7/27/2019 Lam Sobre Adler y Barnett

1/2

Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Security Communities (1998)

Deutsch observed a pluralistic security community whenever states become integrated to the point that they have a sense

of community, which, in turn, creates the assurance that they will settle their differences short of war. (3) Shared values

are required for communities, and communities consolidate shared values. (4)

Pluralistic security community: a transnational region comprised of sovereign states whose people maintain dependable

expectations of peaceful change. (30) They are categorised according to their depth of trust, the nature and degree of

institutionalisation of their governance system, and whether they reside in a formal anarchy or are on the verge of

transforming it.

Community is defined by three characteristics: (1) members have shared identities, values and meaning; (2)

relations in a community are many sided and direct, face-to-face; (3) long term interests are pursued and often a

sense of altruism or responsibility develops.

The distinction associations vs. community is not defined by the distinction self-interested vs. not, but rather

by the distinction immediate reciprocity vs. diffuse reciprocity. (32)

...evidence of a security community should be sought not only in behaviour that suggests the renunciation of

military violence but also in the existence of deeply entrenched habits of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. (35)

Membership in a security community fundamentally transforms the functions of the state, where it no longer has

the same responsibilities nor the same policy toolbox. (36)

There appear to exist three tiers in the development of security communities ((This is a discussion of the microprocesses,

and their enabling conditions, which drive the emergence of security communities.)):

1- Precipitating conditions, which induce states to turn to each other and interact face to face2- Factors conducive to the development ofmutual trust and collective identity: Power and knowledge

structure as well as process (interaction) begin to transform the possible roles and worlds envisioned by

people within the states in question.

3- Necessary conditions of dependable expectations of peaceful change: trust and common identityTier 2

Structure: - Power can work in two ways: either you coerce others to belong, or you can be a magnet. (39)- Knowledge component is concerned with the shared ideas. (41)

Institutions and organisations can be considered as structure but also as process. Rationalists will see them as structure

(immutable), but theories of process explain how practices and interactions reproduce and/or transform structures, and as

such are essentially dynamic even if what they explain is reproduction rather than transformation. (42 citing Wendt)

Institutions and organizations increase trust, among other ways, by setting norms of behaviour and allowing

expectations to be met. They also allow for an exchange of interpretation and therefore encourage reciprocal

understanding and identities. They can also help create a common culture.

Political elites that are connected to international organisations use them to promote new possibilities. ... charismatic

individuals... While communication btw peoples, learning processes, and the thickening of the social environment plays a

crucial role in the evolution of political communities, these are but propensities until agents transform them into political

reality through institutional and political power.(43)

Social learning: an active process of redefinition or reinterpretation of reality. It represents the capacity and motivation of

social actors to manage and even transform reality by changing their beliefs of the material and social world and their

identities. While it can occur at the mass level, theyre more interested in it happening at the decision maker level. And a

lot of it happens through the example set by the stronger and more secure powers. (44 +/-)

7/27/2019 Lam Sobre Adler y Barnett

2/2

Tier 3

Trust, logically, comes prior to identity. With a little trust, common identity (common understanding of self in relation to

others) develops, and reinforces trust (dependable expectations.) (46-48)

Discussion ofidentity on page 47, arguing how interaction creates identity and constrains action. Identity should

be reproduced in the legitimation discourse etc (48).

Toward a research program

Our understanding of the development of security communities can be broadly termed as social constructivist and path-

dependent. ... Path dependent patterns are characterised by self-reinforcing positive feedback. ... Once a particular path is

chosen, it precludes others, even if these alternatives might, in the long run, have proven to be more efficient or adaptive.

(49)

Three stylised phases of development of a security community ((This is a description of the empirical implications which

follow from the three tiers described above)):

Phase I: Nascent phase: Governments do not explicitly seek to create a security community. Instead, they begin to

consider how they might coordinate their relations in order to: increase their mutual security; lower the transaction costs

associated with their exchanges; and/or encourage further exchanges and interactions. (50)

Transnational and interstate interactions are accompanied and encouraged by the development of social

institutions and organs for a variety of reasons, though most relevant here is to facilitate trust. (52)

In sum, we expect a dynamic and positive relationship between the transactions that occur between and among

states and their societies, the emergence of social institutions and organizations that are designed to lower

transaction costs, and the possibility of mutual trust. (53)

Phase II: Ascendant: increasingly dense networks; new institutions and organizations that reflect either tighter military

coordination and cooperation and/or decreased fear that the other represents a threat; cognitive structures that promote

seeing and acting together and. therefore, the deepening of the level of mutual trust, and the emergence ofcollective

identities that begin to encourage dependable expectations of peaceful change. (53) Military forces are starting to be

functionally integrated; intelligence exchange.

Phase III: Mature: At this point, regional actors share an identity and, therefore, entertain dependable expectations of

peaceful change and a security community now comes into existence. Two types: loosely and tightly coupled. (55)

Evidence of loose: multilateralism; unfortified borders; changes in military planning; common definition of the

threat; discourse and the language of community.

Evidence of tight: In a tightly coupled security community, mutual-aid becomes a matter of habit and, thus,

national identity is expressed through the merging of efforts. Cooperative and collective security; high level of

military integration; policy coordination against internal threats; free movements of populations;

internationalisation of authority; multiperspectival polity (multi-level governance). (57)

studying security communities suggests not just a rethinking of regional or even global security issues, but rather a

paradigm shift in IR theory. ... [This shift] involves the intellectual conjecture that violent conflict can be mitigated and

even eliminated by the development of mutual identification among peoples and not through conventional practices suchas balancing and collective security schemes.-59