University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2016 Habitus, Field Theory and the ‘Bridge’: Using a Bourdieusian Approach to Examine and Explain Cold War Continuities in Britain’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy Smythe, Jason A Smythe, J. A. (2016). Habitus, Field Theory and the ‘Bridge’: Using a Bourdieusian Approach to Examine and Explain Cold War Continuities in Britain’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26335 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3475 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Habitus, Field Theory and the ‘Bridge’: Using a Bourdieusian Approach to Examine and Explain Cold War Continuities in Britain’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy by Jason A. Smythe A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA DECEMBER, 2016 © Jason A. Smythe 2016 Abstract This thesis examines the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ and the ‘bridge’ role the United Kingdom has played within it since 1945, with the British seeing it as an important part of what Tate calls the post-war Anglo-American “hegemonic division of labour.” Playing this ‘bridge’ role made sense given the logic of Cold War bipolarity, but the post-Cold War shift to unipolarity has significantly decreased the need for ‘bridges’ in the international system, yet successive post-Cold War British governments remained committed to playing this role. This paper asks why this occurred and if the British are still playing this role. By applying a Bourdieusian approach the need to examine microstructures when studying British foreign policy is revealed, with the concepts of field theory and habitus highlighting the important role the unique individual experiences and beliefs of the prime minister play in the crafting of British foreign policy. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Terry Terriff, for all his helpful edits and other suggestions. I would also like to thanks my parents, Howard and Violet Smythe, for their emotional and financial support. iii Dedication To the Calgary winter, for forcing me to stay indoors. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iii Dedication iv Table of Contents v List of Abbreviations viii Epigraph ix Chapter 1: Introducing the ‘Special Relationship’ and the ‘Bridge’ 1 Chapter 2: Discussing Unipolarity, Structural and Neoclassical Realism, Decision- Making Theory, Practice Theory, and Bourdieu 13 2.1: Introduction 13 2.2: Unipolarity, Structural Realism, and Alliances 17 2.3: Neoclassical Realism and Practice Theory 30 2.4: Conclusion 50 Chapter 3: The Bourdieusian Approach 53 3.1: Introduction 53 3.2: The Bourdieusian Approach Explained 54 3.3: The Bourdieusian Literature on IR and Foreign Policy 84 3.4: Methods 94 v 3.5: Conclusion 98 Chapter 4: The Cold War 101 4.1: Introduction 101 4.2: 1945 to Suez 104 4.3: The End of Empire 117 4.4: Post-Imperial Reconstruction 129 4.5: Conclusion 144 Chapter 5: Post-Cold War 146 5.1: Introduction 146 5.2: John Major 147 5.3: New Labour 160 5.4: David Cameron 177 5.5: Conclusion 188 Chapter 6: Conclusion 190 Bibliography 197 1: Books 197 2: Chapter or Other Part of Book 202 3: Journal Articles 205 vi 4: Speeches 214 5: Government Documents 219 6: Reports 219 7: Online Resources 220 vii List of Abbreviations European Economic Community EEC Foreign and Commonwealth Office FCO International Relations IR Lord Mayor’s Banquet LMB Member of Parliament MP Multilateral Force MLF National Security Council NSC National Security Strategy NSS Prime Minister PM United Kingdom UK viii Epigraph For we must make no mistake about ourselves: we are as much automaton as mind. As a result, demonstration alone is not the only instrument for convincing us. How few things can be demonstrated! Proofs only convince the mind; habit provides the strongest proofs and those that are most believed. It inclines the automation, which leads the mind unconsciously along with it. Who ever provided that it will dawn tomorrow, and that we shall die? And what is more widely believed? It is, then, habit that convinces us and makes so many Christians. It is habit that makes Turks, heathen, trade, soldiers, etc… In short, we must resort to habit once the mind has seen where the truth lies, in order to steep and sustain ourselves in that belief which constantly eludes us, for it is too much trouble to have proofs always present before us. We must acquire an easier belief, which is that of habit. With no violence, art or argument it makes us believe things, and so inclines all our faculties to this belief that our soul falls naturally into it. When we believe only by the strength of our conviction and the automaton is inclined to believe the opposite, that is not enough. We must therefore make both parts of us believe: the mind by reasons, which need to be seen only once in a lifetime, and the automaton by habit, and not allowing it any inclination to the contrary. – Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice.1 1 Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 1990), 48-49. ix Chapter 1: Introducing the ‘Special Relationship’ and the ‘Bridge’ Making sense of a country’s foreign policy can be challenging. Not only must one make sense of the external factors (i.e. the international system) which influence a nation-state’s decision making, but you must also consider the domestic system in which the state’s foreign policymakers operate and are situated in. Adding a further wrinkle to the already stressed brow of the foreign policy scholar is the fact that the foreign policymakers being studied are, despite what many conspiracy theorists may like to believe,1 real human beings with complex emotions and beliefs who are often forced to make difficult decisions without access to all the pertinent information. Discussions regarding the decision-making process and the impediments to pure rationality will occur later in this thesis,2 but for now this author wants to make one thing abundantly clear: to justify one of the key assumptions of this paper, we will start with the work of Richard Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin,3 since they provide us with an analytical scheme designed to capture the complex determinants of state behaviour. This scheme divides the world into two settings, external and internal, and SBS argue that the myriad ways in which these two settings interact with one another influences the state’s decision-makers, who then decide which action their country should take.4 To restate in a slightly different manner, a state’s foreign policy is determined by both 1 See: The Reptilian conspiracy. Author’s note: only Google this conspiracy if you are in the mood for a good laugh. 2 See: chapter two. 3 From hereon out I will refer to them as SBS. 4 Richard C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin, Foreign Policy Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1962), 60-74. In regards to defining what is meant by internal and external settings, they are described as follows: the external setting refers to “factors and conditions beyond the territorial boundaries of the state,” while the internal setting refers to “the way a state’s society is organized and functions” and looks at factors like ‘domestic politics’ and the overall ‘social structure and behaviour of the state’, with the authors defining the latter as consisting of factors like “morale, attitudes, national power, [and] party politics” (Ibid 60-74). 1 internal and external settings, thus it is imperative to study both. Later discussion of theories like institutional-liberalism, neoclassical realism and practice theory will, among other things, justify this paper’s adoption of SBS’s scheme, but for now we just need to be aware that we must study both the internal and external to understand foreign policy. This scheme, however, does not answer everything one must know to properly grasp or study a state’s foreign policy, so further questions abound – like how do we make sense of a country’s political system or the international system, or how do we study social structures and behaviour? It would appear that the wisest route would be to utilize theoretical approaches that not only attempt to answer such questions but also recognize the need to study both the internal and external settings in which decision- makers operate, and which theory or theories are best equipped to do this will be discussed later.5 However, what is of critical importance at this point in the paper is to lay out (1) the subject of this paper’s investigation, and (2) the research question it will attempt to answer. In regards to the former, the title page makes it rather obvious – this thesis examines UK foreign policy, but more specifically the existence of Cold War continuities in its post-Cold War foreign policy, and right away it should be obvious to the reader that this author has chosen a rather ambitious topic.