US CounterinsurgencyPolicy in the Philippines: A Post-PositivistAnalysis

Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S.
Counterinsurgency
Policy in the Philippines
Author(s): Roxanne Lynn Doty
Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 297-320
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The International Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600810 .
Accessed: 03/09/2014 04:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Studies Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
International
StudiesQuarterly
(1993) 37, 297-320
ForeignPolicyas Social Construction:

A Post-Positivist
Analysisof U.S.
Counterinsurgency
Policyin thePhilippines
ROXANNELYNNDoTy
ArizonaStateUniversity
Much of the criticismdirected at post-positivist
internationalrelations
has called for more detailed explorationof its implicationsfor specific
areas of investigation.
At the same time,the studyof foreignpolicyhas
been largelyunaffectedbythe criticalinsightsofferedbypost-positivism.
This paper attemptsto bridgethisgap byexaminingthreeapproaches to
foreignpolicyanalysisand the metatheoreticalissuesunderlyingeach of
them. It is suggested that an approach informed by post-positivist
insightscan provide a useful alternativeto traditionalwaysof studying
foreignpolicyand can facilitatea more criticalinterpretation
of foreign
policy practices. The firsttwo approaches, the Cognitive DecisionmakingApproach and the Social PerformanceApproach,werechosen as
a wayof differentiating
and highlightingthe ontologicaland theoretical
issues that are relevantto understandingand situatingthe Discursive
PracticesApproach. Afterexamining the three approaches, I use the
DiscursivePracticesApproach to analyze United States' counterinsurgencypolicyin the Philippinescirca 1950.
On July 4, 1946, for the first time in history, an imperial nation voluntarily
relinquished possession of its colonial conquest (Karnow, 1989:323). As the United
States granted independence to the Philippines the new relationship between the
two was widely heralded as one of partnership and equality. The Filipino people, it
was said, had demonstrated their capacity for democratic self-governmentand had
earned the right of independence (MacArthur, 1946). The emergence of the
Philippines as a sovereign nation was hailed as conclusive proof that the United
States stood for fair play, liberty and freedom, and progress and prosperity for
other peoples (McDonough, 1946).
Despite this optimistic beginning, the United States was soon to embark on an
interventionistcourse that displayed little respect for Philippine sovereignty.The
question arises as to how this interventionistpolicy came to be deemed necessary
and nonintervention unthinkable. How, amidst all the profession of sovereign
Author's
note: I would like to thankthe followingindividualsfor theircommentson variousdraftsof thispaper:
RichardAshley,FrancisBeer,Jack Crittenen,RaymondDuvall, David Sylvan,Stephen Walker,CynthiaWeber, and
AlexanderWendt. I would also like to thankthree anonymousreviewersand the editorsat ISQ especiallyRichard
Herrmann.
? 1993 InternationalStudiesAssociation.
PublishedbyBlackwellPublishers,238 Main Street,Cambridge,MA 02142, USA, and 108 CowleyRoad, OxfordOX4
1JF,UK.

298
ForeignPolicyas Social Construction
equality,did the post-colonialUnited States-Philippinerelationshipcome to be

constructedin so hierarchicala mannerthatthe U.S. was licensedto diagnose and
judge the internalsituationof the Philippines?How, indeed, did it come to be
constructedsuch that,upon judging the situation,United States' policy makers
could regardcounterinsurgency
measuresas the onlyreasonablecourseof action?
Conventionalapproaches to foreignpolicyanalysisdo not pose thiskind of howquestion.
Foreignpolicyanalysisis generallyconcernedwithexplainingwhyparticular decisionsresultingin specificcoursesof actionweremade. Depending on the
approach, explanation might focus on the relativeposition of a state in the
internationalpower hierarchy,infighting
among variousgovernmentagencies,or
the perceptionsof decision makers.What is common to alt of these kinds of
explanationsis thattheyseek an answerto a particularcategoryof question,a whyquestion.The problem for analysisis to show that a certainpolicy decision was
predictablegiven a particularset of circumstances.While the attemptis made to
identify
sufficient
conditions,in mostcases analystscan onlysuggestthatoutcomes
willoccurwitha certainamountofprobability
(Little,1991:4).
Explanations for why-questions
are incomplete in an importantsense. They
generallytakeas unproblematicthepossibility
thata particulardecisionor course of
action could happen.1 They presuppose a particularsubjectivity
(i.e., a mode of
being), a background of social/discursivepracticesand meanings which make
possible the practicesas well as the social actors themselves.In contrastto more
conventionalapproaches to the analysisof foreignpolicy,the approach I take in
thisarticleposes a how-possible
question.In posing such a question,I examine how
meanings are produced and attached to various social subjects/objects,thus
constitutingparticularinterpretivedispositionswhich create certain possibilities
and preclude others.What is explained is not whya particularoutcome obtained,
but rather howthe subjects,objects, and interpretivedispositionswere socially
constructed such that certain practices were made possible. The claims of
on the partof
sovereignequalitywould seem to have made a policyof intervention
the United States impossible.This suggeststhat other constructionswere being
produced thatwerenot thoseheraldedat the timeofPhilippineindependence.
The differencebetween why-and how-questionsis importantin judging a
successfulexplanation.This difference
can be illustrated
witha briefexample. One
could pose the question "Whydid the United States invade Panama?" Some
of
possibleexplanationsmightpoint to the U.S. desire to stop the drug trafficking
Noriega, Bush's desire to overcome his "wimp"image, or the U.S. desire to
overcome the Vietnam "syndrome."All of these explanationsare incompletein
thatthe invasioncould take place.
thattheytake as unproblematicthe possibility
One could pointto U.S. military
capabilitiesas an explanationforthe how-possible
question.Still,thisis incompletein thatthe U.S. does not imagineinvadingevery
countryto whichit is militarily
superiorand withwhichit has a seriousgrievance.
The possibility
of practicespresupposesthe abilityof an agent to imaginecertain
courses of action. Certain background meanings, kinds of social actors and
relationships,
mustalreadybe in place.
lUsefuldiscussionsof why-and how-questionscan be found in Little (1991:chap. 1) and Cross (1991). Also see
Wendt (1987:362-363) for a discussion of the distinctionbetween why-and how-questions as theypertain to
structuralvs. historicalexplanations.Also relevantis Sylvanand Glassner's (1985:7-9) discussionof possibilism,an
explanation that should be familiarto studentsof internationalrelations. George (1979:103) suggeststhat an
of decision making.This is consistentwithan
not determinants,
individual'soperationalcode introducespropensities,
Similarly,Sprout and Sprout's (1965) "environmentaipossibilism"suggests
explanation thatfocuseson possibilities.
supports,
or resists
certainbehaviors.
behavior,but ratherpermits,
thatthe environmentdoes not deternine

ROXANNE
LYNNDOTY
299
How-possiblequestions are concerned with explaining how these meanings,

subjects,and interpretive
dispositionsare constructed.To address the question of
how the U.S. invasion of Panama was made possible, an adequate explanation
would have to inquireinto the productionof thesethings.In the Panama case one
mightexamine the discursiveconstructionof Manuel Noriega himself,notingthe
leader" to "drugtrafficker."
shiftfrom"anti-communist
How-questions,so posed, go to an importantaspect of powerthatwhy-questions
too oftenneglect.Theygo to thewayin whichpowerworksto constituteparticular
modes of subjectivityand interpretivedispositions.Indeed, the kind of howa questionof power.This is not the kind
questionI pose in thisarticleis implicitly
of powerthatworksthrough
social agents,a powerthatsocial actorspossessand use.
Rather,it is a kindof powerthatis productiveof meanings,subjectidentities,their
interrelationships,
and a range of imaginableconduct.Poweras productive
is central
to the kind of how-questionraised in thisstudy.2Why-questions,
by takingsubjects
as given,as the ontologicalfoundationof theiranalysis,precludeinvestigation
into
of subjects.
poweras constitutive
to how-possiblequestions has importantimplicaMoving fromwhy-questions
tions for foreign policy analysis.By making more elements of policy making
is more
problematicand takingless as given,an approach thatposes how-questions
criticalthanan approach confinedto the questionof why.When we ask whystates
or decision makersengage in certainpracticeswithother states,we assume the
existence of those states and decision makers. When we pose a how-possible
question,we can stillask why,but we mustin addition inquire into the practices
that enable social actors to act, to frame policy as they do, and to wield the
capabilitiestheydo. Perforcemore critical,thismode of questioningtakes us to
relationsof power-power in itsproductiveaspectthatwhy-questions
neglect.
This studytakesup twohow-possiblequestions.(1) How wereparticularsubjects
and modes of subjectivityconstitutedso as to make possible United States'
interventionist
policy in the Philippinescirca 1950? and, equally important,(2)
How did the practicesinvolvedin thisspecificinstanceof policymakingfurther
the constructionand hierarchicalpositioningof subjects, thus locating some
and judgers of others?
"sovereign"equals as the rightful
interpreters
To addressthesequestionsI takea Discursive
Practices
Approach,
an approach that
perhaps needs to be situatedand clarified.Toward thatend, I shall briefly
juxtapose it alongside two alternativeapproaches to foreignpolicyanalysis,using the
contrast to draw out some of the issues that need to be appreciated in
understandingmyapproach. The purpose of thisjuxtapositionis not to prepare
thewayforan applicationof each approach in a causal analysisof thiscase, thento
determinewhich offersthe best explanation. Rather, my purpose is simplyto
highlightthe ontologicaland theoreticalissuesthatare relevantto understanding
and situatingthe DiscursivePracticesApproach.The firsttwo approaches, the
were chosen
and the SocialPerformance
Cognitive
Decision-making
Approach
Approach,
because theydo thisnicely.
The CognitiveDecision-making
Approach
Internationalrelations scholars who have been influenced by the "cognitive
revolution"in psychologyand other fields have long been sensitiveto the
2The conceptualizationof powerbeing suggestedhere is thatofferedbyMichel Foucault. (Originalworksinclude
thosepublishedin 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1983). Usefulsecondarysourcesare Dreyfusand Rabinow (1983) and Clegg
(1989:chap. 7).

300
importanceof the cognitiveaspects of individualsinvolvedin the formulationof

foreign policy. Notwithstandingthe methodological problems, conventional
scholars continue to integrate insightsgleaned from a focus on individual
cognition with theories of international relations. Of significance for my
immediate purposes is what the cognitiverevolutionproblematized that had
previouslybeen leftunexamined.The cognitiverevolutionmade problematicthe
subjectiveenvironment
of individualsand in doing so called our attentionto the
worldas perceivedand represented
bythose actorsinvolvedin foreignpolicydecisionmakingprocesses(Axelrodand Keohane, 1985:228-32,247-48).3
In directingour attentionto the importanceof "worlds"as theyare perceived
and constructedby individualdecision makers,the cognitiveapproach suggests
that "objective"realityis not the locus of meaning and thereforenot the key to
understandingpoliticalbehaviorand practices.Rather,individualsare the source
of meaning.
Such a suggestionimplicitly
threeimportantissues
opens up forfurtherscrutiny
whichscholarsworkingwithinthisapproach have not addressed. (1) In order to
have anythingto perceive,subjectsmustbe situatedwithinthe social order. This
calls our attentionto the constructionof thatsocial order (the environment)itself.
(2) The privilegingof the subject'sperceptionsrendersvulnerablethe veryconis exhibitedin theliteratureitselfby
cept of an "objective"reality.This vulnerability
suggestionsthat analysts"disregardthe so-called 'real world' external to the
environedindividualor decisionalgroup" (Sproutand Sprout,1965:119). (3) The
subject itselfbecomes problematic. The decision-makingliteratureitself has
highlightedthis issue through its focus on modal actors and shared images.
Movingtowarda constructionof realitywhichis not necessarilythe productof a
particularindividualsuggeststhat the subject may be a social collective,i.e., a
group of decision makers,a bureaucracy,or the state.This raises the possibility
that the source of meaning,the social registerof value, and agent of action may
not be the individual.Perhapssubjectsin general,whetherindividualor collective,
are themselvesconstructed.
To so regard the subject is to render that subject a problem in need of an
accounting.Such a problematizationis not possiblewithinthe cognitivedecisionmakingframework
because it would destabilizethe veryground upon which this
framework
stands,i.e., the individualor collectivesubject.The consequence of this
is that the kind of how-possiblequestion discussed earlier and the question of
powerthatit impliescannotbe raised.
The Social PerformanceApproach

While this approach has not had extensiveimpact on internationalrelations,its
implicationswould be to move analyses,in significant
ways,beyond the cognitive
and towardissues thatare furtherexplored in the soframework
decision-making
called post-positivist
literature.4
Arguingagainstthepredispositionto identify
cognitive process solelywith individuals,analyticphilosopherRom Harre (1981:212)
suggeststhatcognitiveprocessesare not innerand privatebut public and collective.
The waythatthistermis understoodin the
Social cognitionthusbecomes important.
3The concern with in-dividualcognition has been particularlyevident in the operational code and cognitive
mapping approaches to foreignpolicy decision making (George, 1979; Bonham and Shapiro, 1973; Holsti, 1976;
Walker,1977). These approaches illustratehow scholarsattemptto get at individualworldviewsand how individuals
define theirimmediatedecision-makingsituation(s). Approaches more directlyreflectingthe cognitiverevolution
include thoseofJervis(1976), Larson (1985), Rosati (1987), Herrmann(1985, 1988), and Cottam(1977).
4Anexceptionis Walker(1990), who drawsupon Harre in developinga theoryof self-and-other
in foreignpolicy.

ROXANNELYNNDOTY
301
Social PerformanceApproach differssignificantly

fromthe wayit is understoodin
the North American cognitive psychologyliterature,where it refers to how
individualsorganizetheirknowledgeof theirworld.The concept of "schema"gets
at this organization.In the North American literature,however,the originsof
schemaare not themselvestheobjectofanalysis.
The Social PerformanceApproach suggeststhat there is a large degree of
intersubjective
understandingpresent in social practiceswhich is manifestedin
social scriptsthatactorsfollow.An analysisof statementmakingcan explain how
these scriptsare produced by revealing an overall structuregenerated from
preformedmentaltemplates(Harre, 1980:130). Sociallycompetentpeople contain
sharedtemplatestructures
whichare manifestedin theircognitiveresources.
One of the implicationsof this approach for foreignpolicy analysisis that it
would shiftour focusto the inextricablelinkbetweenindividualsand theirsocial
context(s). Meaning,as both cognitively
and culturallymediated,has a distinctly
social dimension.This moves in the directionof addressingthe constructionof
subjectsthemselvesby recognizingthe mutuallyconstitutive
relationshipbetween
individualsand theirsocial order (Harre, 1980:7).5
Anotherimplicationof thisapproach would be to broaden our understanding
of what foreignpolicymakingis. What policymakersare doingin any particular
situationgoes beyond merelymakingchoices among variouspolicyoptions.They
are also performing
accordingto a social scriptwhichis itselfpartof a largersocial
order.Byvirtueof thisperformancetheyare involvedin a ritualreproduction(or
repudiation) of that social order. Foreign policy thus becomes a practice that
produces a social order as well as one throughwhich individualand collective
subjectsthemselvesare produced and reproduced.This moves towardaddressing
the how-questiondiscussedabove. Finally,it is importantto note the significance
thisapproach places on statementmaking,thuscallingour attentionto language
and signifying
practices in the more general sense. While cognitivedecisionmakingapproaches oftenuse documentsas data and thusalso focuson statement
making,the implicittheoryof language is referential.
Language is transparentin
thatit reflectsperceptions,motivations,
and beliefsystems.Language merelygives
names to the meaningsalreadypossessedby actorsand is not itselfconstitutive
of
meaning.By contrast,statementmakingfor the Social PerformanceApproach is
productive,
involvingthe shared interpretations
of membersof societyand, in turn,
thereproductionof thatsociety.
It should be noted, however, that this approach does not fundamentally
challenge the concept of a unitary,pre-givensubject (albeit a collectivesubject)
(Henriques et al., 1984:24). It remainswedded to the notionthattemplatesare susceptibleof a unique determinative
reading,as iftheyweremonologicallyproduced
The
bya single"author";this"author"being a preexistinginterpretive
community.
questionof how thesesharedtemplatesthemselvesget constructedis deferredand
withitthequestionof the productiverole ofpowerin such a construction.
This point has importantimplicationsfor the way that language enters into
analysis.Whilethisapproachunderstandslanguageto be productive,it is onlyso by
virtueof its connection with preformedtemplates.No autonomyis granted to
languageitself.Signifiers(i.e., words,images) mustultimately
referback to signified
(i.e., shared templates).This is in contrastto the DiscursivePracticesApproach
whichsuggeststhatwords,language,and discourse(signifiers)have a forcewhichis
not reducibleto eitherstructures
or cognitiveattributes
(signifieds)ofsocial actors.
5Harre'ssocial psychologicalapproach is verymuch influencedbystructurationist

social theorywhichrecognizes
the mutuallyconstitutive
relationshipbetweenagentsand structures.See Giddens (1979). The worksof Kratochwill
and Ruggie (1986), Wendt (1987, 1992), and Dessler (1989) linkthisapproach to internationalrelations.

302
The DiscursivePracticesApproach
A DiscursivePracticesApproachemphasizesthe linguisticconstruction
ofreality.6
The
productivenature of language does not depend on nor necessarilycoincide with
the motivations,perceptions, intentions,or understandingsof social actors.
Language is seen as a set of signswhichare partof a systemforgeneratingsubjects,
objects,and worlds (Shapiro, 1984:222). The DiscursivePracticesApproach thus
of a conscious,meaning-giving
obviatesthe need for recourse to the interiority
of individuals
subject,eitherin termsof psychologicaland cognitivecharacteristics
Whetheror not these exist is
or shared mental templatesof social collectivities.
somewhatbeside the pointbecause the DiscursivePracticesApproachis not tied to
them.7
This kind of approach addressesthe how-questiondiscussedearlierbecause it
does not presuppose thatparticularsubjectsare alreadyin place. It thusdoes not
look to individualor collectivesubjectsas the loci of meaning.Regardinglanguage
practicesthemselvesas relativelyautonomous admits the question of a kind of
and "reality."In contrastto
power thatconstitutessubjects,modes of subjectivity,
the Social PerformanceApproach in which signifiers(words,images) ultimately
referback to signifieds(shared templates),in the DiscursivePracticesApproach
hence the notion of intertextuality,
i.e., a
signifiersreferonly to other signifiers,
complex and infinitely
expandingweb of possible meanings.That meaning does
is
oftenappear to be fixedand decideable ratherthan an infiniteplayof signifiers
indicativeof the workingsof power. This presentsus with a radicallynew conception of powerwhichis inherentin the linguisticpracticesbywhichagentsare
constructedand become articulatedwithinparticulardiscourses.
This approach, like any approach, has its analyticform. The form of this
approach is a "discursivepractice."A discursivepracticeis not traceableto a fixed
and stable center,e.g., individualconsciousnessor a social collective.Discursive
practicesthatconstitutesubjectsand modes of subjectivity
are dispersed,scattered
is important.
throughoutvariouslocales. This is whythe notion of intertextuality
Texts alwaysreferback to other textswhich themselvesreferto stillother texts.
The power thatis inherentin language is thusnot somethingthatis centralized,
emanatingfroma pre-givensubject.Rather,like the discursivepracticesin whichit
inheres,poweris dispersedand, mostimportant,is productiveof subjectsand their
worlds.
A discourse,i.e., a systemof statementsin which each individualstatement
makessense,produces interpretive
impossibleto
possibilitiesbymakingitvirtually
thinkoutside of it. A discourseprovidesdiscursivespaces,i.e., concepts,categories,
metaphors,models,and analogiesbywhichmeaningsare created.The production
and socialityis indissoluble (Henriques et al.,
of discoursesand of subjectivity
6Myunderstandingof the DiscursivePracticesApproach is drawn primarilyfromthe worksof Michel Foucault

(1972, 1981) andJacques Derrida (1978, 1981, 1982) and fromdiscussionsin Dreyfusand Rabinow (1983). See also
Shapiro, Bonham, and Heradstveit(1988), Der Derian (1987), Shapiro (1989), Campbell (1990, 1992), Chaloupka
(1992), Ashleyand Walker(1990), and Weber (1990, 1992).
7To accept thatit is ultimately
the speakingand writingindividualsubjectthatproduces the documentsand texts
thatgiverise to social discoursedoes not lead to the conclusion thatanalysismustrestwiththe individual.A parallel
can be made here withone scholar's criticismof methodologicalindividualism.Even ifone accepts the ontological
thesisthatsocial entitiesare nothingbut ensembles of individualsin variousrelationsto one another,it does not
followthatall social factsmustultimatelybe explicable in termsof factsabout individuals(the explanatorythesis)
(Little, 1991:183-200). It is commonlyaccepted by internationalrelationsscholarswho approach analysisfroma
systemiclevel that social actions have unintended consequences which escape control of individuals actually
performingthose actions. It is not such a big leap fromthis to the notion that language escapes the control of
individualsand has a forceof itsown.

ROXANNELYNN DOTY
303
1984:106). This is because discoursescreatevariouskindsof subjectsand simultaone another. For example, a traditional
neously position these subjectsvis-a-vis
discourse on the familywould contain spaces for a subject with traitscondefinedas "male"and anotherkindof subjectwithtraitsconventionally
ventionally
one anotherin a
definedas "female."These subjectswould be positionedvis-a-vis
particularway,e.g.,femalesubservientto male. Withinthe traditionaldiscourseon
the familyit is impossibleto thinkoutside of these categoriesexcept in termsof
devianceor abnormality.
Withinthisdiscourse,thereis no discursivespace forthe
single motherby choice or the gay or lesbian couple with children except as
departuresfromthe "normal"familyor as deviants.Subjects,then,can be thought
of as positionswithinparticulardiscourses,intelligibleonly withreferenceto a
specificsetof categories,concepts,and practices.
Policymakersalso functionwithina discursivespace thatimposesmeaningson
theirworld and thus createsreality(Shapiro, 1988:100, 116). An approach that
focuseson discursivepracticesas a unit of analysiscan get at howthis "reality"is
produced and maintainedand howit makesvariouspracticespossible.The analytic
questionaddressedis not whyparticulardecisionsare made; the policydecision in
itselfbecomes a secondaryconcern. What is central is the discourse(s) which
constructa particular"reality."An analysisof discoursescan reveal the necessary
but not sufficient
conditionsofvariouspractices.
Applyingthisapproach to the studyof foreignpolicy,not onlydo we broaden
our conception of what foreignpolicy is, the sites of foreignpolicy,i.e., where
foreignpolicy takes place, also become much more extensive.This approach
suggeststhatwhat foreignpolicy is need not be limitedto the actual makingof
and spatiallybounded "events."
specificdecisionsnor the analysisof temporally
Similarly,"foreignpolicymakers"need not be limitedto prominentdecision
makers,but could also include those ratheranonymousmembersof the various
bureaucracieswho writethe numerousmemorandums,intelligencereports,and
researchpapers thatcirculatewithinpolicycircles.The discourse(s) instantiatedin
thesevariousdocumentsproduce meaningsand in doing so activelyconstructthe
"reality"
upon whichforeignpolicyis based.
Moreover,foreignpolicymakingcan also extend beyond the realm of official
governmentinstitutions.The reception as meaningfulof statementsrevolving
around policysituationsdepends on how well theyfitinto the general systemof
representationin a givensociety.Even speeches and press conferencestatements
produced for specificpurposes,in order to be taken seriously,mustmake sense
and fit with what the general public takes as "reality."Thus, the analysisof
statementscan entail the examinationof whatwas said and writtenwithinbroad
contextsas wellas statements
policy-making
made in societymoregenerally.8
Below I employthe DiscursivePracticesApproach in an analysisof U.S. counterinsurgency
policyin the Philippinescirca 1950. In doing so, I intend to show
how foreignpolicypracticesconstructedan importantaspect of internationalrelations.The aspect of internationalrelationsthatis of concern to me is its hierarchicalnature.
In internationalrelations,hierarchyhas been more of a backgroundcondition
fromwhich analysesproceed ratherthan somethingwhich is itselfin need of
examination.For example, classical realism tacitlyaccepted the rightof Great
8In a sense thisis why"public opinion" becomes relevantto policymakers.When the public stronglyobjects to
U.S. policy,it is often,at least in part,because officialrepresentationsdo not fitwell withsociety'srepresentations.
The example thatmostreadilycomes to mind is Vietnam.As the war dragged on different
representation(s)of the
situationbegan to compete withthe officialone, thusmakingit increasingly
difficult
forU.S. officialsto portraythe
situationas a simpleone of communismversusdemocracyor good versusevil.

304
Powers to special privilegeswithin the internationalcommunity.Neorealism,

despiteitsconceptionof the internationalrealmas anarchical,sees stateslinkedto
one another hierarchicallybased upon power differentials.Marxist-oriented
approaches to internationalrelationsbegin with the assumptionthat capitalist
relationsof productionand/or exchange resultin a hierarchicalworldconsisting
of both classes and nation-states.9
All of these approaches exhibitan unspoken
agreementnot to problematizethe constructionof the subjectsthatconstitutethe
worldand the categories
throughwhichthesesubjectsand objectsare constructed.I
suggest that we need to denaturalize hierarchy.We need to examine the
content(s) of hierarchy,or, more accurately,of specifichierarchies,the practices
thatproduced them,and the practicestheymake possible.
The second how-possiblequestion posed earlier is implied here. How is
internationalhierarchyitselfmade possible?As the titleof thisarticleis meant to
suggest,conceptualizingforeignpolicyas social constructionseeks to place foreign
a particularkind of interpolicypracticeswithinthe largercontextof constructing
national order consistingof variouskinds of internationalidentities.The second
how-possiblequestion addresses thisconcern. Addressingthisquestion,however,
can onlybe accomplishedby examiningparticularinstancesof foreignpolicy.In
examininga particularcase we also findthatthe discursivepracticessurrounding
thatcase made possible the more immediate,case-specificpractices,thusaddressing thefirsthow-possiblequestion.
Two importantaspects to this analysisfollowfromthe above discussion.One
aspectis the detailed explicationof the discourseitself.This consistsof examining
varioustextualmechanismsat workin the discoursethat constructidentitiesfor
one another.The second aspectentails
subjectsand positionthesesubjectsvis-a-vis
an examinationof how,fromthisconstructionand positioning,variouspossibilities
of practiceemerge.
The followingexample is helpful in clarifyingthe distinctionbetween my
approach, which examines what linguisticpracticesdo, and an approach which
seeksto revealwhatlinguisticpracticestellus about the beliefsand understandings
ofdecisionmakers.
Shafer(1988) analyzedU.S. counterinsurgency
policyin the Philippinesusinga
"cognitivecontentapproach" whichis consistentwiththe firstapproach discussed
above. He used thisapproach to explain whyU.S. assessmentand prescriptions
for
variousinsurgencies(includingthe Philippines) have been so inaccurateand yet
despite this have remained virtuallyunchanged. He examined the statements
contained in variousforeignpolicydocumentsas a way of gettingat the shared
ideas and analyticframeworks
withwhichpolicymakersanalyzedthe international
situation,generated policy options, and chose among those options (Shafer,
1988:32-34). The statementscontained in the documentswere signifiers
for,i.e.,
referredback to, the misunderstandings
of policy makersregardingthe situation
in the Philippines. Decision makers acted upon these misunderstandingsand
proceeded to analyze the success of counterinsurgency
policy in termsof these
same misunderstandings,
judging ita successand a model forfuturepolicy.
A DiscursivePracticesApproach would not necessarilydisputesuch an analysis
or argue againstitsutility.
Rather,it suggeststhatthiswas not all thatwas going on
in this particularforeign policy discourse. What this discourse was doing was
constructingparticularsubject identities,positioningthese subjectsvis-a-visone
9An exception to the more well known conceptions of hierarchyin internationalrelationsis Onuf and Klink
(1989), who suggestthata paradigmbased on Weber's three ideal typesof rule can facilitatean understandingof
internationalhierarchicalrelations.

ROXANNELYNN DOTY
305
anotherand therebyconstructing
a particular"reality"
in whichthispolicybecame
possible,as well as a larger"reality"in whichfuturepolicies would be justifiedin
advance. In the one case language revealsand is at least potentiallyneutral.In the
othercase language doesthingsand is inherently
powerful.
There is another importantand related differencebetween the two kinds of
analyses.Shaferis askinga why-question.
The questionI am posing is a howpossible
question.Garfinkel(1981:22) pointsout thatwhataspectof a givenstateof affairs
is
taken to be problematic radically alters the success or failure of potential
explanations.Shaferis takingthe shared ideas and analyticalframework
of policy
makersto be problematic.Thus,a successfulexplanationmustfocuson thesethings
and explainwhytheyled to or increasedtheprobability
ofparticularpolicies.
What I take to be problematicis the existence of subjects themselves,their
positioningvis-a-vis
one another,and the "reality"
thatmade certainstructures
and
meaningspossible. How we know what these arrangementsand meaningsare is
throughthe categories,concepts,metaphors,and analogiesprovidedbylanguage.
Since, for the DiscursivePracticesApproach, subjectsdo not exist prior to their
productionin particulardiscourses,and the constitutive
role of language is not
tied to perceptionsand othercognitivefeatures,I cannot drawupon such features
of preexistingsubjectsto explain howthose subjectsthemselvesand theirpractices
are made possible.A successfulexplanationmustfocuson how language worksto
produce subjectsand theirrelationships.
In one sense myhow-possibleexplanationis a structuralone and is consistent
withLittle's (1991:4-5) suggestionthathow-possiblequestionsare associatedwith
the behaviorof complexsystems,
and social organizations.However,it is
structures,
importantto distinguishmy explanation from those that tend to subordinate
specificcontentand practicesto abstractand a prioristructuralneeds. I am not a
prioripositinga structure
withcertainneeds and thensuggestinghow it determines
meaningsand practices.Rather,in emphasizingdiscursivepractices,I am suggestingthatstructure
itselfis constructedalong withthemeaningswhichsimultaneously
producesubject'sidentitiesand theirpositionsvis-a-vis
one another.Possibilities
are
not explainedby the priorexistenceof structures
or social actors,but ratherby the
continualand simultaneousproductionofsubjectsand structures.10
ResearchDesign
Discourseanalyticmethodsfacilitatethe examinationof thevariousmechanismsat
work in texts. This said, however, it would be misleading to suggest that
on the part
is not an importantpart of myanalysis.Interpretation,
interpretation
of the analyst,is an importantaspect of all three of the approaches discussedin
thisarticle.The differencewiththe DiscursivePracticesApproach is thatI am not
providingan interpretationof the consciouslymotivated,self-serving
images
of what
constructedby the participants.Rather,I am providingan interpretation
the discursivepractices do, which does not necessarilycoincide with individual
motivations,
perceptions,and intentions.
IOAnotable contrastcan be made here withtwo of the dominant structuraltheoriesof internationalrelations.
The neorealistconceptionof structureis individualist,
reducibleto the propertiesof states(or agents) (Ashley,1984;
Wendt, 1987). World-system
theory'sconception of structureis of a "deep structure"thatgeneratesboth stateand
class actors.As Wendt (1987) correctlypointsout, each of these twoapproaches treatsits "primitiveunits"as given
and unproblematic.The DiscursivePracticesApproach permitsme to address the simultaneousconstructionof both
subjects and structureswithoutbringing analysis to rest with either, and without holding one constant while
addressingthe productionof the other,or "bracketing."
On the notion of "bracketing"see Wendt (1987:364-365)
and Giddens (1979:80-81).

306
The conceptsof presupposition,

predication,and subjectpositioningprovideanalytic
categoriesthatenable me to get at how discursivepracticesconstitutesubjectsand
objects and organize them into a "gridof intelligibility."
These concepts can be
thoughtof as textualmechanisms.
Statementsrarelyspeak for themselves.Even the most straightforward
and
ostensiblyclear statements bring with them all sorts of presuppositionsor
backgroundknowledgethatis taken to be true.When one uses language, one is
implyingsomethingabout the existenceof subjects,objects,and theirrelationto
one another. To use a perhaps too-simplistic
example, the question, "Have you
stopped beating your dog?" presupposes several things:somethingcalled a dog
exists;you have one; and you engage in the practiceof beatingit.Further,the presuppositionis made thatthe questionerhas the presumptiverightof interrogation.
To use anotherexample, the statement,"The logic of realpolitikretainslasting
relevancebecause it capturesbest the essentialnatureof the internationalpolitical
system"creates the background knowledge that there is something called
it has a logic,thereexistsan internationalpoliticalsystemthathas an
"realpolitik,"
essential nature,and the author is in the position to assertthis as fact. In the
absence of the "truth"of the backgroundknowledgeand the worldit presupposes,
the above statementswould make no sense. Presupposition,therefore,is an
importanttextualmechanismthatcreatesbackgroundknowledgeand in doing so
constructsa particularkindofworldin whichcertainthingsare recognizedas true.
Anotherway in which textsconstructworlds is by attachingvarious labels to
subjectsthroughpredication.Predicationinvolvesthe linkingof certainqualitiesto
particularsubjectsthroughthe use of predicatesand the adverbsand adjectives
that modifythem (Milliken, 1990). A predicate affirmsa quality,attribute,or
propertyof a person or thing.For example, to state that the United States "has
stood for fairplay,for aid to the weak, for liberty,and freedom"establishesthe
United Statesas a particularkindof subjectwiththesequalities.Attributes
attached
to subjects are importantfor constructingidentitiesfor those subjects and for
tellingus whatsubjectscan do.
Texts also workto create a "reality"
by linkingparticularsubjectsand objectsto
one another. The production of subjects and objects is alwaysvis-a-visother
subjectsand objects.Whatdefinesa particularkind of subjectis, in large part,the
relationshipsthat subject is positioned in relative to other kinds of subjects.
Presuppositionand predication,in addition to constructingsubjectsand objects,
establishvariouskindsof relationshipsbetweensubjectsand betweensubjectsand
objects.We can thinkof thisas subjectpositioning.Some of the importantkindsof
relationshipsthat position subjectsare those of opposition,identity,similarity,and
complementarity.
One can deconstructtextsin order to locate some of these relationships.One

in a
the oppositionalstructuring
way that deconstructionworksis by identifying
of one termin relationto another(Culler,
textwhichresultsin the hierarchization
1982:86). The dominant term is highlightedby the subordinatetermwhich is
deemed the "other,"the deviant,or the inferior,to the firstterm. Relationsof
and complementarity
can also be located in the rhetorical
identity,similarity,
operationsof texts.Barthesuses the term cultural code for the conceptual system
organized around key oppositions and other relations.For example, the term
womanis definedin oppositionto the termman. Each of thesetermsis alignedwith
a cluster of attributes,e.g., emotional, weak, pliant, sensitive,nurturingare
clusteredaround "woman"whilerational,strong,firmare clusteredaround "man"
(Silverman,1983:36;Barthes,1974).
Taken together,these textualmechanisms,predication,presupposition,
and subject
positioning produce a "world"by providingpositionsforvariouskindsof subjects

DOTY
ROXANNELYNN
307
and endowing them with particularattributes.While for analyticpurposes it is

usefulto discussthese mechanismsseparately,in actuality,all threeworktogether
can perhapsbe made clearer
The discussionof thisframework
and simultaneously.
thatis more relatedto the Philippines.This example illustrates
withan illustration
the "methods"I have used to analyze and compare the textsin thisstudy.,,The
followingexcerptis fromJohn Foreman,a Britishtravelwriter,who wroteduring
on the Philippineswerewidely
the timeof the Spanish-AmericanWar.His writings
read, and he was cited as an authorityat the Paris Peace Conference,at whichit
was decided thatthe Philippineswould be annexed bythe United States-without,
it mightbe added, consultationwith the Filipino people. In this passage he is
discussingthe Filipino"native."
whichhe
The whole timehe treatsyou withthe deferencedue to the superiority
recognizes. He knows the duties of no occupations with efficiencyand he is
willingto be a 'jack of all trades."So long as he gets his food and fair
perfectly
treatment,and his stipulatedwages paid in advance, he is content to act as a
man. If not pressed too hard, he will followhis superior like a
general-utility
faithfuldog. If treatedwithkindness,according to European notions,he is lost.
The nativeneverlooks ahead; he is neveranxious about the future;but if leftto
himself,he willdo all sortsof imprudentthings,fromsheer wantof reflectionon
the consequences.The nativehas no idea of organizationon a largescale, hence a
successfulrevolutionis not possibleifconfinedto the pure indigenouspopulation
unaided by others,such as creoles and foreigners.Under good European officers
theymake excellentsoldiers.There is nothingtheydelightin more than pillage,
destructionand bloodshed, and when once theybecome mastersof the situation
in an affray,
thereis no limitto theirgreed and savagecruelty.
Predication
In the above excerptthe "native"is endowed withthe followingqualities:inefficiency,contentand doglike follower,never looks ahead, does not reflectupon
consequences,has no idea of organizationon a large scale, naturallydelightsin
pillage, destruction,and bloodshed, naturallygreedy and cruel, and does
imprudentthingsifleftto himself.
Together these qualities, or clusterof predicates,constitutethe native as a
particularkind of subject.In contrast,the European, here the speakingsubject,is
inscribedwithquite different
qualities.This is oftenimplicitratherthanexplicit.In
the firstsentence "you"refersto the European, thuscreatinga relationof identity
among the reader, the author, and the European and a relation of opposition
betweenthese subjectsand the Filipinonative,here the object of discussion.The
and knowledgeablesubjectsare
reader,author,and European as speaking,writing,
"self"to the Filipino"other"who is the object of theirknowledge.The European is
establishedas a subjectwho can "know"the Filipino,is able to accuratelydescribe
the truenatureof the Filipino,and fromthatnaturederivevariouspracticesthat
are appropriate.
Presupposition
of
What backgroundknowledgeis created in the above excerpt?The superiority
the European is takenforgranted,a "fact"not open to question.The construction
analysis.Nor do
"lThe particular"methods"I use here are byno means the onlywayto engage in a post-positivist
I mean to suggestthattheyare superiorto other possible "methods."I merelywishto suggestthatthisis one wayto
fora specificarea of investigation.
examine the implicationsof post-positivism

308
of the European as a superiorkind of subjectis repeated throughout,e.g., in the

statementthat the native will "followhis superior like a faithfuldog." It is
presupposed here that there exist superiorand inferiorkinds of subjects.The
sentence "Under good European officers . . ." presupposes the existence of one
kind of subject (a superiorone) thatcan be a good officerand anotherkind of

subjectthatcan onlybe a soldier.
Subject
Positioning
In constituting
particularkindsof subjects,the excerptalso positionsthesesubjects
vis-a-vis
one another by assigningthem varyingdegrees of agency.For example,
a subjectwho does not reflectupon consequences and is a contentand doglike
followerhas a much simplerdegree of agencythana subjectwho has the qualities
it takes to be an officer.The veryfactthatthe European is the speakingsubject
and the "native"the subject/objectof thisdiscoursepositionsthesesubjectsvis-a-vis
one another.Here, the qualitiesthatdefinethe twokindsof subjectsare oppositionalones.
We do findotherrelations,however,in thisexcerpt.The "native"is positioned
in a relationof similarity
witha dog. Like a dog, the "native"requiresfood and fair
If treatedproperly,he willbe faithful
treatment.
to his master."Proper"treatment,
however,must not be kindness,"accordingto European notions."The "native"
would be lost if thiswas done. The "fair"treatmentto be accorded to "natives"is
more akin to the treatmenta European would give to a dog than to another
European.
The above passage, as partof a largerdiscourse,createsa "world"in the sense
thata particular"reality"mustbe accepted in order for the statementsto make
sense. Certainpracticeswere made possible,because in the worldinstantiatedby
these textstheyseemed reasonable and probablyquite unremarkable.As noted
standardsof "fair"treatment
forthe "native"and
above, therewere to be different
for the European. Since the "native"was the kind of subject who was naturally
prone to pillage,destruction,and bloodshed, then disciplineand controlon the
part of the European would be justified.If the "natives"did not understand
kindness,then force and violence would be justified.Colonization thus became
thinkable.
This example,in large partdue to itstransparency,
nicelyillustrateshow predication, presupposition,and subject positioningwork.From this illustrationone
might inferthat these methods would not take us veryfar analyticallysimply
because the "findings"are so obvious. There are three importantpoints to be
made in responseto thispossibleinference:(1) Granted,we oftendo not have to
look veryfarto findthese textualmechanismsat work.They are frequently
right
there on the surface. (2) More importantthough,my approach permitsme to
cases. (3) Finally,thisapproach permits
trackthesemechanismsin less transparent
one to explain how, despite such obviousness,these constructionscan become
of an attitudeof "self"toward"other,"thusmakwidelycirculatedand constitutive
ing particularpracticespossible.
This last point impliesthat individualtextsdo not exist in a vacuum. Rather,
theyare intertwinedwithother textsforminga complex web of intertextuality.
Differenttextswithinthe same arena (i.e., site) and textsfromdifferent
arenas
may share the same logic according to which meaning is created and subjects
constructed.If the same kindsof subjects,objects,and relationsare foundto exist
in different
texts,thisis indicativeof a particularlogic at work.We can thinkof
textsthatillustratethe same kindof logic as constituting
a controllingor dominant
discourse.For example,a numberof different
and distinctdiscoursesmayfunction

ROXANNE
LYNNDOTY
309
to constitutegender differenceaccording to the same logic. We can imagine a

discourseon the family,a discourseon workplaceregulations,and a discourseon
It is possiblethatan examinationwould showthatalthough
womenin the military.
the discoursesdeal withquite differentissues,the same logic regardinggender
divisionmightbe found in all of them.If thatwere the case, we could reasonably
suggestthatunderlyingthe diversediscourseswas a dominantdiscourseon gender
that constructed"male" and "female"as particularkinds of subjects.The same
thingapplies to foreignpolicydiscourse.If differencesare constructedaccording
to the same logic in a varietyof texts,we can reasonablysuggestthat there is a
dominantdiscourse.
Language,Counterinsurgency,
Practice
Counterinsurgency
policieshavebeen a majorelementofpostWorldWarII foreign
policy towardthe countriescollectivelyreferredto as the "Third World." Such
policieswere consideredessentialwithinthe contextof a worlddividedalong the
geopoliticallines of East versusWestwitheach side seekingto win the heartsand
mindsof thosenot yetfullycommittedto eithercamp. Many"conversations"
have
taken place and documentshave been generatedwithinthe contextof specific
counterinsurgency
operations.Adheringto theunderstanding
of languageoutlined
in the DiscursivePracticesApproach,these textsprovidea usefulsource of "data"
fromwhichto examinethewaylinguisticpracticesactively
construct
world(s).
Counterinsurgency
generallyoccurswithinthe contextof profoundmilitary
and
economic powerdifferentials.
The hierarchyof military
and economic power that
existsbetween the U.S. and the Third World is for the most part indisputable.
What has not been previouslyexamined, however,is the wayin whichlanguage
worksto constructa kind of hierarchythatmayor maynot coincide withmilitary
and/or economic hierarchies.When these hierarchiesdo coincide important
implicationsfollowforthe kindsof practicesmade possible.
One of the earliestand paradigmaticinstancesof U.S. counterinsurgency
policy
occurredin the Philippinesduringthe Huk Rebellion of the early1950s.12After
independence, the Philippinesbecame an importantsymbolof United States'
benevolence regardingits position as a formercolonial power. They were an
importantsource of both prestigeand identityforthe U.S.13The Huk Rebellion,
therefore,
presentedthe U.S. witha dilemma.On the one hand, overtintervention
would call into question the sovereignty
and independence of the Philippines,
whichin turnwould call into question the successof the U.S. effortto "civilize"a
people and cultivatea democracy.On the otherhand, the "loss"of the Philippines
to communismwould also mean a failureon the part of the U.S. The discourse
instantiatedin response to this dilemma worked to simultaneouslyconstruct
identitiesand positionsubjectsvis-a-vis
one another.
Subjectsof a discourseshould not be confusedwithindividuals.An individual
mayhave multiplesubjectivities.
Similarly,
there maybe multiplephysicalindivid-
'20ne of the best studieson the Huk Rebellion is Kerkvliet(1977). Also see Schirmerand Shalom (1987), Welch
(1984), Karnow(1989), Shalom (1976, 1977), and Bonner (1987). It is noteworthy
thatEdwardLansdale, the "hero"
of the U.S. counterinsurgencyin the Philippines, was a major figurein U.S. Vietnam policy. Lansdale was also
broughtin byRonald Reagan to offeradvice on how to get rid of the Sandinistas.
'3The Philippineswerealso importantforgeopoliticaland economic reasons.The reconstruction
ofJapanand its
reintegrationinto the regional economy meant that Southeast Asia would become an importantsource of raw
materialsand marketsbecause Japan would be free of dependence on U.S. aid. It was deemed essential to U.S.
securitythatJapanbecome an alternativeanchor forU.S. powerin Asia as China had ceased to playthatrole.

310
uals thatconstitutea single subject.The state,as an internationalsubject,is constructedby the discursivepracticesof thosewho speak about,writeabout, and act
on itsbehalf.U.S. foreignpolicypracticesare importantelementsin the production
of the U.S. At the same time thisidentityis
and reproductionof the self-identity
created against the "other,"i.e., other states.The qualities that are linked to a
"people,"e.g., the "Filipinos,"can become attachedto a geographicallocationand
thePhilippines.
therebyserveas thebasisforconstructing
Analysis
I begin this analysisin a purelyempiricistmanner. My data is the ensemble of
statementsfoundin the documentssurroundingthisparticularsiteof U.S. foreign
policy.14All of these documents were read with an eye toward the textual
mechanismsdiscussedabove: predication,presupposition,
and subjectpositioning.
Predication
Table 1 showsthepredicatesand practicesthatwerelinkedto the different

subjects.
These predicatesand practiceswere compiled by extractingfromthe documents
the descriptivecharacteristics,
adjectives,adverbs,and capabilitiesattributedto the
varioussubjects.The numbersin bracketsreferto the textualsource of the statements.These sourcesare listedin the Appendix.Consistentwiththe epistemology
of theDiscursivePracticesApproach,I do notwantto claimthatthe data in Table 1
representsthe social cognitionsof the participantsto thisdiscourse.Recall thatit is
languageitselfthatis productiveratherthantheindividualswho use language.
While the predicates and practicesfor each subject are not identical from
document to document, there is evidence of a coherence among them. The
predicatesand practiceslistedunder Philippinesand Filipinos"hangtogether"in a
certainway.None seem radicallyout of place. For example, "ineptand wasteful,"
"precocious children,"and "a veryhard people to deal with"are certainlynot
identicaltermsand indeed could implyverydifferent
kindsof subjects.Yet,in this
discourse there is a familyresemblance among them that is indicativeof a
particularkind of subject,i.e., a subject that can simultaneouslybe a source of
fear of eventual
pride over progressthus far made, concern withshortcomings,
failure,and desire to protect and guide. The identityof the Philippineswas
constructedby the tension that existed among these terms.The kind of subject
that embodies these termsis the "child." The "child" by virtueof the kind of
subject it inherentlyis resistsclosure. The "child" identityis incomplete,often
To borrowfromAlthusser,one mightsay thatthe
ambiguousand contradictory.
"child"as a kindof subjectresistscompleteinterpellation.
The predicatesand practicesattachedto the U.S. also exhibita coherence. "Has
moral obligations,""a world citizen," "has credit and influence,""has benign
intentions"share a certain familyresemblance. They are indicativeof a very
differentkind of subject from the Philippines.The United States has a firmly
established,relativelyfixed,and stable identity.This identitypermitsthe U.S. to
'4Empirical data for this studywas collected fromsearches for relevantmaterialfromthe followingsources:
ForeignRelationsoftheUnitedStates1946-1954, U.S. Officeof StrategicServices(OSS)/State Departmentintelligence
researchreports1941-1961, National SecurityCouncil reportsand correspondence1946-1953, reportsand records
of Defense reports1946-1953. Other
of thejoint Chiefsof Staff1946-1953,CentralIntelligenceAgency/Department
Record1948-1954. The major arena of
ofStateBulletin1948-1954 and the Congressional
sourcesinclude the Department
discourseforthisstudywere officialgovernmenttexts.This was not determineda priori,but ratheraftera thorough
searchforrelevanttexts.

ROXANNJE
LYNN DOTY
(.0
clr clr
C'J
311
C-4
CJ
bJD
ct ct
cn cn
ct
ct
Ct (:) Ct
C) bC
6,
ct
biD
.4
CJ
c)
It
biD
ct
C'l
ct
ct
Ct
ct
biD
45
ct
2
ct ct
ct rc
ct
t-,ct
>
cli
4. 1
r. Q
u ct
ct
ct
t
biD cli
biD
an
4_4
-- 0
bJD
U :z Z
Z "C
ct
>,
Ct u
UO
ct
biO
-C
biO
ct
C-4 ho
z
ct
C/)
biD (C
ct
4-J
E
U U
_'C5
ct
bio
ct
C/)
zct
. ct
M C)
14.
ct
biD
ct
14.
ct
ct
ct
ct
biD
biD
ct
'r,
U
Z --,
u Ln
Cl
41.1
C'4
4-,
bO
cq
biD
Z
C)
U >,
Q
bD
Q)
ct
ct
biO7Z
4-4
Cj)
C)
ct
4-,
fj
bo
ct
4..j
bo
cn cn
ct ct
4M. M
cn b.0
4", z
M
CZ z
m
u Q
Q
z
0
CZ ct
Q
C'4 -
--,
bJO
ct
Iz
ul
U
C'I
Cl
-,
u
0
a.
.7-'
r-, m
Ch
C/)Z
Ce)
ct
4-J
21-
Q) QC
0
q,-
14.
ct
ct
bo
ct
ho
14.
u
ct
>1
42
biD
ct
C)
C).
u
cn
C).--- C)
C)
4

C)
0
312
engage in certain practices,e.g., "noble causes," and precludes others, e.g.,

"aggression"or "coercion."
In contrast,a differentclusterof attributeswas linked to the U.S.S.R. While
some of the elementswere the same as the U.S., e.g., "has an orbit,"the cluster
of
thatdefinedthe
predicatesthatdefinedthe U.S. was not identicalwiththe cluster
from
U.S.S.R. The practicesthatthe U.S.S.R. could engage in, then,were different
those of the U.S. The U.S.S.R. could "spread propaganda" while the U.S. could
"builda worldorder."The U.S.S.R. could "coerce"while the U.S. could "protect."
The actual behavior
or physicalcontentof thesepractices,e.g., providingeconomic
or military
aid and trainingtroops,mightbe identical,but whatthepractice
waswas
determinedbythe kindof subjectengagingin it.How we "know"whata practiceis
and the kindof subjectengagingin it is throughlanguage.
The coherence among the attributes
and practicesshownin Table 1 is indicative
Similaror complementaryattributeswere attachedto the
of a dominantdiscourse.
or other
subjectsin multipletexts.Whetherthe textsdealtwitheconomic,security,
issues,therewas a particularlogic at workaccordingto whichsubjectsweredivided
fromone another.This logicwas based upon a seriesof binaryoppositionsand was
operativeacrosstexts.
Since this studydoes not examine textsgenerated by Filipinos themselvesor
othernon-Western
politicalactors,I can make no claimsregardingotherpossible
discourses.It is possible and likelythatother discoursesexistedthatwould resist
the kind of constructionsshownin Table 1. The importantpoint is thattheredid
exista dominantdiscoursein United Statespolicycirclesand thiswas the discourse
thatsetthe parametersforU.S. practices.
Presupposition
In analyzingthesedocuments,one findsthatmeaningsare dependentupon binary

oppositions.The specificcontentof these oppositionsindicates the dimensions
and
along whichthe constructionof subjectstakesplace. Underlyingthe attributes
practicesshown in Table 1, one can locate metaphysicalpresuppositionsbased
upon such binaryoppositions.These binarieswere the operativeprinciples,the
the "deep structure"of the discourse.By operativeprinciple,I
logic, constituting
mean the principle according to which things are given meaning and simulotherthings.The conceptualsystemupon whichU.S.
taneouslypositionedvis-a-vis
foreignpolicywas based was organized around two guiding or core oppositions,
a disciplinedand
whichstructured
the discourseand servedas a frameof thinking,
economicalwayin whichto divideselffromother(s). Severalotheroppositionscan
be subsumedunderthecore oppositions.These are discussedbelow.
The presuppositionwas made thatthereexisteddifferent
kinds
Reason/Passion.
fromnon-Asianthinking
of mentalities."Asian thinking"differedfundamentally
and was characterizedby the prevalenceof passion and emotion,in contrastto
reason and rationality.The existence of this ratherprimitivekind of mentality
made it imperativethatU.S. influencebe broughtto bear in the Philippines.The
"theory"of twotypesof mentality
is, of course,not unique to thisparticularcase. It
was prevalentamong anthropologistsin the 1920s and 1930s and was applied to
the "west"and its others,e.g., "negroes,""AmericanIndians,""Melanesians,"and
"AustralianBlackfellows"(Mudimbe, 1988:136). This is also a concreteand conof the phenomenon describedby Said (1978). This
temporaneousmanifestation
opposition has historicallyfacilitatedvarious practices of interference,ranging
fromformalcolonizationto more subtleformsof domination.
As noted above, several of the orienting oppositions that were prevalent
throughoutthe texts can be grouped under this core opposition. The most
recurringone rested on the parental metaphordiscussed earlier.Filipinoswere

ROXANNELYNN DOTY
313
regardedas precociouschildrenwho had assimilatedthe superficialaspectsof the

U.S. culturebut had failedto graspitsmore fundamentalimplications(FR51, Part
2: 1561). The U.S. had to be patient and sympathetic,
yet firm,in using its
constructiveand guiding influenceon its formerward. The ostensiblynurturing
relationship invoked by the parent/child opposition obscured and justified
practicesof domination.Past practicesof domination,e.g., colonialismitself,were
justified by pointing to the "progress"that had already been made. Future
intervention
wasjustifiedbythe promiseof even greater"progress."
Complementaryto the childlike attributesattached to Filipinos was that of
ineptitude and inefficiencywhich characterized Philippine leadership. The
inferiority
of leadershipwas extended to non-CommunistAsian countriesmore
generally.It remaineda taskof the United Statesto consider"meansto encourage
the developmentof competentleadershipand to stimulateitsrisein the countries
ofAsia" (FR51, Part1:45). The developmentof the competentleadershiprequired
of world citizenswould take place under guidance of the U.S. throughits "firm
patienceand sympathetic
understanding"(FR51,Part2:1561).
Anotherset of oppositionsencompassedby the reason/passioncore opposition
was thatof order/chaos.The Philippineswas constructedas a place threatenedby
disorder,whose verydefinitionas well as the strategyby which it should be
managed was establishedby the U.S. For example, "management"of disorder
could not move awayfrompolicies consistentwith U.S. strategicand economic
U.S.
interests.Such managementwould itselfbe definedas a source of instability.
policiesthemselvescould not be regardedas sourcesof disorder.
Good/Evil. Good vs. evil was the second core opposition that structuredthis
discourse.This core opposition formedan importantelement in the Cold War
discourseofwhichthisparticularcase was inextricably
linked.This battleforhearts
and minds involved"the most basic conceptionsof good and evil" (Secretaryof
State Acheson, 3/16/1950). This Manichean opposition which served to orient
U.S. foreign policy discourse worked at two levels. At one level it served to
constructthe U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as two distinctkinds of subjects; free
world/Communist
world, moral/totalitarian,
good/evil. Filipinos could then be
dividedaccordingto where theyfellalong thisdivision.When it came to Filipino
This particularlydangerous combination
subjects,evil mixed with irrationality.
could notjust be "contained,"it had to be eliminated.The Huk leaderswere thus
regardedas an evilthathad to be eliminated.
At a second level,thisoppositionworkedto objectifythe Philippinesas objectsat
stake in the worldwidestrugglebetween good and evil. They were an essential
"part"of theAsian off-shore
island chain of bases, a possible "key"to Sovietcontrol
of the Far East,a "showwindow"of democracy,and "testingground"forAmerican
leadership.
Subject
Positioning
The constructionof subjectsalong the oppositionaldimensionsdiscussed above

simultaneouslypositioned these subjects in a hierarchical arrangement.This
hierarchicalpositioningis evidentin the kindand degree of agencyassignedto the
and knowledgeable
subjectsof these texts.The United States,as speaking,writing,
thatencompasseda
subject,impliedan extensiveand complex kind of subjectivity
whole arrayof interconnectedideas,values,and goals whichamountedto a "world
view."The U.S. was an initiatorof action, a formulatorof policy,an assessorof
situations,and a definerof problems.The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were endowed
witha significant
degree of agency.Both were complicatedkindsof subjectswho
had worldviews,and accompanyingrationaland coherentideologies. Along the
dimensionof good vs. evil the U.S. occupied a higherpositionthan the U.S.S.R.

314
However, when juxtaposed with the Philippines,both the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
became similarkindsof subjects.
In contrast,the subject position(s) available for Filipinosand the Philippines
were much less complex. Filipinosubjectivity
did not include a rational,coherent
world view. Support for, as well as nonsupportof, communismwas based on
passion and emotionratherthanon a reasonableassessmentand understandingof
its tenets. This was due to the basic intellectualsimplicityof the Filipino, as
illustratedin Table 1.
Ifwe accept the premisethatthe attributes
linkedto human beingscan become
attached to geographical space, then these texts illustrate the discursive
constructionof a particularkind of nation-state,
i.e., the "ThirdWorldstate."This
kind of state is characterized by disorder, chaos, corruption,and general
At the same time,foreconomic and/or geopoliticalreasons,thisstate
ineptitude.15
is needed bythe U.S. or theWestmore generally.The "good guys,"the precocious
children, must thereforebe found, constructedas "the people," guided, and
"16
cultivatedto become mature"worldcitizens.
The intertextual
nature of these textsbecomes importanthere. To borrow a
phrasefromBarthes(1987:135), thesetextswere "pluggedin" to each otheras well
as to othertexts;otherforeignpolicytexts,social science texts,and nonacademic
texts.Though not included in this study,even a cursoryexaminationof social
science literaturedealingwiththe ThirdWorldrevealsthatit containsmanyof the
oppositionsshownhere. This is mostevidentin the area of developmentstudies,
and particularly
in the body of literatureknownas "modernizationtheory."17
At
the same time,we see the reproductionof a particularU.S. identity,i.e., moral,
rational,efficient,
honest.
Finally,at a more general level,these textsconstructeda hierarchicalstructure
which consistedof varioussubjectpositions.I do not claim to have uncovereda
"deep structure"existingpriorto practice,thatthen made possibleor constrained
the practices of preexistingsubjects.What I do claim to have shown is how
discursivepracticesthemselvesconstructedboth the subjects(withvaryingdegrees
of agency) and the relationsamong them.The "deep structure,"
then,is no more
or less than these practices.Their significanceand power is to be found in their
createmeanings,and therebynaturalizea
abilityto frameinterpretive
possibilities,
particularstateof affairs.
The state of affairsthat was naturalizedin this discourse consisted of three
subject-positions,or kinds of identities;the imminentlyrational, moral, and
powerfulU.S., the equallyrationaland powerfulbut morallylackingU.S.S.R., and
the thirdkind of subjectguided byemotionand passion,yetfullof potentialwith
the proper guidance. The Huks were an example of what could happen without
the properinfluenceand control.
'5The theme of corruption,inefficiency,
and ineptitude in Third World governmentsis prevalent in North
Americansocial science literature.
Jacksonand Rosberghave describedthe "fundamentalpredicamentof statehood
in Africa"as "its existence almost exclusivelyas an exploitable treasuretrovedevoid of moral value" (1987:527).
GunnarMyrdalused the term"softstate"to describe all underdevelopedcountries."The underdevelopedcountries
are all, thoughin varyingdegrees, 'softstates"' (1970:208). "The term'softstate' is understoodto compriseall the
varioustypesof social indiscipline. . . (1970:208). The point here is not to saywhethercorruptionand inefficiency
are or are not "factsof life"in "underdeveloped"countries.The point is to highlighta particularrepresentationof
"underdeveloped"countries. Corruptionand inefficiencyare attributesthat become elements in the identityof
"underdeveloped"countries'governments,but not "developed" countries'governments.It is significantto note, in
contrast,that corruptionin American politics,e.g., Tammany Hall and big-citypolitics,as well as more current
are contained withinthe domesticboundaries of the U.S. They are not
incidents,e.g., Watergateand Iran--Contra,
of the identityof the United Statesin internationalrelations.
constitutive
60n constructing"thepeople" see Weber (1992).
'7For otherstudiesthatmake similarsuggestionssee Escobar (1984),Johnston(1991), Shafer(1988:chap. 6), and
Doty (1991).

ROXANNELYNN DOTY
315
Given thisconfiguration
of subjectpositionsand the resultant"reality,"
we can
ask whatcoursesof actionwould seem natural?To "do nothing"would hardlybe a
reasonableoption.If the Philippineswerea "showwindowof democracy,"a "testing
ground forAmericanleadership,"a "keyto Sovietcontrol,"it would hardlymake
sense for the U.S. to do nothingwhen they (the Philippines)were faced witha
"threatto internalsecurity"
and were "incapableof understanding"
theirown problems and solutions.In such a situation,to do nothingwould mean the U.S. would
abrogateits"moralposition"in theworld.Thus, doing nothingwas not a possibility.
".... to do nothingwould resultin disaster"(NSC84/1). ". . . in the contextof the
presentworldsituationthereis no acceptablealternative"
(FR51,Part1:57).
For an interesting
counterfactual
we can tryto imaginea discoursein whichthe
identityof the Philippineswas similarto thatof the U.S. We can ask ourselvesif
thatwere the case, would "do nothing"have been a reasonable policyoption? It
A subjectwho understoodthe natureof the
would,at least,have been a possibility.
problems and solutionsand was guided by rationalityratherthan passion and
emotionmightnot have necessitatedU.S. intervention.
Shafer's (1988) studyis quite tellingin this regard. Shafer suggeststhat U.S.
counterinsurgency
policyin the Philippineswas largelyirrelevantand the successful defeat of the Huks was basicallyattributableto the Philippines' own policies
and good indigenousleadership.This suggestionraises the possibilitythat,while
not examinedin thisstudy,the indigenousPhilippinediscoursewas quite different
fromthatexamined here and in all likelihoodcreateddifferent
interpretive
possibilitiesand made possiblepracticesprecludedbythe U.S. foreignpolicydiscourse.
We can pose another question regardingpossible practices.In this particular
discourse,was it possible for the U.S. to intervenethroughthe directuse of its
military
mightto crushthe Huks? It seems doubtful.This would call into question
the "sovereignty"
and "independence"of the Philippines.It would also call into
question the success of the American "experiment"thatwas the Philippines.As
suggested by a 1950 militaryreport, ". . . the use of U.S. leadership should be
clothed in every manner possible with the pretense of local action and
responsibility"
(Craig,1950:4). Thus, the directand overtuse of U.S. military
might
was not a possibility,
either.
If "do nothing"and directuse of military
powerwere not possibilities,then this
suggeststhatsome otherkind of intervention
was imperative.The keywas forthe
U.S. to findjust the rightkind of intervention
to deal withThird Worldinsurgencies and revolutions.That "masterkey"
was counterinsurgency
(Shafer,1988:11).
From the approach taken in this studycounterinsurgency
discoursescannot be
viewed solely or even primarilyas discussionsabout a particularsituationand
of the situations
optionsforcopingwithit. Rather,thesediscourseswereproductive
the ThirdWorld,and the individualcountriesthatare partof it.
themselves,
Counterinsurgency
discourse is also an example of power in its productive
aspect.AfterWorldWar II, withthe delegitimationof colonialismand subsequent
decolonizationof the Third World,modernitybecame a trulyglobal project.U.S.
foreignpolicyin the ThirdWorldwas closelytiedwiththese modernistaspirations
and with the social and other sciences that sought to promote them. U.S.
counterinsurgency
policies were in large part attemptsto gain influence and
controlover "development"processes in the Third World withinthe contextof
containingthe "Communistthreat."'18
Power,in the Foucaultian sense discussedearlier,involvesthe constructionof
categoriesof normalcyand deviance. The group of countriesclassifiedas the
"ThirdWorld"were the internationaldeviants,the problemchildrenthatposed a
'8See Shafer (1988:chap. 5) for a discussionof the linksbetween developmentpolicies, academic theoriesand
prescriptions,
and U.S. counterinsurgency
doctrine.

316
threatto a modern and stable internationalorder. Counterinsurgency

and other
"development"policies, while failuresin the sense of defeatinginsurgencyand
"developing"Third World countries,were successfulin the sense of providingthe
U.S. with a set of categories throughwhich these countriescould be known,
understood,and at leastpartiallycontrolled.
In lightof this,the importanceof thisstudyis not solelyor even primarily
to be
found in whatit can tell us about thiscase per se, but ratherin whatit can tell us
about the interpretive
orientationsat workthatcreateda "reality"
thatgave rise to
certain possibilities.In this sense counterinsurgency
discourse is a productive,
politicalpracticethatsociallyconstructsthe subjectsand objectsthatit is ostensibly
about. It thusparticipatesin the construction
of a "north/south,"
"first
world/Third
These interpretive
World,""core/periphery"
hierarchy.
possibilities
would not have
gained the power and acceptance theydid were theypeculiar to this case. It is
reasonableto suggestthattheyare at workmoregenerallyin international
relations
theoryand practicethatdeals withtheThirdWorld.
It is importantto not regardtheseconstructions
as based upon an unproblematic
foundationthatsimplyreflects"reality."
For example,ifthe successfuldefeatof the
Huks was due predominantly
to indigenousPhilippinepolicy,as Shafersuggests,
then perhaps the attributesattached to the subjects of this discourse are not
reflectionsof "reality"
but ratherillustrations
of the inextricablelinkagesbetween
the discursiveproduction of "knowledge" and the power inherent in that
production.Perhaps,in a different
discourse,Philippinepolicywas guided by a
rationalassessmentof the problemand an accurateand reasonedunderstanding
of
the situationfacing them, while U.S. policy was guided by an emotional and
impassionedoppositionto and irrationalfearofcommunism.
Conclusion
I have attemptedto showhow a foreignpolicydiscoursecreatedspaces forcertain
kindsof subjects.Through representational
practicesthatrelied upon a seriesof
oppositionsand otherrelationsa hierarchyof subjectswas createdwhich,in turn,
made certainpracticespossible and precluded others.I have tried to show that
given the world constructedin these policydiscoursessomekind of intervention
wouldbe imperative.
I have also attemptedto broaden our conceptionof whatforeignpolicymaking
is. The "foreign,"the "exotic,"the "other,"withwhomforeignpolicymakersdeal,
are alwaysbeing createdat varioussites.To the extentthatsimilarkindsof subjects
are reproduced in various sites and over periods of time, this result tells us
somethingabout the prevalence of particularrepresentationsthat constructa
hierarchicalworld.Since thisstudyhas onlydealtwithone particularsiteofforeign
narrowtimeframe,I can onlyclaim to have shownthatin this
policyin a relatively
Whatneeds to be done is to
particularcase, a hierarchicalworldwas constructed.19
timeperiods.
analyzeotherdiscoursesin othersettingsand duringdifferent
19Inthisregardsee Doty (1991) and Millikenand Sylvan(1991). Here I would also call attentionto Herrmann
(1988), who examined the cognitiverepresentations
of the Third WorldemployedbySovietelites.He came up with
constructionsof "reality"
thatare consistentwithwhatI found in thisstudy.Herrmann'sstudyis significantfortwo
reasons. First,he examines a differentcase involvingdifferentdocuments,differentsubject matter,and different
actors. Second, the frameworkhe used is quite differentfrom mine. Although he makes use of documents,
Herrmann's focus is on the perceptionsof elites. His study,although it did not address internationalhierarchy,
nonethelesssupportsmyfindingsand adds credence to the notion that internationalhierarchyis based on more
than differentials
in militaryand economic power. His studyalso presupposes a particulardiscourse,i.e., a social
contextwithinwhichelitestereotypes
are meaningful.

ROXANNE
LYNNDOTY
317
Byignoringthe textualmechanismsat workin discourseand therebydiscounting

any role theymightplayin foreignpolicy,scholarslose the opportunity
to take a
more criticalstance.Said (1978) poses the crucialquestion,"Can we dividehuman
beingsintocertaintypesand not sufferthe consequences?"Whiletheconsequences
in the particularcase I have examined in thisstudywere not so severeas in other
cases, thisdoes not detractfromthe argumentbeing made. In lightof the factthat
"realities"often give rise to policies that resultin the deaths of both "us" and
"them,"a more criticalapproach to the analysisof foreignpolicypractices,one that
examinesthe socialconstruction
of "us"and "them,"is warranted.
Appendix
[1] National SecurityCouncil. A Reportto theNational SecurityCouncilby the
ExecutiveSecretary
on "The Positionof the UnitedStateswithRespectto the
November6, 1950. (84/1)
Philippines,"
[2] National SecurityCouncil. A Reportto theNational SecurityCouncilby the
ExecutiveSecretary
on "The Positionof the UnitedStateswithRespectto the
Philippines,"
November6, 1950. (84/2)
[3] Reviewof theWorldSituation1949-1950.
[4] Memo fromSecretaryof Stateto President,April20, 1950. Regarding:Recent
Developmentsin the PhilippineSituation.
[5] Memo fromSecretaryof State to President,February2, 1950. Regarding:
RecentDevelopmentsin the PhilippineSituation.
[6] Office of Intelligence Research Report, Survey of the Philippines,
Departmentof State,April15, 1952.
[7] Glenn Craig, MilitaryGroup,JointMDAP SurveyMissionto SoutheastAsia,
September25, 1950.
[8] Semi-annual Appraisal of the Joint U.S. MilitaryAdvisoryGroup to the
Republic of the Philippines.WrittenbyJ.W. Anderson,Major General,U.S.
Army,ChiefAdvisortoJointChiefsof Staff,March25, 1950.
to
[9] CharlesOgburn,PolicyInformationOfficer,Bureau of Far EasternAffairs,
AssistantSecretaryof State for Far Eastern Affairs,Rusk, 1951. Foreign
Relations
6 (1) :7.
[10] Appraisalof the PhilippineSituationby the AmericanEmbassy,August1951.
Foreign
Relations
6 (2):1561.
[11] Memo fromAssistantSecretaryof State for Far Eastern Affairs(Rusk) to
Deputy Under Secretaryof State (Matthews),January31, 1951. Foreign
Relations
6 (1) :24.
[12] MacArthurAddressto Congress,April14, 1951,page 1114.
[13] Foreign
PolicyBulletin,
August25, 1950.
[14] Far Eastern Survey,American Instituteof Pacific Relations,by Russell H.
Fifield,Professorof Political Science, Universityof Michigan,January30,
1951.
[15] U.S. Newsand World
Report,
"Philippines:Wastevs.U.S. Aid,"January
27, 1950.
[16] Memo fromJoint Chiefs of Staff,Omar Bradley,to Secretaryof Defense,
1:1485-1489.
Relations
Johnson,September6, 1950.Foreign
Officeof Philippineand
[17] Memo fromOfficerin charge of Economic Affairs,
Relations1:1494.
SoutheastAsianAffairs,
Shohan, 1951.Foreign
[18] Memo from Charles Ogburn, Policy InformationOfficer,Bureau of Far
Rusk.
EasternAffairs,
to AssistantSecretaryof State forFar EasternAffairs,
1951.Foreign
Relations
6 (1) :7.
[19] Harold C. Hagan, U.S. House of Representatives,June
15, 1953.
[20] William0. Douglas. 1953. North
fromMalaya-Adventureon FiveFronts.New
York:Doubleday.

318
Foreign
Policy
as SocialConstruction
Relations
oftheUnitedStates6 (1):46. 1951.
[21] Foreign
[22] Secretaryof State Dean Acheson. "Crisisin Asia-An Examinationof U.S.
ofStateBulletin,
January23, 1950.
Policy."Department
[23] Memo fromJ. T. Forbes, State Group, Joint MDAP SurveyMission, to
Chairmanof theMission,September27, 1950.
ofStateBulletin15(376),
[24] "The New Republic of the Philippines."Department
September15, 1946.
ofStateBulletin,
July14, 1946.
[25] PresidentTruman,UnitedStatesDepartment
Weekly.Central Intelligence Agency, Official Current
[26] CurrentIntelligence
Intelligence,November20, 1953.
References
ACHESON,D. (1950) Address at the Universityof Californiaat Berkeley.Department
of StateBulletin,
March 27.
R. K. (1984) The Povertyof Neorealism.International
ASHLEY,
Organization
38(2):225-286.
R. K., ANDR. B. J. WALKER (1990) Reading Dissidence/Writing
ASHLEY,
the Discipline: Crisisand the
in InternationalStudies.International
StudiesQuarterly
Question of Sovereignty
34(3):367-416.
AXELROD, R., AND R. KEOHANE (1985) Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and
Institutions.World
Politics38:226-254.
BARTHES, R. (1974) S/Z. New York:Hill and Wang/NoondayPress.
BARTHES, R. (1987) Textual Analysisof Poe's "Valdemar."In Untying
theText,edited by R. Young.
London and New York:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
M. G., AND M. J. SHAPIRO (1973) CognitiveProcess and Foreign Policy Decision-Making.
BONHAM,
International
StudiesQuarterly
17(2):147-173.
BONNER, R. (1987) Waltzing
witha Dictator.
New York:VintageBooks/RandomHouse.
CAMPBELL, D. (1990) Global Inscription:How ForeignPolicyConstitutesthe United States.Alternatives
15(3) :263-286.
CAMPBELL, D. (1992) Writing
U.S.Foreign
Security:
Policyand thePoliticsofIdentity.
Minneapolis:University
of MinnesotaPress.
of
CHALOUPKA, W. (1992) Knowing
Nukes:ThePoliticsand CultureoftheAtom.Minneapolis: University
MinnesotaPress.
CLEGG, S. R. (1989) Frameworks
ofPower.NewburyPark,CA and London: Sage.
A GeneralTheory
of
and a Case Study.Pittsburgh:
COTTAM, R. (1977) Foreign
PolicyMotivation:
University
Pittsburgh
Press.
CRAIG,
G. (1950) Attachmentto the MilitaryGroupJointMDAP SurveyMissionto SoutheastAsia,Army
Interim
Reporton Philippine
Islands.September25, RG330, Box 74,' Folder 000.5-333 Philippines.
In NationalArchives.
CROSS,C. B. (1991) Explanationand the Theoryof Questions.Erkenntnis
34:237-260.
CULLER,
J. (1982) OnDeconstruction.
Ithaca: CornellUniversity
Press.
A Genealogy
DERDERIAN,
New York:Basil Blackwell.
J. (1987) On Diplomacy:
ofWestern
Estrangement.
and Difference.
of Chicago Press.
TranslatedbyAlan Bass. Chicago: University
DERRIDA,J.
(1978) Writing
TranslatedbyAlan Bass. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
DERRIDA,J.
(1981) Positions.
of
translatedbyAlan Bass. Chicago: University
DERRIDA,
J. (1982) Difference.In MarginsofPhilosophy,
Chicago Press.
DESSLER,D. (1989) What's at Stake in the Agent-StructureDebate? InternationalOrganization
43:441-473.
DoTy,R. L. (1991) TheSocialConstruction
ofInternational
Hierarchy.
UnpublishedPhD thesis,University
of Minnesota,Minneapolis.
and Hermeneutics.
DREYFus,H., AND P. RABINOW (1983) MichelFoucault-BeyondStructuralism
Chicago:
of Chicago Press.
University
ESCOBAR, A. (1984) Discourse and Power in Development:Michel Foucault and the Relevance of His
Workto theThirdWorld.Alternatives
10:377-400.
Translatedby A. M. Sheridan. New York:Pantheon
FOUCAULT, M. (1972) TheArcheology
ofKnowledge.
Books.
Edited byColin Gordon. New York:PantheonBooks.
FOUCAULT, M. (1977) Power/Knowledge.

ROXANNELYNN DOTY
319
FOUCAULT,M. (1979) Disciplineand Punish-The BirthofthePrison. New York:VintageBooks/Random
House.
vol. 1. Translatedby Robert Hurley.New York:Vintage

ofSexuality,
FOUCAULT,M. (1980) TheHistory
Books/RandomHouse.
theText,edited by R. Young. London and

FOUCAULT,M. (1981) The Order of Discourse. In Untying
New York:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
FOUCAULT,M. (1983) The Subjectand Power.In H. L. Dreyfusand P. Rabinow,MichelFoucault-Beyond
of Chicago Press.
Chicago: University
and Hermeneutics.
Structuralism
New Haven and

theQuestionsof Social Theory.
GARFINKEL,A. (1981) FormsofExplanation-Rethinking
London: Yale University

Press.
GEORGE,A. (1979) The Causal Nexus between CognitiveBeliefsand Decision-makingBehavior:The
Politics,edited by L. S.
Modelsin International
"OperationalCode" Belief System.In Psychological
Falkowski.Boulder:WestviewPress.
in SocialTheoy.Cambridge,U.K.: PolityPress.
Problems
GIDDENS,A. (1979) Central
Adams.
Totowa,NJ:Littlefield,
forSocialPsychology.
R. (1980) SocialBeing-A Theory
HARRE,
edited byJ.Forgas.New
HARRE,R. (1981) Rituals,Rhetoric,and Social Cognition.In Social Cognition,
York:Academic Press.
London:
and Subjectivity.
SocialRegulation,
HENRIQUES,J., et al. (1984) ChangingtheSubject-Psychology,
Methuen.
and Behaviorin SovietForeignPolicy.Pittsburgh:Universityof
HERRMANN,R. K (1985) Perceptions
Pittsburgh
Press.
R. K. (1988) The EmpiricalChallenge of the CognitiveRevolution:A StrategyforDrawing
HERRMANN,
32(2):175-203.
StudiesQuarterly
Inferencesabout Perceptions.International
In Structure
ofDecision,edited by R.
HOLSTI, 0. (1976) Foreign PolicyFormationViewed Cognitively.
Press.
Axelrod.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
JACKSON,R. H., AND C. G. ROSBERG (1987) Quasi-States,Dual Regimes, and Neoclassical Theory:
41 (4):519-549.
Organization
and the ThirdWorld.International
InternationalJurisprudence
Politics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
in International
and Misperception
JERVIS,R. (1976) Perception
Press.
JOHNSTON,D. S. (1991) Constructingthe Peripheryin Modern Global Politics.In TheNewInternational
edited byC. Murphyand R. Tooze. Boulder: LynneRienner.
PoliticalEconomy,
KARNow,S. (1989) In OurImage.New York: Random House.
A StudyofPeasantRevoltin thePhilippines.Berkeley,Los
KERKVLIET,B. J. (1977) The Huk Rebellion.
Angeles, and London: Universityof California Press.
KRATOCHWILL,
F., ANDJ. G. RUGGIE (1986) InternationalOrganizationas an Artof the State:A Regime
40(4):753-776.
Organization
Critique.International
A Psychological
Explanation.Princeton: Princeton
LARSON, D. W. (1985) Originsof Containment:
UniversityPress.
ofSocialExplanation.Boulder:WestviewPress.
LITrLE, D. (1991) Varieties
2nd Session,
July5.
Record,79thCongress,
MAcARTHUR,D. (1946) Congressional
July2.
2ndSession,
Record,79thCongress,
McDONOUGH, G. L. (1946) Congressional
in the EarlyNineteenthCentury.Unpublishedpaper.
and Subjectivity
MILLIKEN,J.
(1990) Sovereignty
MILLIKEN,J.,AND D. SYLVAN(1991) SoftBodies, Hard Targets,and Chic Theories: U.S. BombingPolicy
Relations,edited by J.
in Indochina. In Gender,Race, and Empire:A New Field of International
Milliken,K. Fierke,and D. Sylvan.
Press.
ofAfrica.Bloomingtonand Indianapolis:Indiana University
MUDIMBE,V. Y. (1988) TheInvention
Programin Outline.New York:
MYRDAL,G. (1970) The Challengeof WorldPoverty-AWorldAnti-Poverty
VintageBooks/RandomHouse.
Studies Quarterly
ONUF, N., AND F. F. KLINK (1989) Anarchy,Authority,and Rule. International
33(2):149-175.
of South
Columbia: University
Administration's
QuestforGlobalCommunity.
ROSATI,J. (1987) The Carter
Carolina Press.
New York: Vintage Books/Random House.
SAID,E. (1978) Orientalism.
Neocolonialism,
ofColonialism,
Reader-A Histary
SCHIRMER,D. B., ANDS. R. SHALOM (1987) ThePhilippines
Boston:South End Press.
Dictatorship,
and Resistance.
Policy.Princeton:Princeton
SHAFER,D. M. (1988) DeadlyParadigms-TheFailureofU.S. Counterinsurgency
Press.
University
Unpublished PhD
SHALOM, S. R. (1976) U.S.-PhilippineRelations:A Study in Neo-Colonialism.
dissertation,
BostonUniversity.

320
Asia
SHALOM,S. R. (1977) Counter-Insurgencyin the Philippines. Journal of Contemporary
17(2):153-177.
edited byM.
SHAPIRO,M. (1984) LiteraryProductionas a PoliticizingPractice.In Languageand Politics,
Shapiro.New York:New YorkUniversity
Press.
SHAPIRO, M. (1988) ThePoliticsofRepresentation-Writing
Practices
in Biography,
Photography,
and Political
Analysis.Madison: University
ofWisconsinPress.
In International
SHAPIRO, M. (1989) RepresentingWorld Politics:The Sports/WarIntertext.
Intertextual
Relations,
edited byJ.Der Derian and M. Shapiro. Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath/LexingtonBooks.
SHAPIRO, M., J. G. M. BONHAM, AND D. HERADSTVEIT (1988) A Discursive Practices Approach to
CollectiveDecision-making.International
StudiesQuarterly
32 (4):397-419.
New Yorkand Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
SILVERMAN, K. (1983) TheSubject
ofSemiotics.
to
on Human Affairs-With
SPROUT, H., AND M. SPROUT (1965) TheEcological
Perspective
SpecialReference
International
Politics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
SYLVAN,D., AND B. GLASSNER
(1985) A RationalistMethodology
for the Social Sciences.Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
WALKER, S. G. (1977) The Interface between Beliefs and Behavior. Journalof Conflict
Resolution
21(1):129-168.
WALKER, S. G. (1990) Self and Other in the Analysisof Foreign Policy.Paper presentedat the annual
meetingof the InternationalSocietyof PoliticalPsychology,
July11-15, Washington,D.C.
WEBER, C. L. (1990) RepresentingDebt: PeruvianPresidentsBalaunde's and Garcia's Reading/Writing
of PeruvianDebt. International
StudiesQuarterly
34(3):353-365.
Interventionin the Mexican
WEBER, C. L. (1992) WritingSovereignIdentities:WilsonAdministration
Revolution.Alternatives
17(3) :313-337.
WELCH, R. E. (1984) America's Philippine Policy in the Quirino Years (1948-1953): A Study in
onPhilippine-American
an Empire:NewPerspectives
Patron-ClientDiplomacy.In Reappraising
History,
edited byP. W. Stanley.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.
WENDT, A. (1987) The Agent-Structure
Problem.International
Organization
41(3) :335-371.
WENDT, A. (1992) AnarchyIs WhatStatesMake of It. International
Organization
46(2):391-425.
Other
References
Record.79th Congress,2d session (July2, 5, 1946) Speeches byRep. JohnW. McCormick
Congressional
of Massachusettsand Rep. Gordon L. McDonough of Californiain the House.
Current
Intelligence
Weekly.
(November20, 1953) CIA, Officeof CurrentIntelligence.OCI no. 1026.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. (November6, 1950) A Report
totheNationalSecurity
CouncilbytheExecutive
" (NSC84/1) Washington,
on "ThePositionoftheUnitedStateszvith
Secretary
RespecttothePhilippines.
D.C.
NewYorkTimes.(June5, 1950) "PhilippineLeague AsksFighton Reds."
NewYorkTimes.(June11, 1950) "U.S. EnvoyEases FilipinoConcern.
Reviewof theWorldSituation1949-1950. U.S. Senate, 81st Congress, 1st and 2d sessions. Historical
Series.Washington,DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (1950) ForeignRelationsof the UnitedStates,vol. 6. Washington,DC:
GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (1951) ForeignRelationsoftheUnitedStates,vol. 6, parts 1, 2. Washington,
DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (1952-1954) Foreign
RelationsoftheUnitedStates,
vol. 12, part 1. Washington,
DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH. (1950) TheHukbalahap.Report#5209.
Washington,DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH. (1952) A Surveyof thePhilippines.
Background
Information
forthe"USIE Country
Plan forthePhilippines.
Washington,DC: Government
PrintingOffice.


US CounterinsurgencyPolicy in the Philippines: A Post-PositivistAnalysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US CounterinsurgencyPolicy in the Philippines: A Post-PositivistAnalysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S.

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction:

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

equality,did the post-colonialUnited States-Philippinerelationshipcome to be

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

How-possiblequestions are concerned with explaining how these meanings,

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

importanceof the cognitiveaspects of individualsinvolvedin the formulationof

The Social PerformanceApproach

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

Social PerformanceApproach differssignificantly

5Harre'ssocial psychologicalapproach is verymuch influencedbystructurationist

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

6Myunderstandingof the DiscursivePracticesApproach is drawn primarilyfromthe worksof Michel Foucault

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

Powers to special privilegeswithin the internationalcommunity.Neorealism,

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

The conceptsof presupposition,

One can deconstructtextsin order to locate some of these relationships.One

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

and endowing them with particularattributes.While for analyticpurposes it is

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

of the European as a superiorkind of subjectis repeated throughout,e.g., in the

kind of subject (a superiorone) thatcan be a good officerand anotherkind of

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

to constitutegender differenceaccording to the same logic. We can imagine a

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

Table 1 showsthepredicatesand practicesthatwerelinkedto the different

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

engage in certain practices,e.g., "noble causes," and precludes others, e.g.,

In analyzingthesedocuments,one findsthatmeaningsare dependentupon binary

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

regardedas precociouschildrenwho had assimilatedthe superficialaspectsof the

The constructionof subjectsalong the oppositionaldimensionsdiscussed above

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

ForeignPolicyas Social Construction

threatto a modern and stable internationalorder. Counterinsurgency

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

Byignoringthe textualmechanismsat workin discourseand therebydiscounting

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:00:54 AM

FOUCAULT,M. (1979) Disciplineand Punish-The BirthofthePrison. New York:VintageBooks/Random

vol. 1. Translatedby Robert Hurley.New York:Vintage

theText,edited by R. Young. London and

FOUCAULT,M. (1983) The Subjectand Power.In H. L. Dreyfusand P. Rabinow,MichelFoucault-Beyond

New Haven and

London: Yale University