ö_¼é5Ò±­®_P£éPºéØ_‘‘éP¾éE­±Çqé
0_±}WP£é P®¯±­QWq_ºé �8ѱ_••�é ��!"���* 6y£P‘‘Ü�é Øq_±_P½é ­ºÇé žPz£ºÇ±_Pé
°_±º®_WÇzÕ_ºé qPÕ_é ­£“Üé ±_W_£Ç‘Ýé P¥\é ±_ÑWÊP£ÇÞé S_oÒ¦é Ç­é PW£­Ø”_]o_é Çr_é
¾{o£}f…WP£W_é ­fé WҔÇÒ±_é P¤\é z\_¤Ç}ÇÝ�é ±_m_WÇyÕ|¿Ç.W­£ÀDZÑWÇ|éՅ¼Ç.¯­ºÇ®­Áyá
ÇzÖy»Ç.¯­ºÇ­\_·¤}ÂË.®­ÃǺDZÒWÇÒ±P‘zºÇé P§\é g_Ÿ~£ºÇé WrP‘‘_£n_±ºé rP×_é \_±yÕ_\é
 ÑWqé­eéÇq_y±é_¦_±oÜéf±­ éPéºÑÃÇPz£_\éy£Ç_±_ºÇéy¤é¯±_W|»_•ÜéÇq_º_éfPXÇ­±º'éLq_é
Ä_¤º_é ­fé Ré ]__¯_¦}¤né ±_­±€_£ÇPÇy­£é Ç­ØP±\é WѐÇѱ_é P£\é …\_£ÇyÇÜé ÇqÑÀé nP~£ºé
 Q¾ºÕ_éºÒ¯¯­±ÇéQ¿éØ_éÇѱ£é­Ò³éPÇÇ_¤Ç‚­£éÇ­é Çs_éW±ƒÇ„WPé P±oy£ºé­féÇq_:Hé^zºâ
Wz®‘y£_é 
4P±TÞéP£^é GP­‘y£z�é �!!�#�����*
F¤_é £__\é ¥­Çé Õ_¤ÇѲ_é eQ²é }¤é ¼_P±Wqé ­fé ¯‘Pѽ}T_é _Ú®•P¤PÇy­£ºé c­±é Çqy¼é
W±­º»$®P±P\ynžPÇzWéºÑ±o_é­féy£Ç_´_ºÇéy¥éWҒÇѱ_éP£\éy\_£ÌyÇÝé}¦é Çq_;Hé^­ P}¤(é
KØ­é Ã_ÇÁé ­fé \±PPÍyWé DZP¤º}ǀ­£º"&£_é y£é Çq_é ±_P é ­fé Çr_é n“­TP‘é ÅzÇÒPÇy­£�é
Çq_é ­Çq_±é }¤é Íq_é ±_Pžé­eé 9Hé ºWq­‘P±¾qz¯"tPÕ_é …£Ç_±PWÇ_\é Ç­é_k_WÇé Çu}ºéØ_‘ã
W­ _é DZ_£\)é JÇP±Çy¤né ØzÇqé Çq_é e­±ž_±�é Çq_é n­SQ‘é _±Ò¯Çz­¤é ­fé º_®P±PÇ~ºÇé
£PDž­£Pzºžé ¼_Çéy£é­Ç†­£é SÝé Çq_é PS±Ò°Çé_¦]y¥né­fé Çq_é3­\éNP±étPºé^z±_WǖÞé
P£\é z¤_¾WP®PSÜé e­±W_\é Çq_é <Hé ¼Wq­P±‘Üé W­¡Ñ¨‡ÇÝé Ï­é µ_Çvz£é Çq_é Çq_­±aÇ|ä
WPéºÇPÇÒºé­eéWѓÇÒ±_éP£]é}^_£Ç…ÇÜéy¤éØ­±]éPlP|±Æ*/éF¤éPé”P²n_±éºWP•_�é r­Ø_×å
_±�éÇv_é 9Hé\zºWy®z£_éº__¡¾éÇ­éS_é±_º®­¥\z£oéP‘º­éÇ­éPéS±­P^_±é°_±W_®Çy­£éÇqPÇé
�Pé£_Ø�é ¿­Ÿ_q­Ø鯱­f­Ò£\•Ýén”­SPß_^�é _±Pé zÂéS_z£néS­±£�é �2Ó_‘�é �!!�$���*
1±nÑPS’Ü�é PÇé Pé ­ž_¤Çé­fé \__¯é _®­WqP—é ÇÒ¸Sґ_£W_é 
H­º_£PÑ�é �!!�(�*Ùw_©é
Çq_én­TP‘é­±\_±éº__ ¼éÇ­éT_éDZP£ºf­±ž…¦néyǺ_œeéWҔÇÒ±P‘‘Üé_Ö_¤égPÃÎ_±éÇqP£é …Çé
}ºé WqP¤o}£né o_­¯­‘yÇyWP’Üé ­±é _W­¥­…WP‘‘Ý�é }Çé ˆºé ¥_}Çq_±é ºÒ³®±yº|¤pé ¤­±é
}°±­¯_±é ÇqQÇé Çq_é =Hé ^yºWy®‘y¥_é ºq­Ò”\é ºy z‘P±Ýé ²_W­¥e|nÒ±_é ‰Çºé Çq`­±_ÇyWP‘é
P¤\éb ¯z±zWP”énPß_+é
8­Ø_Õ_±�é zªéP¤\é­eé Çq_º_‘Ö_¾�é ±_P“}ÇÞ%UPº_\é _Ú®˜PªPÇy­¥½é ]­é ¤­Çé­df_±é
Pé fґ‘é PWW­Ò£Çé d­±é Çq_é ±yºz£oé Wb£Î±P‘yÇÝé ­fé YԏÇÒ±_é P£]éy]_¥ÇyÇÜé y£é W­£Ç_¥\}¥né
���\yºZ­Ò±¾_º,é Lq_éǶ_«\éÇ­ØP±\é_Ú°P£\y£oé ™_Ö_‘ºé­eé_Çq¤}WéW­£e‘zWÇéØPº�ée­±é
†¤¼ÇP¤Y_�é º­‘y\‘Üé_ºÇPS}Ãq_\éTÜé Çq_é ’PÇ_é �!��)* �7Ò²±�é �"!�$*���	*MtPÇé yÇé Ç­­é
Çs_é=Ié®±­f_¾º„­£éÇØ­écёé\_WP\_¿éÇ­é±_W­n¤yß_éÇqƒºéDZ_¤]ésPºé’yÇǔ_éÇ­é\­é؃Çré
Çq_é±_P•zÇÜ�é P£^éÒWté Ç­é^­éØ}ÇtéØqPÇéØ_£Çé­£éPÇé Çq_é Dž_é Š£é Çq_é 9Hé ºWq­šP±ä
‘Ýé ]­ŸP„£é 
D­Ý£„qP£�é �!"��
�* N_é  ÑºÇé Çq_±_e­±_é ºÑ®¯_Ÿ_£Çé ­Ò±é ±_PyÇÜæ
SPº_\é_Û®‘P¤PÇy­¬é؋ÇqéPéz£_é­fé±_P¾­£z¤néÇqPÇé¯Pܺ鯱­¯_±éPÇÇ_¥Çy­¤é Ç­é;Hé�¾é
º‘­Ø‘Ýé WqP£nz£né º­W…P“é »W…_¤Ç…h…[é º_£ºzS|’}Çy_¼-é
>¦éP\\zdž­¤é έéžP±z£né Çq_é_¥\é­féÇq_é3­•\éNP±éP£\éÇq_é®­ÁºzS_é DZP¤Á…ç
Ç}­£éÇ­éPé¥_Øé_¯­Wué­ién­VR•}àPÇz­¤�é±_W_¤ÇéÜ_P±ºéqPÖ_éP‘º­éØyÇ£_¿º_\éPéTÒ±ºÇé
­héW±yDžWP‘éºW²ÒÇy¤Ý鋣éÇq_?Hé]}ºW~°“}£_é
AP®y\�é �! !�
*N}Çq­ÒÇéS±y¤ny£né\­¡á
y£P£Éé ­²Ðq­\­Ú…_ºé Ç­é Çq_y²é Ž¤__¾�é PéÒ‘ÇyÇÒ\_é­eé®Q±ÇyP”ÜéW­£Õ_±n_£ÇéW±zDžWPé
WuP“_¤n_¼é qPºé £­¦_Çq_›_ÃÂé }£ÃÇÇÒÇ_\é n±_PÇ_±é y¥Ç_‘‘_WÇÑP‘é P£^é º­W­‘­nyWPé
m_ÛySy”zÇÜé }£é <Ié ÄWq­‘P±Áqz¯é 
JŒ­“P¤\b±éQ¤\é3­Ú é �!!�%���*Kq_é±_Çѹé­jéWҏè
Çѱ_é P£]é …\_¤Ç}ÇÜé }¼�é …¥é Üé Õy_Ø�é ®P±Çé P¤\é¯P±W_’é ­fé Çqzºé �ž­¢_£Çé ­eé ±­SÒ¾Çé
z¤Ç_”–_WÇÑP”é­°_¤¤_ºº�é }¥é Ïq_é;Hé^­Py£é �BPÇrP!é �!!�&���*
�(�%)�	�".!���. ��
7V^ Ï ¸Žv²€GϺdxxÏ G¾‘w˜GÏ º<Â Ï ^ˆÏ ºV^AVÏ <‰Ï H‰š_BVGEÏ ²ˆEG™ §<ˆE^ˆSÏ ŽKÏ
§WGÏ AŽ‰AG‘§¦Ï ŽKÏ A²w§²šGÏ =‰EÏ `EG‰§e§ÂÏ €=ÂÏ Bˆ§™^?³§GÏ §ŽÏ <Ï ?Gª§GšÏ BŽ€‘˜GVH‰Í
 ^ŽˆÏ ŽKÏ BŽˆ§H€‘š<˜ÂÏ Tw?=xÏ Eˆ=€mB $Ï 8VHÏ ²‰EG˜xÃ^‰UÏ š<ªeŽˆ=yHÏ  ²TSG § Ï
§V<¨Ï §VGÏ ša e‰SÏ BG‰§š<w^©ÂÏ ŽKÏ §XHÏ §»ŽÏ §Gš€¦Ï ²‰EHšÏ BŽˆ¦eEG˜<§b‰Ï cSY§Ï <x Ï
Â^GxFÏ<ϑšLŽ²ˆExÂϚG¸^§=xdÄGEÏ ��. ªYHŽšH§eB=wÏH‰§Hš‘š^ G$Ï 9ŽÏ M²™§VGšÏGw³BoE<§HÏ
§X` Ïš<§eŽˆ=zG�ϧVGÏG‰¦²eˆSÏ<Š<{ e Ï’šŽBGGE¡Ï^ˆÏ§VGÏKŽwv»^‰SÏ G–³GˆAG!Ï-^™ ª�Ï
�. e§²=§GϧVGÏ�™G§²™ˆ�ώKÏB²|§²˜GÏ<‰EÏ^EGˆ§e§ÂÏeˆÏ§VHÏAŽ‰§G¿§ÏŽKϚGAH‰§Ï�€Ž¸H �Ï
fˆÏ /4Ï §VHŽšaÅd‰S"Ï 6GAŽ‰E�Ï �. ŽKNH›Ï §H™€eˆŽwŽS^B=xÏ Bx<šeKeB<§e‰ Ï AŽ‹BG›Še‰SÏ
™HBH‰§Ï‘=š<EgS€<§eBϧš<ˆ K™<§`Ž‰ Ïa‹Ï™GBGe¸GEψŽªeŽˆ¦ÏŽLÏB²x§²šGÏ<ˆEÏ ^EG‰È
§^§Â#Ï 3H¿§�Ï �.H¿‘xeB<§HϧVGÏ §VGŽšH§eB<xÏS™º§VϦ§˜=§GSÂÏ §V=§Ï^‰KŽš€ Ï§WHϑ<˜«hBÉ
²|<˜Ï A´§Ï iˆ§ŽÏ §VHÏ €<§Hšd<wÏ <EŽ“§HEÏ ?ÂÏ §Yi Ï BŽvwGA§eŽˆ$Ï .aˆ=xwÂ�Ï $. HÀ’v<d‰Ï §VGÏ
šS<ˆ^Æ<§eŽ‰ÏŽKÏ«ZHϸŽx²€HÏ=ˆEÏ šGx=§GÏG<AVÏBŽˆ§š^?µ§eŽˆÏ §ŽÏ §VGÏ?šŽ<EG˜ÏBŽˆÊ
©GÁ§Ï ŽNÏ �¬YGÏ »YŽxH%�Ï 0ªÏ ?H<š¦Ï ‚G‰§eŽ‰_‰U�ÏYŽ¼H¸Gš�Ï §Z<§Ï e‰Ï EH¸GwŽ”^‰SÏ §Ve Ï
™<§^Žˆ=|GÏ �. =€Ï “šH¢H‰§eˆSÏ “Gš Žˆ=xÏ ¸^Gº Ï §Y=§Ï =˜HÏ v<˜SGxÂ�Ï?²§Ï ?ÂψŽÏ€H<ˆ Ï
K²x~Ã�Ï  V<˜GEÏ@ÂÏ ­VHÏ AŽGF^§ŽšÏŽLÏ §W^ Ï ¸x²€G!Ï 7ŽÏ<Ï }G  GšÏG¿§Hˆ§�Ï §VGÏ ”™G‘=š<Ë
§Ž™Âώ¸G›¸^H»Ï‘šG H‰§GEÏ eˆÏªVe¦Ï ^ˆ§šŽE²A§e‰Ï^ Ï V=šGEÏ?ÃÏ =|yÏ §VHϑ<š§eAe‘=‰­¦Ï
^‰Ï§[e ÏrŽe‰§Ï’šŽsGBª$Ï
��.&
.��+
�.
�'*��#�.���. ��
&* �#�. ��.� .&
� �,���.
;VŽ GÏ ^ˆ­GšH §GEÏ e‰ÏˆH½ÏF^ B^•xeˆ<šÂÏE^šGBª^Žˆ¦Ï ^‰Ï §VG¦HϪ^€H ÏŽNÏ •Žxg§^Ì
A=xÏ <ˆEÏ j‰§HwwGB§³<vÏ ²ˆBH™§=e‰§ÂÏ A<‰ˆŽ§Ï ?Hϐ?w^¸_Ž² Ï ªŽÏ ªVGπ<ˆˆG˜Ï _‹ÏºV^AVÏ
<E¸ŽA=ªGEÏ §VGŽšGªeA=xÏ=E¸=‰AH Ï <šGϑšH Gˆ§GEÏ §ŽÏ §YHÏ 05Ï AYx=˜xÂÏ AŽ€€²‰`Ê
§Â"Ï �-. ™HBGˆ§ÏÂH=š£�Ï �€Ž¸^ˆT¦��Ï �ª²Ÿ^ˆS ��Ï <‰EÏ �‘Ž §^‰S �Ï V<¸HÏ?GG‹Ï’Ž•´Í
w<šÏ Ž‰Ï §VGÏ  §šH‰S§VÏ ŽKÏ §VGešÏ E‰<€^AÏ <ˆEÏ OŽš»=˜E�xŽŽt^‰SÏAŽˆˆ§<§^Žˆ $Ï +ÂÏ
AŽ€’<œm Ž‰�Ï �˜G§²šˆ �Ï ¤HG€Ï‘<  e¸GÏ<‰EÏ ˜^ uÏ §˜`SSHš^ˆUÏ ^€=SG¦ÏŽKϋŽ §<xSfBÏ
EH§²™¦ÏE™`¸G‰Ï?ÂψŽ§VkŒSÏ?G§§HšÏ§V<‰Ï� HwGB§d¸GÏ<€‰G e<�Ï � GHÏ1š=§ŽBV»awÏ^ˆÏ
§VGÏ ,V<‘"Ï �����)T<^‰ ®Ï §V^ Ï ?=AtSšŽ²ˆE�Ï c§Ï m Ï šG€<šu<@{GÏ ª\<§Ï ^ˆÏ §WHÏ  ²?§yHÏ
¦§™²SSwHÏ ŽKÏ §WGÏ ‘šGK^¾G �Ï §VGÏ �™G��Ï �<¦Ï l‰Ï ™G§V^‰teˆS�Ï šGAy<^€eˆS�Ï šHŽš^Gˆ§e‰S�Ï
˜H§²š‰^ˆS�Ï <‰EÏ ŽÏŽˆ�ÏV<£Ï }<§GwÂÏ?HGˆÏ BŽš^ˆSÏ ŽHÏj€’šG  `¹HϸeA§Ž™^H ÏŽ¸G™Ï
§VGÏ�“Ž¦§��Ï �< Ï^‰Ï‘Ž¥§‚EGšˆe €�ϑŽ § §™²B§²š<xm €�ϒŽ §AŽxŽˆ_<we¦ƒ�Ï<‰EÏ ŽÏ
Žˆ
&Ï :Yd Ï=’“<˜Hˆ§ÏBV=ˆSGώKÏKŽž§¶‰H Ïa �Ïa‰Ï€ÂϸiH¼�ϑ<˜§ÏKÏ=ϦH˜dŽ´ ÏšGBŽˆÎ
¦^EH˜<©mŽ‰Ï ŽPÏ §VHÏ �šH��Ï €€Hˆ§Ï ^‰Ï §VGÏ ¸GšÂÏ aEH=Ï NÏ  ŽA`=yÏ �šG� G=šBV#Ï 2Ž™HÏ
BŽ‰§Ž¸G™ d<xxÂ�Ï §Ve Ï ˜GB‰ eEHš<§nŽ‰Ï GÀ§GˆE Ï §ŽÏ §VGÏ ?=EwÂÏ €e ´‰EHš §ŽŽE�Ï
<‰EÏ ‰HHExH¦ ~ÂÏ €=x^S‰GE�Ï šŽxGÏ ŽKÏ „I¯>�<‰<xà` Ï �§V<§Ï e �Ï �¦GB‰EÏ Ž˜EG˜�Ï
`‹—²`˜Â�Ï o‰Ï<Ï»Jww�€=‰=UGEÏ Aa<~Ï  B`G‰§`K^BÏG‰§Gš‘˜e GÏ �¦GHÏ,V<’'Ï 
���
+HÏ §V<§Ï= Ï ^§Ï €=Â�Ï ½e§VÏ ˜G ‘GA§Ï §ŽÏ A·x§²šGÏ =ˆEÏ ^EHˆ°e§ÂÏ §VHšGÏ ^ Ï‰ŽÏ <x§H˜Ê
‰<§p¸GÏ §ŽÏ ² ^ˆUÏ=Ï �šG±³™‰	Ï §Â’HϏNÏ EH‘eC§eŽˆ$Ï .Ž˜�Ï a‰Ï §Hš ÏNώ²™ÏŽ˜S=ˆ^Ç^‰SÏ
€G§=‘VŽ™�Ï §Ve Ï ^ Ï BH<™{ÂωŽ§Ï §VHÏLeš¦§Ï §a€GÏ §X<ªÏ ª]HÏ V^‘ÏŽKÏ B²v§²šGÏ e¦ÏB…^ˆUÏ
^§ŽÏ /5
¢Ï §VGŽšH§fA<|Ï y^ˆGÏ ŽQÏ ¸e dŽ‰(Ï ) Ï eˆÏ Ž§VG›Ï  ŽDj=xÏ  BjG‰BG �Ï NšŽ†Ï §VGÏ
������ ­ŽÏ §VGÏ 	�
��� A²v§³˜HÏ ‘v=ÂGEÏ =Ï ‡H=‰qˆUK·xÏ ’=š§Ï q‰Ï ��. §VHŽšÂÏ <‰EÏ
˜H H<˜BXÏ �*{HÁ=‰EGšÏ=ˆEÏ 6€^§W�Ï���
���	���)‰EÏG¸G‰Ï e‰Ï §VGϓH™jŽEÏ §V<§Ï RŽ~ 
�� �� ��	$�!���&
|“ÂSP�Ð Â]SŠÐ ±^SÐ ¬]b•Ð “UÐ O»w±¼›SÐÂK«Ð U“šOSU¼ÈÐ SŕS||SPÐ LKOsÐ c‹±“Ð ²_SÐ “•S‹Ð
¬SK«�Ь“…SГUÐ d²¬Ð �OK›[“�Ð^K¬ÐO“‹²eŠ»SPв“Еš“«•S›�л‹‹“±eOSPÐLÈÐ_“«³d|SÐPb«Ë
Ob–xb‹K›ÈÐ ^SKP˜»KªSœ« Ð G]S›SÐ c«�Ð d‹Ð¬]“¤²�Ð |b³´|SÐ ±“Ð [Kb‹Ð K‹QÐ †¼O^Ð ±“Ð |“«SÐ LÈÐ
…e«²Ktc‹[Ð ²]SÐ ›S±»šŠÐ U“šÐ KÐ �›S¿“|¼µb“ŒK›ÈЇ“¿S�Ð d‹Ð<DЫO_“|Kš«^b•!Ð<‹Ð KPPfÍ
±b“‹Ð ±“Ð «Sµ±c‹[Ð ²]SÐ ^c¬²“›cOK|Ð šSO“›QÐ «±šKf[^³�Ð ´^SÐ �›S±¼¦�Ð cPSKÐ «Sš¿S«Ð K¬Ð KÐ
²d…SxÈÐ ›S…b‹PS›Ð ±]KµÐ SÀS‹Ð K¬Ð ±]SÐ «]d•Ð “VÐ O»‚²»›SÐ b­Ð K[Kb‹Ð Âb±]e‹Ð ›SKO]�Ð ²]SšSÐ
K›SÐ c†•“ž²K‹±Ð Pe¬Oq•|b‹K¢ÈÐ K¬¬S³¬Ð “‹Ð «^“SÐ ²]K±Ð PS¬SžÀSÐ ¶“Ð LSÐ ›SPb¬O“ÀS›SP�Ð
šSPSS…SP�Ð K‹PÐ œSb‹¶S[šK²SPÐb‹Ð ±]SÐ =EÐ ²]S“›S²fOK|ÐS‹²S©›d«S"Ð
5¼²Ð�bUЙ¼S¬µf“‹«Ð“UÐO»y²¼›SÐK‹PÐbPSŒ´c±ÈÐ^KÀSÐMSS‹ÐKzÂKȬЕKšµÐK‹PЕKšÌ
OS{ГUГ»›ÐK‹K|È«b«Ð“Uб]SЫ“OrK|Г›xP�Ð �¬SSÐC›Kµ“O]Âbx�Ð6]K•#Ð �����Ã]K²Ð›SKÍ
«“¬ÐP“Ð ÄSÐ]KÀS�Ð dWÐ K‹È�Ð ²“ÐNS|eSÀSд]K²ÐÂSÐ K›SÐWKOb‹[Ð]SžSÐKЗ“¶S‹µeK||ÈÐ •š“Í
P»O±e¿SÐ SŠO“¼‹²S›Ð ›K²^SšÐ ²]KŽÐ KÐ ›KŠP“ˆÐ …“ÁSÐ cŒÐ KÐ —S‹P»|»†Ð OÈO~SÐ “UÐ
«SS…b[xÈÐ S²S§K|Ð šS²¼›‹¬3Ð G“Ð KŽ¬ÂS›Ð ±]b¬Ð ˜»S¬²b“Ð ÂSÐ ‹“´SÐ ¶^K²�Ð eÐ
K—•š”KO]b‹[ÐKЋSÂЅSS±e‹[Ð •“d‹±�Ð Se²_SœÐO»x±»›SÐK‹PÐ gPS‹²cµÈÐ Ž“›Ð >Dд^S“œÈÐ
KšSÐ SOS¬¬K›b|ÈÐ µ^SÐ «K…S Ð 4‹Pб“Ð µ^SÐ SÆ´S‹±Ð ²]K²Ð b³Ð d«Ð RS«²f‹SPÐ ²“Ð …K±S¢eK|eÉSÐ
»‹PS›Ð «»L¬±K‹²hK|{ÈÐ ¶›K¬U“¥SPÐ O“‹Pf´f“‹«�Ð ´^SÐ ²]S“›S²bOKxÐ [š“µ^Ð —“²S‹±dK|Ð
S‹³Kf|SPÐc‹Ð ²^SÐ O»›¢S‹±Ð ›SŠPSÊ¿“¼¬Ð ‰KÈÐ ‹“±Ð NSÐ KOO¼ŸK±S|ÈÐ •›SVd[¼›SPÐ c‹Ð •›SÎ
¿b“½¬ÐSO“»‹²Sš«!Ð
�?‹Ð LS[eŠ‹b‹[Ð ›SUzSO´bÀSÐ ´]“¼[^²Ð KN“¼²Ð ²]SÐ ‹K²»›SÐ “UÐ µ]SР“›|P��Ð ¬KȬÐ
B“]Ð F]“³±S›�Ð �ÂSÐ]K¿SÐKÐO]“dOS0Ð Sb·]SšÐ³“Ð µ]e‹uГUÐe¶ÐK¬ÐLK¬SPÐd‹Ðe‹ÐÀKšbKŠOS¬Ð
�WeÇSPв]c‹[«�Ð K‹Pд“ж›SK²Ð O_K[SÐK«Ð •›“L|S†K±bO�Ð “ž�Ð ±“Ð º^b‹sГUÐb±ÐK¬Ð q‹Ð U€¼ÆÐ
K¬Ð O“‘¬e«²c‹[Ð e‹Ð KO±b¿dµbS¬�Ð K‹Pб“г£SKµÐ ±]SÐK¶²KbŒ…S‹±Ð“UÐ ®±KLcƒn´ÈÐK¬ÐKÐ •›“LÏ
|T…�Ð �(//,1.,�"Ð 9“œÐ ±“”Ð }“‹[Ð µ]S<EÐ ²]S“›S¸bOK{Ð S‹²S©›d¬SÐ ]K«Ð c[‹“›SQÐ ¸]e¬Ð
O`“dOS�Ð i‹¿S¬²e[Ð j²¬SzUÐ K|‰“¬±Ð SÅOx»¬b¿S|ÈÐ qŠÐ ¸aSÐ U“œ‰S›Ð –“¬¬eLb|b±È$Ð
;“ÂS¿S›�Ð K´Ð K‹Ð S–“O]K|Ð �»‹O±¾ SÐ ¿b¿kQ~ÈÐ PS¬O›bLSPÐ LÈÐ F±š“LSÐ GK|L“²Ð
�*//-2/�Ð K¬Ð �IS¬±—`KxdKÐ K‹PÐ HS›«Kq{{S«Ð œ»‹Ð K…¼Ov�	Ð >D�¬Ð SÅO|¼¬d¿SÐ LS±Ð “‹Ð
«³KLexd±ÈÐ K‹PÐ O“‹²d‹»e²ÈÐ …KÈÐ ›S˜»q›SÐ «Sšd“¼¬Ð ›Sµ^e‹sb‹[%Ð :“šÐ cUÐ ²]SÐ [K†SÐ “UÐ
lŠ²S›‹K²c“‹KxÐ •“|b±kO«Ð b«Ð Ž“µÐ ¬e†•|ÈÐ K‹Ð K¼²“…KµbOÐ œS•S±e¶c“’Ð “WÐ b‹^S›b±SPÐ
U“š…¬�K‹PÐ dW�Ð †“œS“¿S›�Ð ±aSÐ K±³Kb‹…S‹²Ð “UÐ ²^SÐ ¬¹KLd{b²ÈÐ “UÐ �W“›…«�Ð d¬Ð ³]SÐ
¿SœÈÐ ±]c‹[Ð ²]K´Ð ‡“¬µÐ šS˜»b›S¬Ð SŖxKŠK±q“‹Ð d‹Ð –¡S¯S±�PKÈÐc‹´S›‹K´c“‹K|Ð šSKÍ
±e“‹«�KÐ œSÀS›«K€Ð “UÐ ²^SÐ LS²Ð “š�Ð K²Ð |SK«²Ð KÐ P¼K�²šKOsÐ LS²²d‹\Ð «²›K±S[ÈÐ …KÈÐ
¬SS…Ð ¼š[S‹±|ÈÐ KP¿c«KL|SÐ �6“Å�Ð )//+�"Ð @‹Ð ±^SÐ U“xx“Âc‹[Ð «SO±b“‹�Ð @Ð ÂdxxÐ ›SyK²SÐ
±^b«Ð“›bS‹²bŠ[Ð d‹¬f[]±Ð ²“Г»›Ð O_K‹[d‹[Ð »‹PSœ«µKŠPb‹[Ð “UÐ O¼„¶»›SÐ K‹PÐ bPS‹±e²È&Ð
G^SЫSO²b“ŽÐ³^S›SKW³S›ÐÂd||ÐSűSŒPд_e¬ÐfPSKб“в^SМSKx†Ð“UÐADв]S“›bÉb[ÐKX³S›Ð
µ]SÐ 7“|PÐJK› Ð
����&�
&�
����������&���%�&
���
��"����&�#��#�
&���&��
����%&
F“Ð UK›�Ð O»|²¼œSÐ KŒPÐ hPS‹³m³ÈÐ ]K¿SÐ LSS‹Ð ±›SK±SPÐ K¬Ð dYÐ ±]Sb›Ð O“œSÐ …SK‹b‹[Ð
K‹PÐ šSzK±b“‹¬]n–Ð ÄSœSÐ ¬S|U�SÀdPS‹²Ð K‹PÐ Ž“‹•›“L|S…K²dO!Ð F»O^Ð b«Ð ^K›P|ÈÐ ²_SÐ
OK«S'Ð 8¿S‹Ð ²]“¬SÐ d…•šS¬¬SPÐ Âb²]Ð ²]SÐ ±]S“œS²bOK|Ð •›“…e¬SÐ “ZÐ ´]S«SÐ O“‹OS–²¬Ð
oŒÀK›bKM|ÈÐ ÂK¨Ð ²]K´Ð L“±^Ð KšSÐ �¬¼«•SO²
Ð p‹Ð °“…SÐ ›K±]SœÐ LK«bOÐ ¬S‹«SÐ
���
����	
	���
 ��
�.EE•šŽ‰½ 8‡?½ 1°^?tE–�½ ����������*8ˆ@tF–�½ 	����������2Ž½žW8ž½F³ŸF‰Ÿ�½ šŽF½
@FQŠdŸdŽ‡8u½ Lb‡F�ž¨Š_‡U½ ±dtu½ 9–`‡U½ Ž¥–½ 8–U¥‚G‡ž½ dŠžŽ½ šX8–F–½ LŽ=¥š�½
1Ž½ AFMaˆF?�½ XŽ°F­E”�½Ž¥–½ ž8šq½ bš½ ˆFdžXE•½žŽ½ ­E‰ž¥–F½ ?FEvµ½ dˆžŽ½ žYF½ =Ž‡º
>Ež¥8t½ Ž•8šš½ ŸX8ž½ >Ž‡ž^‰¥Eš½ žŽ½ :ŽU½ ?Ž°Š½ 9ŽžX½ žF•š½ ¦‡?E–½ >Ž‡š^?G–8ŸdŽ‰½
‰Ž–½ ŸŽ½ žŽŸ8xu¶½ šd?Fš F½ žWbš½ ‚Ž–8šš½ :·½ tEUcšw8ža‰U½ =tE8–t¶½ ?Ft_‚^žF?½ �ŽE–8º
ŸdŽ‡8t½ ?ELdŠbždŽŠš��½ (Ž•½ žXE½ –Ž:xF½ dš½ ‰Žž½ ¡WH½ 8:šFŠ=E�½ :¥Ÿ½ žYF½ Ž®F–š¥y·�½
ŽM½����������%' ��$���
�
' BEL^‰dždŽˆš�½ 3WF½ =X8|tE‡UF�½ dˆ½ ŽŸWE”½ ²Ž–@š�½ dš½‡ŽŸ½žŽ½
‘¥šX½ E‡E”UE¡_=8tu·½ žŽ½šŽI½ >Ž‰šE‰š§8z½ 9¨ž½8–:dž–8–·½–E?¦=ždŽ‡�½9¥ž½ žŽ½–FLF=»
Ÿ`­Eu¶½ 8¢>W½š¥aŸ89uE½?FL^ˆbžbŽŠ8{½8ššFžš½ ŸŽ½?H=t8”F?½¡YFŽ–GŸ^=8z½‚ešš`ŽŠš!½
7džX½ ¡ZEšE½ Ž•dE‡ž_‡U½f?E8š½ _Š½ dŠ?�½ tFž½ §š½ :FUdŠ½ 9·½ ‰Žžb‹V½ žX8¡½ ¡YH½ >Ž–F½
E8‰d‰U›½ ŽL½ =¥xž©•E½ 8‰?½ ^AF‰ždž¶½ Y8®E½ ¥‡?E–UŽ‰E½ `ˆ½ –E=FŠž½ ¶E8•š½ 8½ šE–dFš½ ŽL½
x8–UEw·½ ’8•8ttFt½—F@ELdŠ^žbŽ‰š�½ 3XF½dˆžF‡¡dŽ‡½W8š½:EFŠ½ŸŽ½–E‡?F–½9ŽžW½=Ž‰>F‘Ÿš½
Ž•E½ XfUWx·½ =Ž8žf9vH½ °bžW½ FE–Ud‰U½ ‘u¦–8{mž^Gš½ 8Š?½ R¦a?½ ^ŠšŸ8:^x`ŸdEš½ ŸY8ž½
X8®F½•E‰?F•E?½Ÿ–8?_ž_Ž‡8u½¥‰?E–šŸ8‰CgŒUš½u8–UEt·½©ŠžE‡89tF�½%‡ž_>h8žd‡U½rF¶½
=Ž‰=F”‰š½dŠ½Ž¥•½ŠF´ ½šF=ž^Ž‡�½xFž½¦š½8tšŽ½‡ŽžG½žX8ž½°XF—E8š½ ¡XHšF½ ŠŽ­Ex½ ¥Š?F•»
šž8‡?_ŠUš½ >8ˆ½ d‰?EJ?½ ŽLLF•½ šŽ‚F½ –Ž_šaˆU½ •EF?^Eš½ žŽ½ ,0½�š½ U–Ž°^‡U½ ?bP`»
>©uždFš½ °^žX½ 8‰½ dŠ=–H8šbŠUx¶½ Sªa?�½ Y·9”^?�½ 8Š?½ Žt·F£YŠ^=½ °Ž•|?�½ ž–8?^ž_Ž‰8u½
?F‘d>žbŽŠš½ =8Š½ ŽŠu·½ >8Ž¥T8UE½ 8‰?½ L¥–žXF–½ 8UU–8­8žF½  YE½–Ž:tG‚�½
%š½ 8šŸ¥žEt·½ ‘Žb‰ŸG?½ Ž¨ž½ 9·½�FŽ–UF½ 8‰?½ /Ž¥dšF½ 1i?xE”½ �dŠ½ žYFd–½ LŽ–Gº
°Ž–?½ žŽ½3WŽ8š½ )`ž¸UF–8t?�š½���������' �	'�������&�'‘�½ d´��½���'����������'�	'
�!��
������' 8Š?½ žYF½ ���#���"�' �����' �	' ������!�����' 8–F½ žXF½ ž°Ž½ =Fˆž–8|½
ŽžbLš½ ?ŽƒdŠ8žbŠU½ ŸXE½ >¦––E‰Ÿ½ –F Y_‡sa‡U½ ŽL½ >¥tž¥”E½ 8‡?½ d?E‡žhž¶½ dˆ½ šŽ=d8u½
žWFŽ–· ½ 5Š?E–½ žWF½ d8=ž½ ŽM½ žWFšF½ „Žž^Lš�½ ‰F°½ 8–Ž8>WFš½ žEŠ?½ žŽ½ WbUYº
waUWž½ Wb WH–žŽ½ dU‡Ž–F?½ Ž–½ ?E‡aE?½ ?b…E‡š^ŽŠš½ ŽL½ =¥xž§”E½ 8ˆ?½ f?EŒž^ž·½ š¥>[½ 8š½
žWF^•½ šŽ=d8xz¶½ >Žˆšž•¦=žF@½ �8š½ ŽŽœF@½ žŽ½ ‘•dŽ•?b8tt·½ Ub­E‰�½ Š8ž¦•E#½ ž\Ed–½
Ž¢bŽˆ8t½ �8š½ ŽŽšE@½ ŸŽ½ ?EŸE–^Š^šŸ^>�½ AdFŠšdŽŠš$½ ŸXEd–½ L–8U„FŠž_‰U"½
@d­E•šbL·_ŠU½ �8š½ Ž‘ŽšE?½ žŽ½ b‰žFU•8žb‰U"WŽŽUE‡b¸^ŠV�½ b~f>8ž^Ž‰š#½ 8‰@½
žXFd•½ ¨tŸb?d†EŠšaŽˆ8}"A¶‰8d=½ �8š½ ŽŽšE?½ ŸŽ½ ¥‡a?^‚E‡š_ŽŒ8|"šž8¡_>�½ LF8»
ž¥”Eš�½
4]E½ >¥–”E‡ž½ •EžXaˆqd‰U½ ”E=8šžš½ =¦xž¥”E½ L–Ž½ 8½ •E^QF?½ šdˆU¦x8•½ >Ž‡>Fž½
_‡žŽ½8½Ž–F½Š«8ˆ>E@½8‡?½LdŠEy·½ §ŠF?½šE8Š b=½NdE|?½ �.EE–šŽŠ½8ˆ?½ 1²^?tE”�½
������� -ž½ •FnE=Ÿš½ �=Ž‡U–¦G‰Ÿ½ >§tž©–8u½ °XŽtE‡Fšš�½ š§H–šž^ždŽ‡š½ �*F–:E–ž�½
��������8Š?½ �/E^:ˆa¸d8‡½ Ž‡8?��½ _8VE•^Eš½ �)tEjš>X8>rE–�½ 
�����������±Wd=X½
ŸEŠA½ žŽ½ Ft8;Ž–8žE½ =¥tž¥•E½ b‡½ žE”…š½ ŽM½ :Ž§‡@F?ŠHšš�½ WŽŽUE‰Edž¶�½ 8‰@½ ‰8ž¬•º
8x½ dƒ¥ž8:dtbŸµ�½ &‰@½ kŸ½Jˆ>Ž¥”8UEš½šqF’Ÿd>bš½ ŸŽ°8•?½Ž‚Š_:¥š½?F’d>ždŽŠš½ŽN½
>¥tž«–E½ 8š½ 8½ �°8·½ ŽL½ udLE��½ 8Š½ �¥‰Ž­E?½ Ž®E–�½ 8½ 	š¦“F–�Ž•@b‡8žE½ Ž–U8Š^¹¼
E–
½ �68Š½ ?H½ 6do­E–½ 8ˆ?½ *¥žš>WE8EqG–½ 
��������Ž–½ ŽL½šŽ=b8x½ 8>ŸaŽˆ ½
7džW½ –GšF=ž½ žŽ½ ������ ' žWF½ •EžXdŠqb‡U½ LŽx€Ž°š½ 8½ š^„bx8–½ ‘8žžF–‰!½ 3XE½
=Ž‡nŽb‡ž½žWFEš½ŽO½�‚¥} dtb=dž·�½8‰?½
Ž=^8x½=ŽŠšž–¦>ždŽŠ
½8•E½¦šE?½žŽ½–Ž9»
wF8Ÿa¸E½ 8½ ?ŽaŠ8Œž½ Ž‰žŽtŽU·½ 8Š?½ G_šžFƒŽuŽU¶½ ŽM½ šŸ8:_xdžµ½ 8ˆA½ >ŽŠždŠ¥džµ½
žY8Ÿ½ Y8­E½ XdŸXE”žŽ½ d‡LŽ–E?½ ?Ff=ždŽ‰š½ ŽO½bŠ?a®^?¥8t½ 8‰?½ =ŽttF>žb­E½ d?EŠŸ^žµ ½
%š½Ž^‡žE?½ Ž¥Ÿ½ :·½ 0d>Y8–?½ +8‰AuF”�½ LŽ—½ Ž–F½ žX8‰½ Ÿ°Ž½ W©‰?•F?½·E8–š½?Ždº
ˆ8‰Ÿ½7EšžF™½Ddš>Ž¥”šFš½W8­F½@E’`>žF?½U–Ž¥š½8š½ <Ž¦‰?E?½Ž:pE=¤š½mŠ½ŸWE½Š8žº
¦–8t½ °Ž–t@�½ '·½ =ŽŠŸ”8šž�½ �dˆ½ >©”˜Fˆž½ š>XŽt8–xµ½ 8Œ8v·šEš½ ŽO½>ŽxxE>žl¯F½ ^@KŠžd�
�� ��
	��������
�	���ē �����ē F�ē �ē �������ē ���"���ē ���ē ������ē ����ē 	
�����
ē ��ē ������'��‘ē w��
�f
(����:�ē J�	���
�ē ��
ē ���.���4N�2ē ��
ē �.�ē ���	��ē �&��ē G
�5�	a	��ē ���ē ���f
�������
ē��
ē ��������,���
ē ����#�ē3	����	���ē������ƒē ŽS��6Un�>¦ē
Ê�����	��ē ���ē '
��ē ����ē ��������ē ��
ē 	
���	����ē ���ē �(��#���ē ��
ē ���Ď
�������-ē <������ē ����ē ��K�Mē ��
ē ������ï2ē @�)�����-ē �)
ē C��
���!�á�ē =���&��ē
����ē��	���cē ��
ē�������ā?2ē ��
ē 0�������9$�ē��
ē�`�����¡�	H�ē <���&��ē ���)ē���ď
���ē ��
ē �������¢�AH�i’ē ���ē ���
ē ��ē ���.����H���ē �.�����'���ē �
O���� ē
‹E������ē ±��6ē>kē E���ē âN�	�à� ē��	��ē ���ē����F7	�	�
ē�.��ē ���ē 	���4�	/�ē���	��ē
�8ē ���1
ē��*��
�ē ������ē�������ē!_�
��	��ē��
ē�����
��0��ē�ē���
������cē ���L
7��ē��
ē 	�$�����;ēP���
“ē(�
ē��ē+�������
ē(	����
���kē t&�‚ē �1��ē�5��,����ē
�������ē��)�%�A/��
ē;�ē.�����#���	�
ē��
ē������-�����)�ē%�ē�11ē��ð�J���ē�
���ö�ē
<Ö���jē S��6U½?§ē W������	$	�9���ē "�ē ���
ē ��ē ��(������ē ��|�ē ��ē ���
ē $���f
�����Çē �	��{
ē ����Ø�����ē �&��ē ��ē Q	
���	�	��gē ��ē Q���O��hē <������ē �Z��ē ��ē
 ����+”ē ��.5%�B�	��•ē 5��	����ē �	$ì:0d��9�� 2ē ��-ē ��ē ��?ē %�–ē ��ē 7���2ē �ē !*��	�	��ē
ù����ē ��ē -�����,`��ē �,�ē &��
�
ē ��ē �������7��ē ��	�;ē �8ē u��A/��ē 	�ē ���ē ,��9��ē
��������ē�#�����ē��ãX	���ä��ē F�ē�����ñē '�~�å*
ē <A7	
lÁ¾¨ē
Ó�ē ��4�������ē ���ē ��æ��ē �Yē �&4ăē 
���)G;ç����ē �K��* ��ē �Iē ��ē ������#��ē �&�ē
�'+z�ē��O�1/�
ē0�ēB]!������	�#ē��ē Ñsē �����
ē]�$�ē ą�"�D-ē@������ē��
ē 	
��Đ
�	�
ē "	Ć&���ē �ē ���������
4��ē��$�ē �P�
ē ���(ē��;���Ă����ē ��������õ��—ē ��
ē
��	�
ē�5
�� ���
	��Iē ��ē �����ē�����!� Rēt���ē ��9�ē 	+ē���ē ��ē �-1�ē�����`�ē	�ē
[�MG����
�ē ���ē 	����^��˜ē �
ē �3�ē ����ē ����ē E�����ē r�^�	�����ˆ�ē 	�X�,���	��ē
„����Zē �wē ��/	�	d�;	���gē ����+ē ��}����)��ē C���0 ��
ē ��@�ē �ē 
�����	�#ē ��(�'đ
���	��ē �8ē��/� RēV�ē)���
ē �
ē ����ē��ē �	�ē ��9��@ ē <sĊ��������ē �)
ēW���H���ē
²p�TÂē³´oÈē E��C'��™ē m��6ú�o>�ē Ï���B�����ē �,!�����	���‚ē 
����#�Þ��ē!��î�����ē
����	+�ē����ē 0�+ē����*����ē+������5������ē ���
ē��ē��������ē9�ē���ē��K�ē(�/�ē�ē
����	�
ē"���
ē�8ē���#�ē/��ē�,���_��ē������ē"	��ē��3�����:
ē���8�A��	��ēF��������ē
=����ē % �ē �	/	�Be��4���>©ē q�Āē Ý���ē7�'�#ē�.�ē����ē �K@���'��šē r���4�����‰�ē ��%óL
�*�ē���}�
ē������(�ē ����ē…��	8����	��ē	�ē��ē�!������{������ēC������ē5��ē���L
x�
ē$��û�	���
�ē��_ē x�ē!��$�
�€ē���ē�3����%���ē��
ēŠ�����!����ē��ú���bċ ē��ē���ē
I�%���	�í�ē"���M£$0�"†ē =Ð��
����ē µ��6Äē n¿>ª»ē
E�ē8�jē��ýē����¤aJ����ē�!����	��ē���ē���,��
ē�)ē����1��1ē���÷+���(������ē
05ē���ē����ē��
������
èN�ē��ē�Č��J��ē��
ēB-�����
«ē Ì,��
ē��ē ���
ē���2ē ��"�$L
���ē �
ē ����ē �	���þ
ē ��
ē �������ē +�����ē ���������ē =W�.��2ē ¶��T?�ē �J�����ē ��vē
�
���	�
ē ���ē ���ē 	����*!�	�¬ē V:�����3ē ������� ē �
!�@���
ē �*�OF
�ē �
|7����ē
���������ē���-�
ē ��ē
�:������ē 	
���	�
ē#�����›ē 'M�����
ēß�����ē
�ē���ē��"�
�ē
���€�	����ē ����D���ē �����D��ē ŒqAae#����
œē ·pÀ¹Åēm�°?­ēVNvē�
ē ���ē ���ē ��H���ē
Ù������+ē]�
ē ������ē ‡P�	:�ē %
���G��Ü�ēY��ü��øô
ē!��I	��ē C*��0���
ē ���u���ē
���&ē ��������ē Ú%���ÿ��Ĉē é�!������ē �,���ê�^�ē ��*ē ���ē 	�
[/�
���ē ��ē ��y��
hē
=y�	
®U\�6ilē
Ò�ē�&�
ē���ē���ē���!\
ē���Û�����
ē��ē ����ē�����2ē"3��ē	 ē�3�ē������ē�Xē���ē
�������¥	
�����
ē �'�z���Éē Õ������ēZ�$�ē����ē"�4b���ē��ē ��	�ē ~��I�[��ēP��.Ē
��bē
%��
���ē�ē
�����;B$�ē�� "��ē =Ë
"��
�žē S��6>Rē×������ē ����ē����(C��
ē
D������G��Ąē !����	��e�ē�3�ē���������ē��ē��\�����ē ����� ē����%�ē�����Dē��ē�-�)�	L
�cē Í	�č��*�:
�ē ¸��TÆK	?¯¼ēÔ�����ēÎ�ĉd#���1
Ÿē Y��ē ë������� ē �D����ē��ò����ēQ��ē
CULTURE'S SHIP 9 
the 'frame' in which people derive a sense of who they are, how they should 
act, and where they are going" but grants identity an "executive role'' as 
"fundamentally the problem-solving tool for coping in particular environ­
ments." Identity thus becomes •'the action unit of culture" (ibid.: 186).7 
From the standpoint of this volume, there is no need to reduce the cul­
ture-identity linkage to a single invariant fonnula. The more promising 
move at this point is to highlight the complexities of the culture-identity 
linkage, and show how both concepts map in interesting ways into ongoing 
IR controversies, such as the structure-agent or anarchy-hierarchy debates. 
This observation takes us directly to the next section in our rationale.HARNESSING THE RETURN: RECONCILING THE 
"CULTURAL" AND THE "SCIENTIFIC" IN IR THEORY 
So how do we move from here to the land of better knowledge on inter­
national relations? At first blush, those who have managed to keep intact 
their belief in a single, highly standardized, easily accessible implement for 
the fast assembly of certified knowledge (the "scientific method"), seem 
best qualified to chart the course. Their prescribed course of action would 
most likely include the following points: In the past, we've had our doubts 
that it is possible to engage the cultural without losing--or badly compro­
mising-the scientific. We realize now that problems of measurement in the 
study of culture are every bit as tractable as comparable problems in the 
study of economics and geopolitics. The priority is to move quickly from 
metaphysical affirmations that culture and identity matter to empirical 
demonstrations of "how they matter, and how their effects can be systemat­
ically studied by social scientists" (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993:6). Two 
imperatives will stand out in particular: First, keep a safe distance from the 
"purgatory" (ibid.:26) of second-order (that is, metatheoretical) analysis; 
second, converge swiftly on a single type of scholarly operation, namely the 
fonnal articulation and the empirical testing of causal hypotheses relating 
culture/identity/ideas to behavioral outcomes. 
The need for a sound empirical dimension in a working research pro­
gram cannot be denied. However, neither the exclusive validity of a posi­
tivist/empiricist/behavioralist shortcut to reconciling culture and science in 
international relations nor the irrelevance of metatheoretical reflection to 
such an effort seems to necessarily folJow. In IR, as elsewhere, a successful 
blending of culture and science requires a clear understanding of the histor­
ical context and the scholarly practices that have rendered them incompati­
ble in the first place. And surely at a historical and intellectual moment when 
both culture and science are in a state of flux, adopting a strict metatheory­
avoidance strategy toward their reconciliation virtually secures deep onto­
logical and epistemological misunderstandings. 8 
��� ��
�
�����	�
8R˜EEÄ @‹†£VBE“;¥W‹†¢Ä X†Ä Œ;˜¥W@¬n<“Ä £EE€Ä ¥‹Ä @;­¥Z‹†Ä <P<Y†£¥Ä ;Ä “E€<¥¬“EÄ
£E¥¥nW‡PÄ Y†¥‹Ä <Ä GZ˜£¥Ä ‹“CE˜#Ž‹£W¥[²\¢¥$EŒY˜W@]£¥Ä €‹oB"Ä *_“£¥
Ä¢¬@RÄ ;†Ä ;ŒŒ“‹<@RÄ
pE;C¢Ä¦‹Ä<Ä�³<“W;=qE�@E†¥E“EBĀ‹CEn��ĵU_@RÄS;£Ä>EE†Ä²YP‹”‹­¢n¹Ä@S<nnEˆPEBÄ
W†Ä •E@E†¥Ä ¹E<“£Ä �&=>‹¥¥	Ä 	���������� 7E@‹ˆC	Ä ‹­˜Ä Œ;¢¥Ä E¸ŒE“YEˆ@EÄ µW¥SÄ ¥REÄ
�²<“i;=nEÄ;ŒŒ˜‹;@R
�Ä;£Ä;ŒŒvXEDÄ¥‹Ä@¬u¥¬˜EÄ;†BÄWBE†¥^¥º	ÄR<£Ä>EE†ÄŒ˜‹G‹¬‰Br¹Ä
CY¢;ŒŒ‹W†¥^†P�%Ä'†DÄ ¥S_“B	Ä £Z†@EÄ ¥REď‹£W¥V²Z¢©#E€ŒW“W@Y£¥ÄREPE€‹†¹Ä Z£Ä [¥¢EnGÄ
G–E‘¬E†¥nºÄ Yˆ²‹lEBÄ <¢Ä <Ä ˜_‚EÄ @¬nŒ˜`¥Ä Y†Ä E¸Žn;W†Z‡PÄ ¥REÄ €<—PW†;nX¾;§W‹†Ä ‹HÄ
@¬n¥¬“EÄ <†BÄ [CE†¨W¥¹Ä �2W£“;Ä <†BÄ +E“PE†�Ä 
����� 
�����‹†EÄ ;¹Ä ’¬E£¥Z‹‡Ä ¥REÄ
Œ“¬CE†@EÄ ‹GÄ E†¥˜¬£¥W†PÄ ¥REÄ @­“˜Eˆ¥Ä @¬q¥¬˜E�¢@WE†@EÄ “E@‹†@WnY<¥W‹†Ä Ž˜‹jE@¥Ä ¥‹Ä
¥RX£Ä ²E“¹Ä ;Ž“‹;@T�Ä
-†BEEB�Ä <£Ä;ϓEq­CEÄ ¥‹Ä“Eµ<˜CY†PÄ E€ŒY“W@<nÄ µ‹“lÄ µEĵZnrÄ ˆEECÄ <Ä @nE;“À
E˜Ä¬†DE˜£¥<†CW†PċIĵR;¥Ä ¥ºE£Ä‹GÄm†‹µqECPE蓋>nE€£Ä,5Ä£@R‹n;“£Ä@;ˆÄ“E;oÀ
W¢¥WA<on¹Ä S‹ŒFÄ ¥‹Ä =E¥¥E“Ä ¢‹n²EÄ =¹Ä U;˜†E££W†PÄ @¬r¥¬“EÄ <†BÄ ZCEŠ¥a¥¹Ä ¥‹Ä ©SEW˜Ä
£¥<nnECÄ m†‹¶vEBPE�¤EEmW†PÄ E†¥E˜Œ“W¢E�Ä-ˆÄ¥UEÄ “E‚Z†BE“Ä ‹GÄ ¥R^£Ä¢E@¥W‹†�Ä ��µ_nsÄ
>“ZEN¹Ä Œ“‹G[sEÄ ¥R“EEÄ £¬@UÄ ˜‹>nE¢�Ä:Y¦SÄ “E£ŒE@¥Ä ¥‹Ä ;nnÄ ¥R˜EE�Ä ƒºÄ <“P¬€E†¥Ä
;†¥W@W;¥E£Ä ¢WP†_JW@<ˆ¥Ä <B²;†@E¢Ä H‹qn‹µW†PÄ ;Ä µEnr�€;†;PEBÄ @¬n¥¬“E�£@ZEˆ@EÄ
™EW†¥EP“<¨W‹†Ä EGG‹¡ÄW†Ä -5Ä ¥RE‹˜¹�Ä
-¥Ä Y£
Ä -Ä =EnXE²E	Ä =‹¥RÄ Zš‹†_@Ä ;†BÄ E²WCE†¥Ä ¥R;¥Ä .6Ä ¢@R‹n<“£Ä <“EÄ †‹·Ä ²WP‹“Á
‹¬¢n¹Ä“E@n<\X†PÄ@¬n¥¬–EÄ;†CÄWCE†¥W¥»Ä \†Ä —E¢Œ‹†¢EÄ ¥‹Ä ¥REWšÄ„‹­‡¥WˆPÄB\GHW@­rÀ
¥WE¢Ä µX¥RÄ E¸Œ‹†E†¥Z;rÄ W†@˜E;¢E£Ä \†Ä Pn‹=<nÄ SE¥E˜‹QE†EZ¥¹Ä <ˆBÄ DW²E“£b¥¹�Ä -¥Ä ^£Ä
_“‹†^@Ä >E@;¬¢E�Ä <£Ä ;†Ä �_†¥E˜��Ä ¥¹ŒEÄ CY£@_Œ}W†EÄ n‹†PÄ B‹€X†;¥ECÄ =¹Ä ‹nW¥W@<nÄ
˜E<nW¢€�Ä ¥REÄ -5Ä IWEnBÄ £S‹®nCÄ U;²EÄ =EE†Ä B‹¯>n»Ä µEnnÄ Ž•E;“ECÄ ¥‹Ä CE;oÄ µW¥RÄ
^££¬E¢Ä‹GÄCW²E•£W¨»�t†¢¥E;B	ēE@E†¥ÄE²E†¥£ÄR;²EēE†CE›EBÄ;ŽŒ<˜E†¥Ä-6�£ÄY†;>_nÁ
W¥¹Ä ¥‹Ä E†@‹€Ž<¢£Ä ²<£¥~¼Ä ;@@EnE“<¥EBÄ <†BÄ @‹�‹@@¬““W†PÄ Cº†<W@¢Ä ‹IÄ Z†¥EP“<Á
¥Z‹†Ä;†CÄBW¢W†¥EP“;¥W‹†Ä;¥Ä>‹¥RÄ£­=� <†BÄ£¬Œ“<�£¥;¥EÄuE²Ev¢�Ä -¥Ä¢EE€£Ä<£ÄWGÄ -5�£Ä
H;¢@Z†;¥\‹†ÄµW¥UÄ£‹²E˜EWP†Ä£¥<¥ER‹‹BÄS;¢ÄP“E<¥r¹ÄBE@“E<£EBÄc¥£Ä<=WnZ¥½Ä¥‹Ä@‹†Â
H“‹†¥Ä @‹€ŒwE¸Ä W££¬E¢Ä ‹GÄ E¥S†X@Ä †<¥_‹†R‹‹BÄ ;†CÄ Œ‹nY¥W@;nÄ ‹¥SE—R‹‹B�Ä&£Ä ;Ä
˜E¢¬n¥�Ä ¥REÄ /5Ä ¥UE‹“E¥Y@;xÄ E†¥E“Œ“X£EÄ €­£¥Ä †‹µÄ “E‹“WE†¥Ä d¥£EvHÄ ¥‹Ä ;Ä B¹†;€W@Ä
Žn¬˜;nW¤€Ä@‹†@EX²ECÄ ;¥Ä ;ĆEµÄnE²EsċGÄ@‹€ŒyE¸X¨¹Ä ;†CÄ Hn­WC]¥¹�Ä
(“]‰PZ†PÄ Z‡¥‹Ä G‹@¬¢Ä¥TEÄ_†¥˜Z@<¥EÄ¥E¸¥¬“EċKÄ;Ä “E@‹†¢¥W¥¬¥EBÄPq‹>;nċ†¥‹nÃ
‹P¹Äµ\ozƋ¥Ä=EÄ<†ÄE<£ºÄ ¨;£lÄ�£EEÄ )S;Œ�Ä ����(¬¥Ä¥‹Ä¥REÄE¸¥E†¥Ä¥S<¥Ä 05Ä¥RE‹˜W¢¥£Ä
R<²EÄ ª¬“ˆEBÄ ¥‹Ä @­n¥¬“EÄ <†CÄ eCE†¥W¦¹Ä ¥‹Ä =E¥¥E˜Ä E†@‹€;¢£	Ä BE£@“f=E�Ä <‡BÄ
E¸Œr<X†Ä†‹²ErÄW£¤­E£Ä‹HÄPn‹=<nÄCW²E“£W¥¼�Ä ¥SE¹Ä<¹Ä=EȬ˜¢¬W†PÄ;Ä¥<£mÄ¥S;¨Ä@<†Ä
=EÄ B‹†E Ä )“W¥W@;sÄ ^†Ä ¥RZ¤Ä @‹†¥E¸¥Ä W£Ä ¥REÄ E€ŽS<¢W£Ä ‹ˆÄ
����
	������µRW@R�Ä ;¢Ä
ˆ‹¥EB
Ä W£Ä ‹†EÄ ‹GÄ ¥SEÄ H‹ž<¥W´EÄ ¥RE€E£Ä ¥R<¥Ä £R<ŒEÄ ¥REÄ @°˜šE†¦Ä“E¥RW†mW†PÄ ‹GÄ
@¬n¥¬˜EÄ <†BÄWCE†¥W¥ºÄ W†Ä £‹@g<rÄ ¥SE‹“¹�Ä
3‹²^†PÄ¥‹Ä¥REÄ¢E@‹†BÄ£E¥Ä‹IÄm†‹µnEBPE?uE¢Ä¥‹ÄµSW@UÄ¥UEĜE¥¬“‡Ä¥‹Ä
@°q¥¬“EÄ<†CÄWBE†¥W¥¹Äƒ<¹Ä‹LLE“Ä Y†¥E˜E£¥ZˆPÄ £‹v¬¥X‹ˆ£�Ä·EÄ@‹ƒEÄ¥‹Ä ¥SEÄ W££­EċJÄ
������������<†CÄ ¥REÄ †EEBÄ «‹Ä ˜E²W£W¥Ä ¥SEÄ ˜Er;¥Y‹ˆ£RWŽÄ>E¥µEE†Ä †<¥¬˜EÄ <†BÄ @‹†Ã
²E†¥\‹†Ä W†Ä -5Ä ¤@R‹n;“£RWŒÄ �4;˜€E†¨WE“�Ä ������������ -†Ä ;Ä @‹ˆ¥E¸¨Ä ‹GÄ ¬†“E@EÀ
CE†¥EBÄH¬WB^¥¹�Ä -6Ä£@S‹z;£Ä@‹†¥Y†¬EÄ¥‹Ä=EĀ‹“EÄ@‹†@EŸEBĵ_¥UȓECW@¥<=^uÀ
Y¥¹Ä ;†Bā<†W¬u;=Wn]¨¹Ä¥S<ˆÄµW¥RÄ ¥REĘE@­ E†§Ä€<P_@ċMėEYHW@;¨]‹†Ä=¹Ä ¶RW@RÄ
µEÄ ¥¬…Ä‹±˜Ä µ‹˜B¢Ä _†¥‹ÄGW¸ECÄ<ˆBÄW€€¬¥;=nEċ=kE@¥£Ä �£EEÄ1˜;¥‹@Uµ\o	Ä )R;Œ!Ä
�����9SE“EÄ W£Ä †‹Ä PE†E“;{Ä £E†¤EÄ ‹GÄ Ž¬¿¿yE€E†¥Ä ¥R;¥�Ä h†Ä ;Ä µ‹˜|BÄ ‹HÄ O¬¸�Ä ‹°˜Ä
Vinícius Santiago
Nota
Crítica boa as RI
�$�"$����* ���* ��*
4D„g/ŽEM…»M»;„4¨86»†ŽNu/ŽOhµ»„}»8}¡M¤M8»0¢D8» ¤D0}» „~»…„488»/}6»„}»
}„©}»Ž0¤F8» ¢D/}»„}»­8Ž1�»
%Mc8»4„rs8/B¨8»;Ž„u»„¤F8Ž»;M8i6�»")»4G„g/»0Ž8»1„ª}6»£„»/c�»D„°8­¸
8�» D„±» 4/}» °8» ;„4©ž» „»v„­8»°G8}» /gj» °8» H/­9» M» }„¬}»°M¡D» °IM4D» ¤„»
°„Žd�» 	�8Ž­O}�» �����
��� �� +D8» 4©Ž8}£» 4„}48—» °M¡D» 4«j¢¨Ž8» 0}6» M68}¤P¤µ»
D„©j6» ;/4SjS¤/¤8» B9/¡8» ")» Ž8A8³M­Q£µ» „}» ¡DM» 6M¤„¤86» }„¨}» ¤„» ­8‘1» Ž0¡O„»
…Ž„1g8u�» �„68}R}B» M©8» „<» 4„}M68/2j8» 4„u‡j8³O¡µ�» �* «1wM¡» ¡F/¢» 4©k¹
¢¨8»/}6»M68}¤M¥µ»„;;8» ª}u0¢4F86»„……„š¬€S¤Q8» ¤„» 8}T¢N¶8» ¤D8»#)»4D„j0jµ»
4„ux¬€O¢µ» ¥„» ¤D8» ’88/Ž4D» Mw…ga40¤O„}» „;» ¡F8»„4M0j» 4„}¡©4¢O„»„;» 8/jM¤µ»
	°DM4D�» /ž» }„¡86�» S» ¤D8» 84„}6» ;„u0¡M­8» ¢J8x8» N}» Ž848¡» 4H„g/Žgµ» 4„}¤•¹
1¨¤O„}Ÿ
�»
 O}/jlµ�» M}¤8jo84¤©/j» M„l0¡M„}» 0}6» …/„4DM/jSx» U» ¤G8» ¡DOŽ7» d}„°g86B8»
…Ž„1g8u» ¡D0¤» u/µ» )* 8iMuT}/¤86» „Ž» NB}Q=N40}¡jµ» Ž86©486» 1µ» ¤F8» 4¨’”8}¤»
Ž8¤¨}» ¡„» 4¬j¢¨Ž8» /}6» V68}¡S¤µ» N}» ��* ¡F:„µ�» ,„» 18» ¬8�» ¤D8» S¢¨/¢M„}» M}» ¡DM»
Ž8 †84¤»E0»388}»­/¤jµ» Wu…„­86» X~» Ž848}¤»µ80Ž» 	&Y€co0¥8Ž�» �*�����������-D8»
8;Ž8DS}B» /1848�» O}» ¢K8» 408» „>» ¡D8» �Ž8¤¨}�» ¨}68Ž» 4„}M68Ž0¤M„}
» „;» ¢D8»
4¨¡„v0µ» ¤Sv8» i0B» Q}» #)»�»…8Ž8€}M/i» 40¥4G�«…» B/u:�» T» N¤8g<» /» ¢8ggM~B» ¤8¤N¹
u„µ»V}»¡FM»Ž8…84¥�» �8»¥D/¡»0»M¤»u0µ�»M¡»S»5j8/Ž»¤D/¡»4¨m¤¬8»/6»O68}¢M¡µ»5µ»
„¨¡» ;„» u0M­8» 4„gg/2„Ž0¡V­8» 4„ž�<8›ZlR·/¤M„�» +L8[Ž» …©Ž©M¤» Q» ¦K8Ž8;„Ž8»
h\e8gµ» ¡„» ¡Sy©l/¤8» /» 8­8» <©gi8Ž» M}¡8BŽ/£M„}» „;» S}¥8˜/¢V„}/i» ¡©6M8» ²O¥D»
8³4M¢M}B»}8±»;Q8g6»„=» MŒ©Sœ» S}»„4M/g» ¤F8„Žµ�»
������'�#���*���*��	%��&*�
*�
��#	�!*
(0Ž¢/dQ}B» S}» /» z©n¡M6M4MˆjM0Žµ» 8<<„¤» ¤„» 68}/¡¬Ž/nM¶8» „©Ž» ¡FP}dMB» „}»
4©j¤©Ž8» 0}6» S68}¤S¤µ�» ¡KM»­„g¨v8» 8¡»„«¢» ¢„» 8~iM­8}» ¢D8» 4D„j/jµ» 681/¤8»„}»
¡G88»M©8»M}» M¤8}/¡M„€/j» Ž8g0¢N„}�» '¨»0…‰Ž„/4F» 84„B~\·8» ¤D/¡» ¢D8Ž8» M»
�}„» „€8» v8¢F„6„g„Bµ» ;„» 4©g¢¨Ž/j» ¡©6M8�» 	$8…Š8Ž„}» 0}6» *°N6g8Ž�»����������.]¤F»Ž8‰84¢»¤„»4©j¢©8»/}6»M68}¤S¢µ»°8»/Ž8»0o„»w„Ž8»Nu†Ž886�»
/¥» ¤DM» §0B8�» 3µ» ¤K8» ŽMc» /}6»4„¥» „?»QB}„S}B» ¡G8» ­Q1Ž0}¡»6M­8ŽM¥µ»„;»…8º
…84¤M­8» 	!8–0}» /}6» .„µ/4D�» 
����� ¤G/}» 1µ» ¤D8» v88» /18€48» „;» (*
M{…„M}B»2„6µ»„?»¥8¡/1g8» Eµ…„¡D:8�»
.O¤F»}„»…Ž8§88» ¤„»0ji�^‚4j¨R­8» Ž8…’88}¡/¤O„�» ¢D8»­/ŽM8¤µ»„;»…8…84¹
¤M­8» M}4l©686» M» ¤DRž» ®„j©u8» 8;l84¡» ")�» ¡0¢ª» /» /» �6M­M686» 6M5O…gM}8�»
°Q¤F» u¬j¢R‡g8» §D8„Ž8¤S4/j» M}l8¡�» .DMi8» D/Ž6pµ» 8´D0¨¡S}B» ¡F8» j„}C» qP¡» „<»
©8ŽV8» ¤F/¢»uMBD¡» 18» /O86» /3„«¤» 4©g¤©8» /6» N68}¥O¤µ» R}» M}¢8™0¡M„}/l» Ž8g0¹
¤M„}�» ¥D8» ;„lt„±S}B»4„}¤ŽM1©¡S„}» ¢„¨4D»„}» ;«6/u8}¤0g» M©8» ¢D0¢»w¬¤»18»
;/486» _~»/»486M3i8»8@;„§»¤„» /6­0}48»„©Ž»f„°o86B8» N}»¢DR»O}4Ž8/M}Bgµ»¯M¤/g»
08/»„=» 4F„l/ŽDMˆ�» �O¤S4/i»0»¡F8µ»0’8»„;» ")»�» 848}¤» Ž84„6»„ƒ»4¨g¡©Ž8»0}6»
M68€¤`¤µ�» ¢D8S» 8u†D/žR» M» }„£» „}» ¡D8» „¬¤“YBD¡» Ž8b84¤M„» „;» �u/M}¤Ž8/w�»
†„M£M„}�» -„» ¤K8» 4„}¤Ž0µ�» z„¢» „>» „©» /¨¤F„Ž» ¤/f8» 8¥/1lMD86» 04FO8­:¹
|8}¤» 8ŽM„©gµ�» 8­8» /» ¡D8µ» 4D/lj8}B8» ¤F8u» ¢„» Ž8£DM}d�» Ž8<N8�» /}6» 84„}¸
¤N¤¨¢8» ¤F8„8¢[40g» /6» 8u‰MM4/n» 8804D» ‹„B/u�» �}6» S}» u„¡» 5/8�»
Vinícius Santiago
Nota
Acadêmicos mais preocupados com a previsibilidade, com as entidades ao invés de processos, com os substantivos ao invés de verbos. 
12 INTRODUCTION 
criticism is fol1owed by substantive efforts to chart new research direc­
tions. 
The volume is divided into four parts. Following the introduction, 
(Chap. l ), is a historical context for thinking about culture and identity in 
international relations (Chap. 2). Part 2 focuses on critical engagements with 
neorealism. It includes contributions (Chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 6) dealing, in dif­
ferent ways, with the emerging effort "to culture'' IR's still-dominant tradi­
tion. Part three, shifts the attention to culture and identity in perspectives 
other than realism. Included are chapters on environmentalism (Chap. 7), 
feminism (Chap. 8), postmodernism (Chap. 9), and normative theory (Chap. 
1 0). Finally, part 4 offers a concluding overview of the entire volume (Chap. 
11 ). 
Preview of Chapters 
In a volume predicated on the importance of culture and identity, the 
second chapter, by Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach, has a lot to offer. 
The authors start with a simple conviction: When science fails to measure 
up to reality, it is time to modify science. As far as Ferguson and Mansbach 
are concerned, in the aftermath of the Cold War IR theory represents failed 
science. If so, the critical question is not whether, but with what, to replace 
this defeated body of knowledge. Engaging this question brings the authors 
face to face with the key dilemma in any empirical work namely, "what to 
look at and by inference, what can be safely ignored." 
It is with their stand on this dilemma that Ferguson and Mansbach join 
this return of culture and identity project. For their answer stipulates that 
"contests for loyalty and the changes in affiliation that they produce are the 
stuff of history." Whatever else they may chose to sacrifice on the altar of 
parsimony. IR theorists cannot hope to both ignore the manner in which "old 
political affiliations evolve or die and new ones emerge'' and keep theory 
adequate to the realities of political practice. And yet ignoring such "stuff' 
is precisely what IR theorists did in recent years, with predictably disastrous 
results. 
The purpose of Chapter 2 is both to explicate the origins of the problem 
and to offer some applicable solutions. With respect to the former, the diffi­
culty is traced back to the deficiencies of statecentric theorizing and to the 
obdurate grip of the Westphalian model on the political and scientific imag­
ination of most IR theorists. With respect to the latter, IR theorists are invit­
ed "to conceive of global politics as involving a world of 'polities' rather 
than states and focus on the interrelationships among authority, identity, and 
ideology." The coauthors demonstrate the rewards of such a theoretical refo­
cusing in six carefully selected case studies that should render the continued 
subscription to a symmetrical world of Westphalian "like-units" rather diffi­
cult to maintain. One suspects that putting forward an empirically based 
CULTURE'S SHIP 13 
argument that "the real world of politics has always been one of layered, 
overlapping, and interacting polities" is a main ambition of this chapter. 
Needless to say, when many observers regard the flux in identities, loyalties, 
and beliefs we are currently experiencing as somehow unique and unprece­
dented, a historical reminder that "this sort of thing has happened many 
times before" is of considerable importance. 
In terms of abstract conceptual and analytic baggage. Ferguson and 
Mansbach prefer to trave.llight in this particular set of historical case stud­
ies. They are, however, warmly sympathetic to a quick return of culture's 
ship to the pluralistic theoretical inlet with which they have long been affil­
iated. To be sure, they are particularly interested in those part:s of the "cargo" 
that lend themselves to productive applications to polities other than nation­
states. In this, Ferguson and Mansbach find themselves in solid agreement 
with many other participants in this volume, but not with Alex Wendt, whose 
contribution is next. 
In the third chapter, Alex Wendt follows a highly refined discursive 
strategy that blends interpretative understanding with causal explanation, 
first-order analysis with second-order elucidation, and theoretical continuity 
with deep theoretical reconstruction. Wendt situates himself squarely with­
in the reflectivist camp to develop a new theoretical synthesis labeled "struc­
tural idealism." This position is guardedly "idealistic'' because of its empha­
sis on intersubjective (or cultural) rather than material factors; it is 
"structural" because the intention is to theorize collective identity formation 
at the systemic, as opposed to the unit, level. Since prime attention is given 
to socially constructed "meanings," his "constructivist" approach seems 
consistent with interpreti vism; however, since reference is also made "to 
causal mechanisms that . . . promote collective state identities" it is also 
favorably predisposed toward causal explanation. Insofar as Wendt pursues 
substantive interests in the structural transformation of the Westphalian sys­
tem, his inquiry is unmistakably of the "first order" type; however, insofar 
as this substantive interest is sustained by a meticulous elucidation of relat­
ed epistemological and ontological issues, it is also "second order" in a deep 
metatheoretical sense. 
Finally, as long as Wendt keeps his entire project within the "anarchy 
problematique" he maintains theoretical continuity with neorealism and 
other mainstream positions; however, as soon as he prioritizes intersubjec­
tive structures over material structures, in the neorealist "hardcore," his pro­
ject becomes theoretically reconstructive in a profound, as opposed to a cos­
metic manner. With reference to the return project pursued in this volume, 
Wendt identifies materialism and rationalism-rather than realism and sta­
tism-as the main leakage points through which culture, identity, and 
"meaning" are constantly draine<l out of the IR theoretical corpus. Culture 
and identity are central to his effort to plug these leaks and restore vigor to 
this troubled scholarly enterprise. In terms of our maritime metaphor, 
14 INTRODUCTION 
Wendt's chapter is testimony to the fact that the unloading and the invento­
rying of culture's ship's "cargo" is already in full swing, at least at the par­
ticular pier called "constructivism." 
ln the fourth chapter, Naeem Inayatullah and DavidBlaney join the 
quest for an IR approach that is "amenable to the theoretical return of cul­
ture and identity." In so doing, they also situate Wendt's argument in a more 
critical context. While sympathetic to Wendt's general project, these coau­
thors insist that the latter's critique does not extend far enough to render 
Waltz's seminal contribution-and, by extension, the IR theoretical enter­
prise itself-meaningful. The core problem, we are told, is Wendt's refusal 
to resolutely part with the "anarchy problematique." For, in the view of these 
coauthors, it is simply impossible to meaningfully culture IR theory without 
severing its biblical connection to the profoundly ahistorical and acultural 
"state of nature" fiction. Is there value, they implicitly wonder, in tinkering 
with putative leakages within the anarchy problematique (that is, material­
ism and/or rationalism), if the entire construct is so inherently and irre­
versibly incapable of retaining any culture, identity, or meaning-related con­
tent? 
Whereas Wendt approaches the main deck on culture's ship looking for 
updated and well-established sociological tools (constructivism), 
Inayatullah and Blaney seek inspiration in a clandestine corner, where exot­
ic implements for "the study of Otherness as a fundamental category of 
experience and reflection, and as an important perspective in the study of 
human thought, intercourse and culture" (Corbey and Leersen, 1991 :viii) are 
secretively displayed. Here, they astutely acknowledge the relevance of 
"cultural encounters" (as developed by Tzvetan Todorov and Ashis Nandy) 
to the IR theory enterprise and harness this construct in a valiant effort to 
steer Wendt's work-and the entire return of culture and identity project­
to a different-and in their view more promising-direction. 
Let the reader make up his or her own mind as to the merits of this cre­
ative, if somewhat promiscuous, conjoining of Waltz, Wendt, Todorov, and 
Nandy. Three observations are in order, however. First, Inayatullah and 
Blaney identify the human urge to meaningfully "discover the other" as the 
deep motive for both individual and collective encounters. Second, while 
sustained by postmodern ideas, their incisive criticism of Waltz and Wendt 
explicitly rejects the notion of a quick dismissal of mainstream contribu­
tions. And finally, this chapter does much to clarify why the theme of cul­
tural encounters, which has generated so much interest in other fields, also 
raises some central questions in international theorizing. 
In the fifth chapter, Sujata Chakrabarti Pasic frontally challenges the 
members of the IR scholarly community-realists, rationalists, and "soci­
etalists" in general�to place their theoretical endeavors in "an explicitly 
cultural context." She insists that the sustained hesitation to move from 
implicit to explicit engagements with culture-a hesitation shared even by 
CULTURE'S SHIP 15 
scholars interested in international society and interstate sociality-has had 
a crippling effect on the IR theoretical enterprise. To rectify this problem, 
Chakrabarti Pasic engages in a bifocal effort designed "to bring both sys­
tems and culture back into international relations theory." Based on a bal­
anced combination of critique and substantive suggestions for better theo­
rizing, this chapter joins and broadens theoretical debates opened in the 
previous two chapters. 
Chakrabarti Pasic goes beyond pleading for a reintroduction of the cul­
ture "variable" into IR theorizing. In her view, when "culture" and "system" 
are properly theorized, the very distinction between international and inter­
cultural relations is rendered redundant. In fact, her case against both Wendt 
and Buzan rests partly on their putative readiness to sacrifice the complexi­
ty of culture on the altar of a narrow understanding of science. 
Be that as it may, this author approaches culture's ship with a clear 
objective in mind. Justly suspecting that her object of interest may not be on 
current display, she goes straight to a lower deck, where the legacy left by 
"the cultural historians of the British School" (Spengler, Toynbee, and 
Wight) is accumulating dust in long-term storage. There slhe redeems the 
construct of "civilization," which, in her view, is singularly well suited to 
the task of (re)culturing theIR theoretical enterprise. Sensing, however, that 
in its present form her fresh acquisition is vulnerable on the science side, 
prior to returning to shore Chakrabarti Pasic arms herself with "historiogra­
phy," "myths," (Lakoff and Johnson), and "imagined community" (Benedict 
Anderson) in the hope of removing this "softness." 
Chakrabarti Pasic 's ambitious project may well prove feasible. At a 
minimum, her contribution serves the important function o f sheltering the 
construct of "civilization" from sensationalist abuses that, following 
Huntington's influential intervention, are back in fashion .. For the time 
being, we are well advised to take her suggestions seriously but to defer 
judgment on whether civiilizational clashes are "the biggest of all problems 
in world politics" (Bozeman, 1994:25). As wisely put by Irving Louis 
Horowitz: "It will be interesting to chart the degree to which this (civiliza­
tional analysis, Y. L.) offers better guidelines than the study of nations that 
dominated the cold war epoch" ( 1994: 16). 
Noting the dramatic rise of neorealist interest in issues related to con­
temporary nationalism, in the sixth chapter Kratochwil and I alert the IR 
scholarly community to important intellectual opportunities entailed in this 
long-deferred, but currently evolving, encounter. The chapter affirms the 
possibility and evaluates the prospects for a progressive identity-based prob­
lem shift in the neorealist research program. Such a theoretical and empiri­
cal refocusing should help neorealism touch base again with the subjective 
constitution of a tumultuous and rapidly self-transforming world order. Like 
our predecessors, we strive to maintain a productive balance between nega­
tive criticism and positive construction. And in both respects, we focus 
16 INTRODUCTION 
attention on the role of meta theory in promoting disciplinary reconstructions 
such as the return of cultlilre and identity project. 
As to our interest in culture's ship, suffice it to say that the problem shift 
advocated in this chapter entails a massive and continuous infusion of cul­
ture and identity-related "cargo" into an IR theoretical enterprise starved for 
"meaning" (see Chap. II). Kratochwil and I are, more specifically, on the 
lookout for intellectual tools (abundant in ethnic and cultural studies) that 
will facilitate a sharper grasp of the ethnonational category. We are particu­
larly interested in the manner in which the IR debate on culture and identi­
ty in general, and on nationalism in particular, is conducted, and call atten­
tion to the merits of "second order" analysis in social theory (Ritzer, 1991 ). 
The seventh chapter, by Daniel Deudney, serves as a reminder that if 
history, time, and context play an important role in the construction of viable 
collective identities, so do geography, space, and place. For the move from 
the individual ''I" to the collective "we"-which, as Ferguson and Mans bach 
tell us, is the "stuff' of politics-involves an intricate blending of a "here­
feeling" with a "we-feeling," both of which are indispensable in the con­
struction of effective units of macrolevel loyalty and affiliation, such as the 
"national." Now, imperfect as our understanding of the "we-feeling" is, our 
comprehension of the "here-feeling" is, according to Deudney, even more 
defective. This chapter addresses this gap with a theoretical elucidation of 
the relationship between space, place. and national identity; an empirical 
observationof this relationship using American nationalism as a relevant 
case study; and a reasoned prediction that foresees the rise of earth identi­
ties as viable challengers to ethnic and state-based nationalisms. 
An anempt to situate this chapter in the context of the entire volume 
yields interesting results. Deudney approaches the return-of-the-cultural 
project from the standpoint of another recent "return" in social theory, which 
seeks to resituate human nature in its biological, ecological, and/or geo­
graphical contexts. This other return has stimulated, in Deudney's words, 
"an explosion of political activity and theoretical revisionism." On the IR 
disciplinary shore, this theoretical revisionism has culminated in the provi­
sional consolidation of a new theoretical presence known as the "environ­
mental paradigm" or the "ecological world view" (Hughes, 1994). 
As a resident of this new theoretical site, Deudney's interest in the 
return of culture project is driven by a dual insight. First, he senses that an 
entire dimension (the "here-feeling") may be missing from the study of 
national and other collective identities. Second, he does recognize that the 
ecological worldview shares with other IR perspectives a lack of interest in 
culture and identity. The convergence of these two insights shapes 
Deudney's interest in culture's ship. He is searching for new conceptual con­
structs such as "geopiery" (Wright) or "Topophilia" (Yi-Fu Tuan) that can 
access and elucidate the "here-dimension" of national and other collective 
identities. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong in his specific fore-
CULTURE'S SHIP 17 
casts concerning "earth" and national identities, Deudney 's contribution 
demonstrates the potential for a productive blending of the "cultural return" 
and the "ecological return" in the study of collective identities. 
Ann Tickner's contribution, in Chapter 8, shows telling commonalities 
and revealing differences with Deudney's argument. Like Deudney, Tickner 
approaches the return-of-culture-and-identity project from the standpoint of 
a recently established and still struggling, theoretical presence-that is, lR 
feminism. However. unlike Deudney, as far as identity is concerned, Tickner 
has no reason to be apologetic. To the contrary, the reader is promptly and 
justly informed that "identity has been a central concern in contemporary 
feminist theory." And in view of the fact that "most contemporary feminist 
approaches take identity as a starting point for their theoretical construc­
tions," Tickner casts her argument as an open invitation to all interested par­
ties to seek inspiration on identity-related issues on "gender•s boat." 
Tickner's argument introduces the reader to feminist theorizations of 
identity in general, and to adaptations of these theories to problems con­
cerning state identities and national identities that are central to internation­
al relations. Her analysis suggests that difficulties encountered by main­
stream approaches to culture and identity are intimately related to the way 
in which these concepts are gendered. If so, paying more careful attention to 
the gendering problem may show the way not only to better IR theory but 
also to a more inclusive and less exploitative world. A close reading of 
Tickner's analysis indeed suggests that many, if not most, of the themes pur­
sued by other contributors to this volume can benefit substantively from a 
gender-sensitized context. This is not to say, of course, that gender analysis 
and cultural analysis simply reduce to one another; it is to say, however, that 
they can be, and should be, combined in a scholarly productive manner 
(Kaplan, 1994: 100). 
David Campbell's contribution, in Chapter 9, is driven by a sense of 
opportunity following the collapse of Cold War cartography and the unrav­
eling of realist hegemony in the IR discipline. The opportunity, as Campbell 
astutely points out, is nothing less than "the possibility to rethink the prob­
lematic of subjectivity in international politics." The author moves vigor­
ously into this opening to "refigure the state," "re-imagine America," and 
reconsider "'balkanization' at home and abroad." On this basis, Campbell 
mounts a devastating ethicopolitical critique of American and Western poli­
cy toward the Balkan crisis. Based on a provocative reconceptualization of 
"identity" that inverts common-sense understandings of the s.tate as existing 
prior to, and independent from, its "foreign policy," this analysis refresh­
ingly highlights the intimate-but rarely acknowledged-relationship 
between co-occurring debates over "national interest," "multiculturalism," 
and "ethnic conflict" in the United States and abroad. 
Campbell's themes and concerns are predicated on distinctly postmod­
ern scholarly sensibilities. The analysis invokes the absence of bedrock cer-
1 8 INTRODUCTION 
tainties as a defining context, deepened by the recent demise of the Cold War 
system but also indicative of a postmodern condition. The postulated 
"deconstructibility" of polities in general, and of America in particular, is 
the centerpiece in Campbell's argument. It denotes a postmodern outlook 
that rejects--or at least, tries to go beyond-"foundations" and "essence­
talk" and embraces an image of constant reversibility and permanent inter­
action. Dismissing criticisms that depict postmodern understandings of 
identity and sociality as unethical and politically disabling, Campbell con­
cludes with the "outrageous" notion "that without deconstruction there 
might be no question of ethics, identity, politics. or responsibility." 
Situating Campbell's contribution requires a slight modification of our 
organizing metaphor. To refer to postmodernism as a new scholarly para­
digm-involving boats, inlets, piers, and so on-would betray a lack of sen­
sitivity to its antiessentialist/antifoundationalist spirit. To preempt such a 
violation and stay within the ambit of our maritime imagery, I will borrow 
Michael Dear 's vivid depiction of postmodernism as a "tidal wave" hitting 
the social sciences "with predictable consequences" ( 1 994:299). Campbell's 
chapter forcefully rides this tide and adds a refreshingly controversial voice 
to the return of culture and identity project in international relations. The 
productive manner in which this chapter interacts with other chapters in this 
volume confirms, however, that in international relations, as in other schol­
arly domains. modernist and postmodernist efforts "can learn from each 
other and benefit from each other's insights (Sassower, 1 993 :443). 
In Chapter 1 0, Friedrich Kratochwil engages the concept of citizenship 
"as a prism for investigating the problem of inclusion and exclusion that is 
fundamental to the problem of political order." In so doing, he opens an 
observational window onto the social practices that constitute "internal" and 
''external" domains of politics, inform collectivities of "who" they are, and 
mediate between thus individuated collectivities and "humanity" in general. 
The analysis identifies "participation" and "membership" as the two core 
components of citizenship and highlights the need to go beyond purely cog­
nitive accounts of such phenomena. On the critical side, Kratochwil's con­
ceptual analysis suggests a departure from established understandings of cit­
izenship as an attribute of peop)e or as a legal status. On the positive side, it 
endorses a historical and nonfoundational understanding of citizenship as an 
Hinstituted process." 
The need to revisit citizenship in the post-Cold War era requires no fur­
ther justification. That such a reth inking takes us deep into the domain of 
culture and identity is equally well established by this chapter. However, to 
situate it in this volume, it is helpful to note that Kratochwil 's contributionis inspired by the "return of practical reason" (Alker, mimeo: I) and by the 
"resurgence of normative theory" (Smith, 1992) in international relations. 
His argument concerning citizenship echoes the pragmatist insistence that 
our concepts and theories must be connected to experience and practice 
CULTURE'S SHIP 19 
(Misak, 1994: 123). While concurring with the need to abandon foundations 
and essence-talk (such as. citizenship as a "thing"), Kratochwil also points 
out that postmodemism and deconstructionism are not the only, or neces­
sarily the best, venues to pursue such objectives.IO Equally instructive is his 
use of political theory-Humean philosophy in particular-as a corrective 
to theories that ignore "feelings" and other noncognitive dimensions of 
social reality. In this sense, the chapter reminds would-be visitors on cul­
ture's ship to pay careful attention to updated political theory and pragmat­
ic philosophy exhibits. 
In the concluding chapter, Kratochwil takes another look at some basic 
themes that surface from arguments presented in this book and delineates 
future directions for the return of culture and identity project. The theme of 
"return" is effectively juxtaposed with the notion of "intermittent episodes 
of 'amnesia"' to address the "question of fad." To bring culture and identity 
into focus as a promising research agenda, Kratochwil emphasizes the con­
stitutive nature of the current preoccupation with culture and identity. And 
to explicate the implications of culture and identity as a new research pro­
gram for world politics, he discusses them under the suggestive rubrics of 
"systems," "historicity," and "meaning." Engaging our organizing 
metaphor, Kratochwil leaves us, however, with the sugg:estion that by 
embarking on "culture's ship" the IR theoretical enterprise will remain "at 
sea" rather than return to a "safe harbor." 
Regardless of whether it accents the tranquility of a safe harbor or the 
uncertainty of a stormy sea, the return of culture and identity project is part 
and parcel of those ''great debates" that "are defining parts of the historicity 
of any scientific discipline ... (and) are never 'over'" (Aiker, mimeo:2). 
However, especially today, such debates need not be repetitiv·e or redundant. 
For, as perceptively said by Clifford Geertz, "Learning to exist in a world 
quite different from that which formed you is the condition, these days, of 
pursuing research you can on balance believe in and write sentences you can 
more or less live with" (1995:101). We can only hope that ensuing addenda 
to IR 's ongoing debate on culture and identity will be of the kind that Geertz 
has in mind. 
NOTES 
1. Indeed, even the notoriously orthodox subfield of security studies seems to 
be moving in a similar direction. For we are now reliably informed that in current 
security analysis, "the site of security has spread from state to nation, from sover­
eignty to identity" (Waever, 1994: 1). 
2. As astutely pointed out by Joane Nagel (1994:152), identity and culture "are 
fundamental to the central projects of ethnicity: the construction of boundaries and 
the production of meaning" (ibid.: 153). And boundaries are, in tum, central to inter­
national relations theories, which are well described as "theories of relations across 
borders" (Walker, 1992: 18). 
20 INTRODUCTION 
3 . A materialist/rationalist/positivist regulative consensus continues to play 
an important, if weakened, role in this context. This consensus insists on: (a) the 
epiphenomenal role of "immaterial" (cultural/ideational/mental) forces; (b) the 
"nonproblematic" (fixed/given) nature of actors/identities/selves; and (c) the 
methodological resistance of culture and identity to "genuine" (positivist/empiricist) 
modes of scientific analysis. See Mearsheimer ( 1995) and Zartman (1993) for recent 
rearticulations of this far-from-defeated consensus. For a comprehensive critique, 
see Walker ( 1990b) and Wendt in this volume. 
4. Anthony Cohen, for instance, portrays identity as "an awful portmanteau 
carrying all sorts of murky cargo" ( 1 993: 195). And James Cl ifford depicts culture as 
"a deeply compromised idea (he) cannot yet do without." See also Wolf 1 994. 
5. A similar problem is apparent in Barry Posen's recasting of "anarchy" and 
"security dilemma" in terms of ethnic groups. See Chapter 6. See also Chris Shore's 
( 1993) excellent critique of the dominant models of culture and identity currently 
used by European Community officials. 
6. See, for instance, Will Kymlicka 's depiction of the "downplay" of culture 
as the root cause for the continuing misunderstanding of nationalism ( 1 995: 1 32). 
7. Fitzgerald uses the following metaphor to depict the cul ture-identity link­
age: Culture equals the map; identity equals the compass. ldentity thus becomes the 
critical bridging concept mediating between culture and action ( 1993: 186). This 
depiction leaves ample room for studying the culture-identity link as an interpreta­
tive enterprise in the Geertzian sense. 
8. One such mistake is to conflate ontology, epistemology, and methodology 
and to assume that the interpretative makeup of the social world necessi tates an 
''interpretative'' methodology. See Jepperson and Swidler (1994:368). 
9. See, in particular, W.J .M. Mackenzie's ( 1 978) fascinating reconstruction of 
the "murder" of "political identity." 
10. As pointed out by Se igfried: "The pragmatic appeal to experience has the 
same subversive intent as the poststructuralist appeal to the indeterminacy of the 
text. But it also allows and provides for something more, namely, a legitimate means 
of closure, albeit one that is always finite and particular and in principle revisable" 
( 1 992: 15 1 ). 
2 
The Past as Prelude to the Future ? 
Identities and Loyalties 
in Global Politics 
Yale H. Ferguson & Richard W. Mansbach --
Theory purports to tell us what to look at and, by inference, what can be 
safely ignored. By simplifying reality, theory helps us organize our beliefs 
about an ever-changing world and offers an intellectual foundation for poli­
cies. Bad theory almost inevitably means bad policies. Unfortunately, the 
failure to predict (or adequately to explain, even in retrospect) the end of the 
Cold War, adds powerfully to evidence from many other quarters that some­
thing is seriously wrong with our theories of global politics (Allan, 1 992). 
International relations theorists have difficulty accounting for change, 1 par­
ticularly when it arises from massive shifts in loyalties from one set of 
authorities to another. The demise of the Soviet empire surprised statecen­
tric theorists in part because their theories could not accommodate a revival 
of old identities. Such theories are equally useless when i t comes to address­
ing mini-nationalisms, tribal violence in Africa, the globalization of busi­
ness and finance, or criminal cartels. 
Surely we must discard and replace theory that fails to shed light on 
issues that any reader of today 's headlines knows are most important. But 
replace it with what? In our view, we should· conceive of global politics as 
involving a world of "polities" rather than states and focus on the relation­
ships among authority, identities, and ideology.2 Central questions are: In 
particular times and places, who or what controls which persons with regard 
to which issues, and why? How and why do old political affiliations evolve 
or die and new ones emerge?3 
Since political evolution and devolution presumably involve bedrock 
processes that are as old as political association itself, it is critical to escape 
our Eurocentric blinders and adopt the widest possible historical perspec­
tive. Our own response to this challenge has been to analyze six historical 
cases selected for temporal, cultural, and geographicdiversity. The six cases 
are: ( l ) the world's first great civilization in Mesopotamia, which arose in 
the mid-third millennium BC and lasted until the Persian conquest in the 
sixth century Be; (2) the Greek world, from the Archaic period of eighth cen-
2 1 
22 INTRODUCTION 
tury BC until its conquest by Macedonia in 338 BC; (3) Mesoamerica, from 
the emergence of Olmec culture about 1250- 1 150 BC until after the Spanish 
conquest; ( 4) China. from the early Chou era of about 1 1 00 Be until the end 
of the Han era in AD 220; (5) the Islamic world, from AD 622 until the 
Mongol sack of Baghdad in the thirteenth century; and (6) Italy, from the 
decline of Rome in the fourth century AD until the Golden Age of the 
Renaissance in the fifteenth century. 4 
��POLITIES" RATHER THAN "STATES" 
"Polities" in our definition are entities with a significant measure of 
institutionalization and hierarchy, identity, and capacity to mobilize persons 
for value satisfaction (or relief from value deprivation). We regard the sov­
ereign territorial states that are associated with the Westphalian settlement 
of 1 648 as only one type of polity. All but perhaps the very earliest "primi­
tive" (pre)historical epochs have been characterized by layered, overlap­
ping, and interacting polities-coexisting, cooperating, and/or conflicting. 
Indeed, a range of overlapping or embedded polity types may govern effec­
tively, each within a specified (not necessarily exclusive) domain, over one 
or more issues. A polity 's domain includes the persons who identify with it, 
the resources ( including ideological resources) it has, and the issue(s) it 
affects. No polity is omnipotent, controlling all persons and resources with 
regard to all issues. 
Although all polities have a territory of sorts-where the persons that 
identify with the polity are-that territory need not be clearly demarcated. A 
polity need not have a "center," though it is a disadvantage not to have 
one--or to have more than one, like the medieval papacy at one stage or the 
late Roman Empire. All our historical cases suggest the utility of the dis­
tinction made by Sahlins (1989:4) between "boundary" and "frontier." A 
boundary, like that of a Westphalian state, is a "precise linear division with­
in a restrictive, political context"; a frontier "connotes more zonal qualities, 
and a broader, social context." The linear boundary typified the Westphalian 
polity with its territorial view of society, reinforced by the European princi­
ple of contract and Euclidean conceptions of space. The idea of a zonal fron­
tier allows for overlapping "civilizations," with continuity regardless of 
changing linear boundaries. Nevertheless, just as there is a propensity 
among many international relations theorists to exaggerate the significance 
of Westphalian state boundaries, there is a tendency among them to ignore 
the extent to which many other polities do have wel l-defined boundaries. 
Our cases reveal an enormous variety of polities. Those of the greatest 
significance in ancient Mesopotamia were cities, and loyalty to city consis­
tently threatened to undermine empires. Once cities arose, many grew rapid­
ly in size, population, and prosperity. Lagash, one of the largest Sumerian 
IDENTITIES AND LOYALTIES IN GLOBAL POL ITICS 23 
cities. had 30,000-35,000 residents. By comparison, during the sixth centu­
ry Babylon-which was the center of a much larger polity-alone had a 
population of 1 00,000. The Mesopotamian city was a genuine economic 
center, not just a political and cultic core like the less-integrated "village­
state" model prevailing in China and some parts of Mesoamerica. Other key 
polities in the Mesopotamian case included large kingdoms (regional poli­
ties) and tribes, both inside and outside Mesopotamia. Temples, large private 
landowners, and merchants were important economic actors. 
Mesopotamian tribes and cities afford excellent examples of overlap­
ping and interactive polity types. Mesopotamian tribes included bedouin 
nomads, whose only interest in civilization was an occasional raid for plun­
der, and others who became hired agricultural laborers, settled pastoralists, 
and/or mercenaries, and thereby acquired "civilized" language and culture. 
Tribal organization included groups under individual shaikhs, as well as 
tribal federations, the names of which are associated with an entire people 
or ethnicity like the Chaldeans,s who nonetheless often fought among them­
selves and eventually became rulers of Babylon. If city polities were deeply 
embedded in Mesopotamian tradition, so were empires. Indeed, in the actu­
al Mesopotamian context, there is ambiguity in both polity types. Some 
early cities were amalgamations of lesser cities, and various leagues of oth­
erwise-independent cities may have existed. There were fourteen known 
major cities in Sumer/Akkad during the Early Dynastic period. According to 
the Sumerian King-List, after kingship again descended from heaven fol­
lowing the flood, it was held in succession by a number of cities like Kish, 
each by implication exercising hegemony. The first Akkadian king, Sargon 
(23 1 0-2273 BC), not only conquered rival cities, but also he and his grand­
son Naram-Sin (2246-2 1 90 BC) created an empire that encompassed all of 
Mesopotamia. The Assyrian empire at its zenith in the seventh century BC 
reached as far as Egypt and Persia. 
The city was the leading polity throughout much of the Greek experi­
ence, but there were also chiefdoms, alliances, hegemonical alliances, 
empires, and functional regimes for shrines and games. The city polity itself 
involved two main subtypes. the polis and the ethnos. and both exhibited 
considerable variety. Because Greek cities were so small, external relation­
ships loomed large, and a wide range of informal and more institutionalized 
arrangements overarched the city polity. Alliances were influenced to some 
extent by historical ties, tribal identities, and constitutional preferences. 
Some alliances, such as the Spartan, evolved into hegemony, and that of 
Athens into a form of empire. The ethnos eventually provided a model for a 
series of federations, and regimes for shrines and games were important 
within their limited domains. Ultimately, however, no overarching polity 
threatening the freedom or independence of the individual city-state gained 
sufficient legitimacy to endure. 
The Mesoamerican record reveals a rich variety of polities from fami-
24 INTRODUCTION 
lies to empires. The patrilineal extended family was the basis of early 
Mesoamerican society, and kinship remained important. In many polities, 
including those of the classic Maya, a hereditary aristocracy emerged from 
the former heads of various lineages and came to control productive land, 
which client families worked. In central Mexico extended-kinship groups 
also retained a high degree of identity and autonomy. One can still see in 
Teotihuacan the remnants of what were apparently apartment compounds in 
which such groups resided. These compounds resemble the urban residences 
of the calpulli of later Aztec times. Each calpulli worked a particular plot of 
land or engaged in the same craft, sent its members together into battle, edu­
cated young boys in its own school, and provided a shrine to honor its patron 
deity. 
Beyond family and artificial kinship groups was tribe. Tribal groups 
overlapped not only with one another but also with other polities. The 
Aztecs were confused about the legendary Toltecs, from whom they claimed 
descent. B ut who were the Aztecs? According to their chronicles, they were 
originally part of a group of seven Chichimec tribes that migrated over sev­
eral generations from their original home, known as Azthi.n, in western 
Mexico. One of their leaders was named Meci, from whom they acquiredtheir own tribal name, Mexica. The name Aztec also came to refer to the 
imperial polity constructed by a Triple Alliance of the Mexica, the Acolhua, 
and the city of Tlacopan. 
Long-distance merchant-trader was an important occupational-identity 
category. The best-documented long-distance merchant-traders were the 
Aztec pochtecas, who practiced their profession on a hereditary basis, lived 
in separate barrios in Tenochtithin-Tlatelolco and probably elsewhere, mar­
ried within their group, had their own courts and laws, and maintained their 
own shrines, priests, and sacrificial rituals. The pochtecas wore special dress 
and owed neither personal nor military service to the ruler, though they did 
pay tribute. The local guild was affiliated with a regional merchants' associ­
ation stretching across the twelve towns in the center of the Aztec empire. 
Other Mesoamerican polities were local, subregional, or regional; and 
local and subregional identities and loyalties proved more durable than those 
associated with more-inclusive polities. In the Valley of Oaxaca, widely 
spaced independent villages with dependent hamlets gave way to subre­
gional centers, then to a single dominant regional poli ty, and finally to sub­
regional centers again. At its peak, Monte Alban dominated the entire Valley 
of Oaxaca. In the Lowland Peten before 250 BC, Maya culture was one of 
scattered small villages. Over the next 500 years some six subregional 
fortress centers emerged. 
Overarching Mesoamerican polities included alliances, empires, and a 
Mayapan ••confederation" that is difficult to distinguish from empire. The 
overlap between alliances and empire is even more pronounced. After the 
ID ENTITIES AND LOYALTI ES IN GLOBAL POLITICS 25 
fall of the Toltecs and the weakening of residual Olmec control in the B asin 
of Mexico, three city polities-Azcapotzalco, Culhuacan, and Coatlichan­
joined in an alliance dominated by the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco. The newly 
arrived Aztec-Mexica eventually formed a Triple Alliance with Texcoco and 
Tlacopan that overthrew Azcapotzalco and inaugurated the Aztec Empire. 
That empire was only the l ast in a series of preconquest Mesoamerican 
empires, and at its peak ruled five to six million subjects. 
The Spanish conquest added the Catholic Church to the list of 
Mesoamerican polities. No Indian temple priesthood ever matched the 
degree of autonomy, lands, and wealth the Spanish Church enjoyed. The 
Pope granted to Spain the Patronato charge of evangelizing the New World, 
and the King of Spain provided an enormous permanent income. The 
Church received land grants from the king and wealthy laypersons, and in 
time came to own or control much of the arable land in Mexico. 
In ancient China, the family or clan was the basic sociopolitical unit, 
and China's ethical system was oriented toward the family rather than a 
supreme being (as in medieval Europe or Islam) or encompassing polity (as 
in ancient Greece). Since the patriarchal family was regarded as the taproot 
of other polities, no distinction was made between private and public 
spheres, and Chinese thinkers easily accepted hierarchy as an organizing 
principle. The family, rather than any larger polity, provided economic and 
personal security and was the source of personal and political values for 
individuals. Religious ideas, military organization, even agricultural labor 
mobilized from above revolved around the family. During the late Chou era, 
China consisted of a cluster of city polities, whose capital was home to a l in­
eage that itself was a political entity. 
Although Chou influence extended across much of northern China, as 
many as 200 small walled cities and their environs, especially in the east, 
retained independence under vassal lords who acknowledged Chou 
suzerainty. The decline of the Eastern Chou left a number of competing poli­
ties in control of the north China Plain-some ten to fifteen by the eighth 
century BC. These sought to build alliances to protect themselves from the 
predatory policies of neighbors, and a novel approach to curbing instability 
was adopted in 65 1 BC, when these small polities designated the Ch'i ruler 
as hegemon of their confederation. 
Nomadic tribes, ethnically similar to but linguistically distinct from the 
Chinese, constituted another polity type. Called Hsiung-nu by the Chinese, 
these nomads spoke a Turkish dialect. Horses provided them with mobility 
and a11owed them to adapt to the grasslands of the northern steppe, which 
could not support the intensive agriculture that evolved in China's Yellow 
River basin. In the third century BC, even as China was being united, a 
Hsiung-nu tribal federation exercised authority across Mongolia from west­
ern Manchuria to the edge of the Pamir Mountains in Turkestan. Hsiung-nu 
26 INTRODUCTION 
mobility posed a permanent threat along the frontiers of cultural China and, 
at their peak, these nomads could put as many as 300,000 mounted archers 
in the field. 
Notwithstanding the variety of polities in China, a strong sense of cul­
tural unity developed early, and the Chinese regarded their civilization as 
superior to others. As a result, the ideal of an overarching Chinese polity 
remained strong even during eras in which it was a fiction. The first two his­
torical dynasties, the Shang and Chou, actually controlled l ittle beyond their 
capital cities and, under Chou feudalism, the center was weak. Only with the 
triumph and consolidation of Ch 'in authoritarianism after 22 1 BC did a gen­
uine imperial polity emerge, and it was short-lived. Despite the myth of con­
tinuity from the Shang, it was not until the Earlier Han era (202 BC to AD 8) 
that a durable Chinese empire took root. 
I slam began as a rebellion against Arab tribal practices, but the death of 
Muhammad triggered a struggle within the movement that led to clashes 
between tribal and statist practices, struggles among kinship groups, differ­
ing class-based perceptions, and strongly held religious beliefs. Three major 
polity types coexisted uneasily within the medieval Islamic system: tribe, 
religious community, and empire. Tribal or clan loyalties dominated Arabia 
prior to the Prophet's revolution, and Muhammad sought to replace tribal 
attachments with loyalty to a Muslim community of believers. However, 
Muhammad's authority was putatively derived directly from Allah, and his 
actions were believed to have divine sanction that was unavailable to others. 
Ultimately, the identification of religious and secular symbols proved an 
insurmountable obstacle to institutionalizing "statist" forms and practices. 
Within Arab society, the extended family produced potent loyalties and 
was affiliated with a kinship group claiming a common ancestor that would 
afford protection and, if necessary, seek vengeance. Muhammad was from a 
secondary branch of the Quraysh tribe, which, through its control of trade 
routes, was the dominant political force in Mecca and, therefore, Arabia. As 
his preaching gained converts, Muhammad earned the animosity of leaders 
of his tribe, ostensibly because he threatened traditional tribal authority, but 
also because of rivalry between two branches of the Quraysh. 
The Islamic community was established by the Constitution of Medina 
that was written by Muhammad after his migration from Mecca to Medina 
in AD 622. Communal unity was to be based on religious belief rather than 
tribal affiliation, and tribal practices like blood feuds were to be abandoned. 
Muhammad's community was not a "state" but an expression of Islamic sol­
idarity against traditional tribal forms, and in contrast to tribal tradition 
viewed all individuals, whether or not blood kin, as equals. Religion and lan­
guage marked, for Muslims, the demarcation between themselves and oth­
ers, and the Quran was almost