Abstract

Security community theory has made an important contribution to IR theory by demonstrating that in addition to the traditional, forceful strategy of power politics, states in the international system may become secure through positive identification. In other words, identity may 'cause' security. Although I am convinced by this argument, I am concerned that it is incomplete in a way which misleads scholars into de-emphasizing the importance of power for security. In this dissertation I make the point that there is a plight when it comes to treating identity as a 'causal' factor of anything. Drawing on the post-structuralist philosophy of Jean Francois Lyotard, I argue that identities, like all realities, are ephemeral. Thus, to the extent that identity causes anything, , there must be something which causes identity to become durable enough to produce those effects. My argument is that identity is stabilized through power; in particular, a form of representational power which, like the power entailed in traditional security regimes, is forceful. Accordingly, I refer to this force-laden process through which identity is fastened as the power politics of identity. Through a case study of the Anglo-American security community during the Suez Crisis, I demonstrate how the security-producing capabilities of identity are contingent in part on the successful deployment of these power politics. My conclusion is that no matter how revolutionary the identity-turn in security studies, it does not merit a de-emphasis on the role of power or force in causing international security outcomes