امنیتی‌ کردن هویت در سیاست خارجی و تضاد میان منافع ذهنی و عینی: مطالعه موردی آلمان نازی، شوروی و چین

هویت از منظر مفهومی دلالت بر مجموعه‌ای از خصوصیات ادراکی افراد و جوامع بشری در جهت تمایز از یکدیگر دارد. این مفهوم همواره به‌ مثابه مستمسکی برای حکومت‌ها در جهت ارضا منافع ذهنی‌شان در سطوح فراملی مطرح بوده است. امنیتی‌کردن هویت در سیاست خارجی یکی از راهبردهای مهم به‌منظور پیشبرد این روند می‌باشد، ولی تجارب ناشی از کاربست آن در اعصار مختلف همواره نشان از خسران توسعه عینی کشورها در درازمدت دارد؛ لذا این پرسش مطرح است که امنیتی‌کردن هویت در سیاست خارجی چگونه باعث ایجاد تضاد در میان منافع ذهنی و عینی می‌شود. فرضیه پژوهشگران با تاکید بر نمونه آلمان نازی، شوروی و جمهوری خلق چین بیان می‌دارد که راهبرد مزبور به دلیل تهی ساختن منابع اقتصادی و انسانی در جهت اعمال جبر معنایی بر دیگری، توام با واکنش بدیهی دیگران به این امر موجبات انحطاط توسعه عینی کشور و تضاد آن با منافع ذهنی حکومت را فراهم می‌کند. بهره‌گیری از جهت‌گیری تحلیلی نوآورانه مبتنی بر نظریه امنیتی‌کردن مکتب کپنهاگ، در نهایت موجب تصدیق فرضیه مذکور شده است. شایان ذکر است که روش این پژوهش از نوع تحلیل محتوی توام با بهره‌گیری از داده‌های کتابخانه‌ای و آماری بوده است.

identity securitization in foreign policy and conflict between subjective and objective interests: a case study of nazi germany, the soviet union, and china

introductionthe formulation of macro policies, rooted in governments’ particular perceptions of identity components and their aspiration to expand such components as subjective interests, has consistently wielded significant influence over governments’ interactions within their respective environments. to this end, governments resort to the securitization of identity in foreign policy, often resulting in heightened divergence between countries and coercive reactions from other governments. consequently, this process compels states to focus only on military security to safeguard their political existence, thus diverting attention away from the imperative task of advancing the objective development in the country. in this respect, the present research aimed to address how the securitization of identity in foreign policy contributes to the conflict between subjective and objective interests.materials and methodsas a descriptive–analytical inquiry, the present study employed library resources and statistical data to address the research question.results and discussionthe theory of securitization, as proposed by the copenhagen school, posits that a political actor can reframe or construct certain phenomena as security threats, even though they may not inherently pose the smallest threat to their existential security. securitization, discussed here in relation to the concept of identity, may legitimize the use of hard levers in foreign policy under the guise of maintaining security. however, a pertinent question arises as to why some world states seek to recast identity components as either non-security or security strategies to advance their foreign policy objectives. the question can be addressed within three decision-making approaches; globalization, reaction to humiliation, and metaphysical coercion. first, the globalization approach relies on employing soft power tools to influence global public opinion to accept the identity components championed by the actor state. the objective is to attract rather than coerce others into embracing the desired identity components. the second approach, namely reaction to humiliation, is akin to a kind of cultural revanchism. this approach seeks revenge for the past actions by certain governments against a nation or its current political elite, grounded in both security and non-security expansion of identity in foreign policy. third, metaphysical coercion shapes the overarching framework of foreign policy based on the ruling elites’ specific perceptions of identity components. it aims to compel nations to adopt the identity conception deemed favorable by the rulers of a country.therefore, the securitization of identity emerges as an overarching strategy within the metaphysical coercion, and a significant strategy within the reaction to humiliation. the globalization approach appears to lack a strategic utilization of securitization of identity in foreign policy. moreover, it is possible to combine the approaches, as in coercive–reactive approach which labels its users as possessing conflicting identity at the international level.conflicting identity refers to securitized cultural, social, and political identities that seek to forcefully supplant others by relying on a deterministic belief in one’s supernatural superiority.