Saving the States' Face: an Ethnography of the ASEAN
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Saving the States’ Face: An Ethnography of the ASEAN Secretariat and Diplomatic Field in Jakarta Deepak Nair A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy London, April 2015 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 107,529 words. 2 In memory of my brother, Rahul 3 Abstract Among the most enduring diplomatic projects in the postcolonial Third World, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN has for long inspired antipodal reviews ranging from the celebratory to the derisive among the scholars and practitioners of international relations. These judgments notwithstanding, the varied practices of ASEAN’s diplomacy have impressively grown in scope, ritual, and ambition in the years following the Cold War and well into the contemporary post- unipolar conjuncture where ASEAN has emerged as a default manager of a geopolitical landscape bookended by the material and symbolic power struggles of China and the United States in Asia Despite the abundance of writings on ASEAN and Asian security, much about its routine production and performance remain enigmatic. Little is know about the everyday practices that constitute this diplomatic activity; the quotidian administrative and ‘emotional labour’ nourishing its production; the sociological biographies of its practitioners and the endowments of class, language, and social capital shaping their shared dispositions; and the cultural idiom in which this diplomacy is produced and performed. This thesis is an attempt to study ASEAN’s diplomatic practice in action with an eye to answer these concerns by pursuing ethnographic fieldwork for 13 months in a site of ASEAN diplomacy par excellence. This site is the ASEAN Secretariat in South Jakarta and a field of multilateral diplomacy of Great and Middle Powers clustered around it in a city that has laid claim to becoming no less than “ASEAN’s diplomatic capital”. This thesis argues, first, that in contrast to pervasive understandings of its inconsequentiality, the ASEAN Secretariat plays a central role in sustaining ASEAN’s diplomatic project by a) coordinating its burgeoning apparatus of diplomatic interactions and activities, and b) by rendering its ‘emotional labour’ to save the figurative and embodied ‘face’ of ASEAN’s state representatives as they meet among themselves and with their vaunted foreign partners in routine interactions. Second, by analysing the everyday practices of Secretariat staff, ASEAN diplomats, and foreign diplomats based in Jakarta, this thesis draws on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and Erving Goffman to construct a wider argument about ASEAN’s diplomatic practice. It argues that ASEAN’s diplomacy is produced in everyday life not by prevailing representations of the ‘ASEAN Way’ but instead through a stock of historically structured, sociologically patterned, tacit and embodied group dispositions – a diplomatic habitus. ASEAN’s diplomatic habitus is organised around a perennial concern among its practitioners to save the physical and figurative ‘face’ of the state – instantiated by its representatives – to enable their performances of a mythic sovereign equality among each other and satisfy their demands for recognition from Great and Major powers, especially as they strive for ‘centrality’ in the performative games of Asian security. 4 CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 9 Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... 12 List of Tables and Maps .............................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................... 16 A SECRETARIAT IN THE SHADOW OF INCONSEQUENTIALITY ............ 16 1.1 A Diplomacy in Crisis ............................................................................... 16 1.2 An Inconsequential and ‘Invisible’ Secretariat ........................................ 23 1.3 The Construction of Inconsequentiality .................................................... 29 1.3.1 Privileged Actors: A Gaze on the Reified State ................................. 29 1.3.2. Privileged Questions: The Impact and Effects of Institutions ........... 30 1.3.3. Privileged Sites and Temporalities: The Grand over the Everyday .. 32 1.4 Opening up the Secretariat and ASEAN’s Diplomacy .............................. 34 1.5 Arguments ................................................................................................. 38 1.5.1 A Secretariat Producing and Performing ASEAN’s Diplomacy ........ 38 1.5.2 The ASEAN Way ............................................................................... 41 1.5.3 Limits .................................................................................................. 48 1.6 Key Concepts ............................................................................................. 49 1.6.1 Emotional Labour ............................................................................... 49 1.6.2 ASEAN’s Diplomatic Habitus ........................................................... 51 1.6.3. ‘Face’ and ‘Face-work’ ...................................................................... 57 1.7 Thesis Structure ......................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................... 60 THEORY AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 60 2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 60 2.2 Theories of Practice ................................................................................... 61 2.2.1 What is Practice? ................................................................................ 62 2.2.2 Why Privilege Practice? ..................................................................... 64 2.2.3 Theories of practice in this study: Bourdieu and Goffman ................ 69 2.3 An Ethnographic Methodology ................................................................ 78 2.3.1 What is Ethnography? ........................................................................ 78 2.3.2 Why Ethnography? ............................................................................ 80 2.3.3 Tensions .................................................................................................. 83 2.4 Ethnography in International Relations ..................................................... 85 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 90 5 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................... 91 FIELDWORK IN A DIPLOMATIC FIELD .......................................................... 91 3.1 Introduction: Arriving at the Secretariat .................................................... 91 3.2 Seeking Access ......................................................................................... 95 3.2.1 Official Access ..................................................................................... 96 3.2.2 Knowledge of the Setting .................................................................... 99 3.3 A New Plan .............................................................................................. 100 3.3.1 Studying Up ........................................................................................ 100 3.3.2 Immersion by Other Means ................................................................ 101 3.3.3 Local affiliation .................................................................................. 103 3.4 Constructing a Field................................................................................. 104 3.5 Reaching Out ........................................................................................... 114 3.5.1 A Sliding Scale of Access and Anxiety .............................................. 115 3.5.2 Openness to Social Research .............................................................. 116 3.5.3 Impression Management ..................................................................... 121 3.6 Building Relationships ............................................................................ 124 3.6.1 Reciprocity and Exchange ................................................................