Changing the rules: A speech act analysis of the end of the Cold War

Gavan Duffy, Brian Frederking

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Constructivists often refer to the end of the Cold War to illustrate their contention that social rules are not immutable. Agents can change the rules by performing actions that undermine them. In this article, we describe the Cold War as a set of social rules sustained by superpower speech acts. We show that, by altering their behavior, the superpowers undermined the felicity of these rules. In so doing, they progressively dismantled the rules of the Cold War. Our model captures the competing arguments in the ongoing debate about whether the rationalist buildup argument or the constructivist new thinking argument better explains the end of the Cold War. Within the model, we identify the rules that, when made infelicitous by the superpowers, resolves tensions in the Cold War rule system in ways consistent with each argument. We conclude by showing how these competing arguments are reflected in contemporary debates concerning the nature of the global security rules emerging in the post-cold-war world.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)325-347
Number of pages23
JournalInternational Studies Quarterly
Volume53
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

speech act
cold war

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Changing the rules : A speech act analysis of the end of the Cold War. / Duffy, Gavan; Frederking, Brian.

In: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2009, p. 325-347.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c2b2cf31b5bd44e7b7283ea15945713e,
title = "Changing the rules: A speech act analysis of the end of the Cold War",
abstract = "Constructivists often refer to the end of the Cold War to illustrate their contention that social rules are not immutable. Agents can change the rules by performing actions that undermine them. In this article, we describe the Cold War as a set of social rules sustained by superpower speech acts. We show that, by altering their behavior, the superpowers undermined the felicity of these rules. In so doing, they progressively dismantled the rules of the Cold War. Our model captures the competing arguments in the ongoing debate about whether the rationalist buildup argument or the constructivist new thinking argument better explains the end of the Cold War. Within the model, we identify the rules that, when made infelicitous by the superpowers, resolves tensions in the Cold War rule system in ways consistent with each argument. We conclude by showing how these competing arguments are reflected in contemporary debates concerning the nature of the global security rules emerging in the post-cold-war world.",
author = "Gavan Duffy and Brian Frederking",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00536.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "325--347",
journal = "International Studies Quarterly",
issn = "0020-8833",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Changing the rules

T2 - A speech act analysis of the end of the Cold War

AU - Duffy, Gavan

AU - Frederking, Brian

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Constructivists often refer to the end of the Cold War to illustrate their contention that social rules are not immutable. Agents can change the rules by performing actions that undermine them. In this article, we describe the Cold War as a set of social rules sustained by superpower speech acts. We show that, by altering their behavior, the superpowers undermined the felicity of these rules. In so doing, they progressively dismantled the rules of the Cold War. Our model captures the competing arguments in the ongoing debate about whether the rationalist buildup argument or the constructivist new thinking argument better explains the end of the Cold War. Within the model, we identify the rules that, when made infelicitous by the superpowers, resolves tensions in the Cold War rule system in ways consistent with each argument. We conclude by showing how these competing arguments are reflected in contemporary debates concerning the nature of the global security rules emerging in the post-cold-war world.

AB - Constructivists often refer to the end of the Cold War to illustrate their contention that social rules are not immutable. Agents can change the rules by performing actions that undermine them. In this article, we describe the Cold War as a set of social rules sustained by superpower speech acts. We show that, by altering their behavior, the superpowers undermined the felicity of these rules. In so doing, they progressively dismantled the rules of the Cold War. Our model captures the competing arguments in the ongoing debate about whether the rationalist buildup argument or the constructivist new thinking argument better explains the end of the Cold War. Within the model, we identify the rules that, when made infelicitous by the superpowers, resolves tensions in the Cold War rule system in ways consistent with each argument. We conclude by showing how these competing arguments are reflected in contemporary debates concerning the nature of the global security rules emerging in the post-cold-war world.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=66949159842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=66949159842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00536.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00536.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:66949159842

VL - 53

SP - 325

EP - 347

JO - International Studies Quarterly

JF - International Studies Quarterly

SN - 0020-8833

IS - 2

ER -