Language as Criticism: Assessing the Merits of Speech Acts and Discursive Formations in International Relations Free

Much has been written of late about language as a critical tool of research in international relations. Among critical international relations scholars, constructivists and poststructuralists have been the main proponents of using of language as a challenge to structural realist assumptions about world politics. Yet, it is not always clear why these critical scholars decide to turn to linguistic methodologies. This article reveals that there are compelling reasons for choosing language as a critical tool of analysis. But, contrary to current beliefs, it is important to note that constructivist and poststructuralist strategies of language are not always equivalent and compatible. This essay sorts out the divergent epistemological and political stakes involved in one's choice of a linguistic strategy. Different uses of language offer different critiques of mainstream international political practice. To illustrate this argument, the April 2001 US—China diplomatic crisis over the collision between a surveillance plane and a fighter jet is showcased. It is shown that constructivist and poststructuralist linguistic analyses provide challenging but not always complementary interpretations of the policies, diplomatic procedures, and verbal exchanges that took place during this confrontation.