Search results

What can account for the distinctive American style of political discourse, the independent course of US foreign policy, & the stubbornly enduring popularity of George W. Bush? The article argues that both rest on the deep structure of American thought that is on the one hand highly dualistic & on the other obsessed with the notion of purity. These produce a worldview in which the "Good" is wholly, indivisibly good, the "Bad" is wholly, indivisibly evil & "Good" is at eternal risk of corruption. This mental framework is first illustrated by means of two popular films, the 1989 Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure & the 1964 Dr. Strangelove. Finally, the author draws on the work of anthropologist Mary Douglas to analyze the consequences of this way of thinking for US foreign policy, & argues that such a dichotomous worldview faces constant challenge from the existence of phenomena that do not easily fit it. Much of US foreign policy can accordingly be understood as varying strategies to protect American purity & to resolve ambiguous phenomena that threaten the prevailing American moral code. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

Norway has long tried to portray itself as one of the most environmentally responsible states. But it has consistently refused to support the moratorium against commercial whaling. This article offers a cultural explanation for this seeming contradiction, by examining the way the global antiwhaling movement framed the issue and the Norwegian environmental organizations reframed it. It argues that two cultural differences are relevant. First, animal-rights organizations were an important part of the U.S. antiwhaling coalition, whereas such organizations are largely excluded from the Norwegian environmental activist community, where animal rights arguments have found little traction. Secondly, U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operate in an adversarial pluralistic political culture, whereas the Norwegian environmental movement is embedded in a corporatist system where consensual decision making is the norm and has fostered a close relationship with the state. This has led to different images and strategic considerations being used by NGOs to frame the issue and ultimately to different decisions on the need for a moratorium.

The International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986, seemingly marking the adoption of a new norm, that commercial whaling was no longer acceptable. But this norm has failed to become institutionalized. This article uses the norm life-cycle approach as developed by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) to account for this failure. The effort ran aground because the norm proved unexpectedly ambiguous, a supporting epistemic community failed to emerge, the norm conflicted with other powerful norms, the prestige of the key anti-whaling states declined relative that of whaling states, and NGO tactics failed to win over the publics in key whaling states and instead created a counter-boomerang effect. The attempt may have resulted in the emergence of an alternative norm, but actors must act now to institutionalize it.