Ontological Crisis and the Compartmentalization of Insecurities

Eteri Tsintsadze-Maass
{"title":"Ontological Crisis and the Compartmentalization of Insecurities","authors":"Eteri Tsintsadze-Maass","doi":"10.1093/isagsq/ksae003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article explores state responses to a major ontological crisis, which produces insecurities requiring contradictory foreign policy responses. I propose that leaders in such dire situations may respond by compartmentalizing insecurities, articulating distinct narratives relevant to different insecurities. Such a split might seem inconsistent for leaders within the same government, but it can enable them to navigate a precarious crisis by exploiting the state’s internal complexity to address the contrasting insecurities that a crisis generates. I explore this approach by analyzing Georgia’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which created a major ontological crisis in Georgia. Its two most prominent leaders (the president and the prime minister) reacted by consistently voicing contradictory positions about the country’s foreign policy. This divergent messaging becomes comprehensible when we see them as responses to different concerns: one responding to deep ontological insecurities over Georgia’s relationship with other states, its place in the international system, and the coherence of its dominant autobiographical narrative; the other responding to the threat of war and related existential concerns at the individual and collective levels. Problematizing the state as a unitary actor, this article demonstrates how unpacking its constitutive agents can help us better understand how leaders navigate complex ontological crises.","PeriodicalId":380017,"journal":{"name":"Global Studies Quarterly","volume":"44 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores state responses to a major ontological crisis, which produces insecurities requiring contradictory foreign policy responses. I propose that leaders in such dire situations may respond by compartmentalizing insecurities, articulating distinct narratives relevant to different insecurities. Such a split might seem inconsistent for leaders within the same government, but it can enable them to navigate a precarious crisis by exploiting the state’s internal complexity to address the contrasting insecurities that a crisis generates. I explore this approach by analyzing Georgia’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which created a major ontological crisis in Georgia. Its two most prominent leaders (the president and the prime minister) reacted by consistently voicing contradictory positions about the country’s foreign policy. This divergent messaging becomes comprehensible when we see them as responses to different concerns: one responding to deep ontological insecurities over Georgia’s relationship with other states, its place in the international system, and the coherence of its dominant autobiographical narrative; the other responding to the threat of war and related existential concerns at the individual and collective levels. Problematizing the state as a unitary actor, this article demonstrates how unpacking its constitutive agents can help us better understand how leaders navigate complex ontological crises.
本体论危机与不安全因素的分门别类
本文探讨了国家对重大本体论危机的反应,这种危机产生的不安全感要求外交政策做出相互矛盾的反应。我提出,在这种严峻形势下,领导人可能会将不安全因素分门别类,针对不同的不安全因素阐述不同的叙事。对于同一政府内的领导人来说,这种分割看似不一致,但却能使他们利用国家内部的复杂性来应对危机所带来的截然不同的不安全感,从而在岌岌可危的危机中游刃有余。我通过分析格鲁吉亚对 2022 年 2 月俄罗斯全面入侵乌克兰的反应来探讨这种方法,这次入侵给格鲁吉亚造成了重大的本体论危机。格鲁吉亚两位最重要的领导人(总统和总理)的反应是对国家外交政策不断表达相互矛盾的立场。当我们将他们视为对不同关切的回应时,这种不同的信息传递就变得可以理解了:一位回应的是格鲁吉亚与其他国家的关系、其在国际体系中的地位以及其主流自传叙事的一致性等本体论上的深层不安全感;另一位回应的是战争威胁以及个人和集体层面上的相关生存关切。这篇文章将国家作为一个单一的行为体提出质疑,说明解读国家的构成因素如何帮助我们更好地理解领导人如何驾驭复杂的本体论危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信