conceived as an independent or intervening variable that affects the national security behaviour of states (Duffield 1998; Farrell and Terriff 2002; Gray 1999; Katzenstein 1996). It can therefore be seen as a reflection of a national identity we and (‘who are’) it is that we or (Berger 1996a, 1998). To put it normatively informs ‘what do’ ‘should do’ another way, constructivist strategic culture scholarship attempts to understand national identities, as well as a state, its policy makers or citizens tend to see and interpret the how world and specific events around them (also in relation to others), and how to react. While constructivist scholars do not negate the influence of material factors on social actions, they hold that ideas, knowledge, norms, and rules that led, for example, to the formulation of national security interests also have an influence on the development of security identities (Wendt 1999; Campbell 1998). Identities and interests of states are shaped through practices and interactions with other norms and identities. In this states’ sense, social actors reproduce norms and structure. They act reflexively by basing their actions on their acquired knowledge, habits, and routines. Put simple, strategic cultures are able to provide an for the of state actions (Finnemore 2003). understanding ‘reasons’ 2.2 Norms Generally speaking, norms are defined as beliefs about the social and “intersubjective natural world that define actors, their situations, and the possibilities of (Wendt action” 1995). Norms, according to Katzenstein, are social facts, which set standards of appropriate behaviour and express the identities (see also Finnemore 2003; agents’ Katzenstein 1996; Klotz 1995a, 1995b). Thus, norms have an that ‘oughtness’ character – is a prescriptive element how things ought to be in the world (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). of their social and political relations (e.g. symbols, rules, Actor’s knowledge
conceived as an independent or intervening variable that affects the national security behaviour of states (Duffield 1998; Farrell and Terriff 2002; Gray 1999; Katzenstein 1996). It can therefore be seen as a reflection of a national identity (‘who we are’) and normatively informs ‘what it is that we do’ or ‘should do’ (Berger 1996a, 1998). To put it another way, constructivist strategic culture scholarship attempts to understand national identities, as well as how a state, its policy makers or citizens tend to see and interpret the world and specific events around them (also in relation to others), and how to react. While constructivist scholars do not negate the influence of material factors on social actions, they hold that ideas, knowledge, norms, and rules that led, for example, to the formulation of national security interests also have an influence on the development of security identities (Wendt 1999; Campbell 1998). Identities and interests of states are shaped through practices and interactions with other states’ norms and identities. In this sense, social actors reproduce norms and structure. They act reflexively by basing their actions on their acquired knowledge, habits, and routines. Put simple, strategic cultures are able to provide an understanding for the ‘reasons’ of state actions (Finnemore 2003). 2.2 Norms Generally speaking, norms are defined as “intersubjective beliefs about the social and natural world that define actors, their situations, and the possibilities of action” (Wendt 1995). Norms, according to Katzenstein, are social facts, which set standards of appropriate behaviour and express the agents’ identities (see also Finnemore 2003; Katzenstein 1996; Klotz 1995a, 1995b). Thus, norms have an ‘oughtness’ character – that is a prescriptive element how things ought to be in the world (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). Actor’s knowledge of their social and political relations (e.g. symbols, rules,