Description
Drawing on poststructuralist and feminist critiques of mainstream International Relations approaches, this paper reconceptualizes nuclear politics as a discursive arena where states construct and reinforce their relational and gendered nuclear identities. Recognizing nuclear identity as relational implies its constant constitution in relation to difference. The paper argues that difference need not always be radical, stressing the importance of considering varying degrees of “Otherness” along with three dimensions of identity construction: spatial, temporal, and ethical. Following feminist IR perspectives, the paper emphasises powerful ideas of masculinity historically attached to nuclear weapons that underpin nuclear discourses. It problematizes the causal relationship between identity and policy, viewing nuclear identities as both constitutive of and a product of states' nuclear policies. Such conceptualizations foster a deeper understanding of how identities function in discourse and how policies gain legitimacy, revealing the inseparable entanglement of ideas and material factors. Furthermore, the poststructuralist emphasis on the historical contingency of identity and policy challenges rationalist assertions of objectivity and universalism, illustrating how different historical modes of representation yield distinct political consequences. This recognition is crucial in perceiving nuclear proliferation and disarmament as dynamic, non-fixed, and non-universal processes, potentially explaining the challenges faced by advocates of the latter.
