Constructing States, Constructing theInternational

Review by Anthony F. Lang, Jr.School of International Relations, University of St Andrews

Secular Morality and International Security: American and British Decisions about War. By MariaFanis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011. 240 pp., $63.18 hardcover (ISBN-13: 978-0-472-11755-0).

Why leaders decide to use military force has long been a central concern forthose who study international relations (IR). The scholarly literature has exam-ined a vast array of causes or reasons (depending on your methodologicalassumptions), stretching from the psychological, to the economic, to the cul-tural. Competing IR theories endlessly debate this question, with little agreementin sight.Maria Fanis asks that central question, why state leaders choose war or diplo-

macy in their conflicts with each other. Rather than a tired rehearsal of disciplin-ary positions, she provides a clear and empirically grounded answer: state leadersmake decisions about force because of moral impulses that arise from the narra-tive histories of their own communities. Situating herself in a broadly constructiv-ist framework, Fanis argues that it is not free-floating global or internationalnorms that structure decisions, but state-based norms that connect to the histo-ries of particular communities. Her approach thus complements and advancesthe work of others who have emphasized the importance of state identity forconstructivist explanations of war and peace (Lang 2002; Steele 2008).The strength of Fanis’ work is in her detailed empirical investigation. As the

subtitle of the work indicates, the book focuses on American and British decisionmaking. Rather creatively, she chooses cases from the nineteenth century and,even more creatively, chooses cases in which war did (for example, the War of1812) and did not take place (for example, the Oregon crisis). This results infour rich and intriguing case studies. These studies are driven by her core theo-retical claim: “It is, I argue, the ethical fit between a national identity and thesecular morality of the majority of the people in a given country that propels anidentity to national prominence and acceptance, while simultaneously delegiti-mizing the available others” (2011:4). There is much that might be unpacked inthis sentence, some of which I do below. But rather than critically engaging hertheory, let me first turn to her cases. For it is here that Fanis provides somethingdifferent.The cases are not based on the usual assumption of national interests derived

from international economic or political structures. Nor are they detailed studiesof decision makers in the two states. The cases do include discussions of theseelements, but their richness is in the detailed cultural and domestic political dis-cussions that they offer. Fanis also highlights the importance of contestation atthe domestic political level, which means there is not a single narrative that sheposits. Rather, there are multiple, competing narratives that structure the way inwhich moral norms translate into international actions. Thus, in her account ofthe decision making process in Britain that led to the War of 1812, Fanis begins

Lang Jr., Anthony F. (2014) Constructing States, Constructing the International. International Studies Review,doi: 10.1111/misr.12119© 2014 International Studies Association

International Studies Review (2014) 16, 314–316

with the emergence of what she calls “Loyal Patriotism,” or reinforcing one’sidentity as a citizen by promoting the empire. But, because this form of citizen-ship identity could be a challenge to the stability of the ruling elite, it wasreframed in terms of an emotional attachment to one’s family and the nationmore generally (2011:35). Fanis then uses this idea to explain why the efforts ofWhig politicians to promote free-trade liberalism failed to divert Britain from itswar with America; while certainly more “rational” as a policy agenda, free-tradeliberalism failed to engage with the deeper national identity that had arisen inthe context of the loyal patriotism debates.Fanis provides parallel accounts of the American decision to go to war in

1812, but a more interesting case is to be found in the decision not to go to warover the Oregon crisis. Less well known to scholars of IR, this crisis arose in the1830s and 1840s as a result of American policymakers’ desire to gain access tothe Pacific—access denied by British control over large portions of the west coastof North America. Again, rather than a study of decision makers in the WhiteHouse or Congress, the book explores a wider political dynamic. In one of themost fascinating accounts I have read in a book explaining US foreign policy,Fanis points to a set of moral reform efforts that structured American nationalidentity in the mid-nineteenth century. For instance, she notes that in the 1820sand 1830s, a culture of what would be today considered excessive alcoholic con-sumption had become the norm in the workplace. In response, industrial leaderswanted “to change this erratic work ethic and create a workforce for the factoriesthat was disciplined and dependable” (2011:108). These efforts connected to thetemperance and wider Christian evangelical movements that were emerging atthis time. Even more importantly, these efforts to “moralize” political life con-nected to discourses of race and Anglo-Saxon identity, allowing white workingmen to believe that they were superior to blacks as a result of their better behav-ior, which was not just due to their own choices, but a reflection of a wider setof political norms. Of course, this insight might not be new for American histori-ans. But Fanis uses these discourses to explain improved relations between Brit-ain and the United States. This racialized and moralized identity contributed tothe decisions that surrounded the policies of the Oregon crisis. Again, while itmight have been more rational to use force to push Britain out of the Americanwest, the construction of this new identity resulted in a peaceful resolution ofthe crisis.With such a rich and intriguing empirical account, there is perhaps less room

for theoretical development. Let me suggest one point that Fanis might haveconsidered more carefully: her use of the term “secular morality” to frame herinvestigation. While the idea of moral norms not connected to religious belief isan important part of national identity construction, it is also the case that inboth these countries, and particularly during the nineteenth century, Christianitycannot be so easily set to one side. Indeed, in the story of American decision-making during the Oregon crisis, the temperance movement and evenAnglo-Saxon racial ideas arose in the context of a Christian revival (which Fanisdiscusses). I am not sure of the benefits of using the term “secular” in thiscontext, as it is never really explained fully in the introduction and it does notnecessarily advance the clarity of the argument.Furthermore, there is also no real discussion of why Fanis chooses to use the

word “morality” rather than the more standard constructivist term “norm.” Thetwo are, of course, interrelated, and it is unfortunate that the subtle distinctionbetween them is usually not explored in IR. In the large body of literature oninternational ethics, there are important differences between concepts such as“norm,” “moral,” and “ethics,” to say nothing of “rules” or “laws.” None of thesedistinctions are explored by Fanis, and some are used interchangeably. In allfairness, this is not really a critique of Fanis, but is rather a critique of political

Anthony F. Lang 315

science and international relations, which too often cuts itself off from the nuan-ces of normative theory (Erskine 2012).Outside of this quibble about secular morality, I found great benefit from this

work. It is clearly argued, thoroughly researched, and well written. I recommendit for scholars and students alike, as it would provide an excellent tool for howto deploy a theoretical argument in a creative, insightful, and informative way.

References

Erskine, Toni. (2012) Whose Progress, Which Morals? Constructivism, Normative IR Theory, and theLimits and Possibilities of Studying Ethics in World Politics. International Theory 4 (3): 449–468.

Fanis, Maria. (2011) Secular Morality and International Security: American and British Decisions about War.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lang Jr., Anthony F. (2002) Agency and Ethics: The Politics of Military Intervention. Albany, NY: SUNYPress.

Steele, Brent J. (2008) Ontological Security in International Relations. New York: Routledge.

316 Constructing States