Explaining the practice of the Finnish non-alignment : applying Pierre Bourdieu's concept of Doxa as an approach to the study of practice

EXPLAINING THE PRACTICE OF THE

FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT

Applying Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of Doxa as an approach to the study

of practice

By

Noora Pohjola

June 2017

Master Thesis ‘Political Science: International Relations’

Research Project: European Security Politics Supervisor: Dr. Rocco Bellanova Second Reader: Prof. Jeroen Doomernik

Abstract

This study analyses the Finnish non-alignment as a stable, unchanged and reproduced practice. Policies and practices evolve and change over time, whereas the practice of the Finnish non-alignment has remained fixed to its security and defence policy since the 1930s. Change is a defining feature of the international system – not stability. This thesis seeks to explain the phenomenon of stability within the framework of practice approaches. It will study the practice of non-alignment within a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach. By doing so, it will introduce the concept of doxa as an approach to the study of a reproduced practice. Drawing a link between the concept of doxa and the reproduction of practices under the domain of Bourdieu’s praxeology, this thesis suggests that doxa is a promising methodological and analytical tool in explaining stability, unchanged and reproduced practices. Thus, this thesis asks the question of ‘Is the Finnish non-alignment a case of doxa’ in order to discover whether the concept of doxa can provide an explanation for the reproduction of the Finnish non-alignment. The research question is operationalised by developing and applying a ‘doxic approach for the Finnish non-alignment’. This approach is an attempt to introduce the concept of doxa to the study of practice as a methodological and analytical tool. As a result, this thesis finds that the Finnish non-alignment has doxic features. In addition, the introduction of the doxic approach revealed possible changes taking place for the practice of non-alignment within the Finnish security and defence policy. While the doxic approach for non-alignment is exploratory at its best, this research demonstrates the promise of such an approach in providing an account for the reproduction of practices.

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ... 4

1.1. THE CASE OF THE FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT ... 7

1.2. THE STUDY OF THE FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT ... 10

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 13 2.1. PRACTICE APPROACHES ... 14 2.1.1. The Finnish non-alignment within the framework of practice approaches ... 18 2.2. A BOURDIEUSIAN-ORIENTED PRACTICE APPROACH ... 20 2.2.1. Doxa ... 24 2.3. DOXA AS AN APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF PRACTICE ... 26 2.4. REFLECTIONS ON THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 29 4. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 30

4.1. HOW TO STUDY THE FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT AS DOXA? ... 30

4.2. DATA COLLECTION ... 32 4.3. DATA ANALYSIS ... 34 4.4. REFLECTIONS ON THE RESEARCH DESIGN ... 36 4.4.1. Validity and Reliability ... 36 4.4.2. Epistemic reflexivity ... 38 5. ANALYSIS ... 39 5.1. AN OVERVIEW OF THE FINNISH SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY REPORTS ... 40 5.l.1. 1995 ... 40 5.1.2. 1997 ... 41 5.1.5. 2009 ... 45 5.1.6. 2012 ... 46 5.1.7. 2017 ... 47

5.2. THE FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT IN THE UNIVERSE OF THE UNDISCUSSED ... 48

5.2.1. An act of misrecognition ... 49

5.2.2. A taken-for-granted practice ... 50

5.2.3. A structural constraint ... 51

5.3. THE FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT IN THE UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE ... 53

5.3.1. Non-alignment as an orthodox position ... 53 5.3.2. Non-alignment as a heterodox position ... 55 6. IS THE FINNISH NON-ALIGNMENT DOXA? ... 57 6.1. NON-ALIGNMENT, DOXA AND STABILITY ... 58 6.1.1. Hysteresis ... 61 7. CONCLUSION ... 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 65

1. INTRODUCTION

Finland is a aligned country. Its alignment dates back to 1935, when non-alignment was introduced as the official line of the Finnish security and defence policy (Pesonen 2016, 50). Since then, Finland has witnessed changes and conflicts in its surrounding security environment. This security environment is dictated by the presence of Russia, a former superpower with close geographical and historical ties to Finland. A shared Eastern border with Russia connects Finland to influences from the East, which has influenced the formation and development of the Finnish security policy. Today, Finland continues to share close ties with Russia while having become integrated to the West. Membership in the European Union connects Finland to the Western community, while still having remained militarily non-aligned. The security environment in its proximity is constantly changing, which has challenged the utility of military non-alignment. Fears of an increased Russian aggression became relevant again after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Discussions on the possibility of alignment, and therefore a possible NATO membership, have become present in the discussion on non-alignment.

Despite a changing security environment and an integration with the West, the practice of non-alignment is still present. However, change is a defining feature of the international system – policies change, practices change, and security environments and threats transform (Kustermans 2015, 180). Change, not stability, is the ordinary condition of life (Doty 1997). Non-alignment, having been introduced in the 1930s, is a practice that has remained stable and resilient, while the international system, particularly the security environment in the proximity of Finland, has undergone major changes from the Second World War to the end of the Cold War. These events have transformed ways of thinking, the nature of security threats, and the order of the international system. Adopting this view, then, raises a question: if change is an ordinary condition of the international system and practices, why is the practice of the Finnish non-alignment still present?

This thesis analyses the practice of the Finnish non-alignment as an unchanged and a stable practice present in the Finnish security and defence policy. It attempts to draw focus on the changing nature of practices, and how the Finnish non-alignment is a practice characterised by reproduction, thus having become an integral part of the Finnish security and defence

policy. Previous research on the Finnish non-alignment has traditionally used security- and identity-oriented approaches (Blombergs 2016; Forsberg 2016). These approaches have focused on explaining the presence of non-alignment as an advantage or disadvantage to the Finnish security policy, or as an identity question, which focuses on non-alignment as a defining feature of the role and identity of Finland as an actor in the international community (Blombergs 2016, 277; Forsberg 2016, 375). By adopting a practice oriented approach, this research introduces a new approach to the study of the Finnish non-alignment that understands non-non-alignment as a practice constantly reproduced by agents and constrained by the context in which it exists. Non-alignment is not static, fixed or given part of the Finnish security policy. Thus, the aim of this thesis is to find an explanation for the reasons behind the reproduction of the practice of non-alignment.

Practice approaches in the study of International Relations are relatively a new discipline (Reus-Smith 2013, 239). However, they have provided promising accounts of explaining key phenomena in the field of world politics, such as change and the everyday workings of power behind the complex arena of world politics (Kustermans 2015, 2; Adler-Nissen and Pouliot 2014). Emmanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot highlighted this by stating how the arena of world politics is ‘made up of a myriad of everyday practices that too often get overlooked in scholarly research’ (2011, 2). While this thesis will focus on a national setting, non-alignment is linked to this understanding. The Finnish non-alignment is a phenomenon often overlooked as a result of everyday practices that define and reproduce its presence as a practice in the Finnish security and defence policy. Thus, a practice-oriented approach will focus on non-alignment as a question of why and how it is present as a reproduced practice, and what are the appropriate thinking tools within the domain of practice approaches to be adopted in order to explain the practice of non-alignment.

In exploring this phenomenon, this thesis adopts a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu advanced a particular theorisation of practice, introduced in the Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977). Bourdieu’s account of practices is based on the concepts of field, habitus and capital, each of which play a central part in the production and reproduction of practices (Bourdieu 1984, 101). Bourdieu’s configuration of practices is an approach to the study of practice concerned with the ‘stability, regularity, and reproduction of practices’ (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 455). Hence, a Bourdieusian approach is relevant to the focus of this thesis, which is the study of a stable and reproduced

practice. By adopting a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach, this thesis introduces the concept of doxa to the study of a stable and reproduced practice. Bourdieu introduced the concept of doxa to describe knowledge and practices that are taken-for-granted, and thus perceived as natural within the context in which they exist (Bourdieu 1977, 164). Doxa is not challenged or questioned, as it is knowledge that is taken-for-granted. It can exercise a ‘misrecognised structural power’ on practices, thus influencing the production and nature of practices (Berling 2012, 456).

By adopting a doxic approach to the Finnish non-alignment, this thesis will study the Finnish non-alignment as a possible case of doxa. The research question to be answered is ‘Is the Finnish non-alignment a case of doxa?’. Thus, non-alignment is studied as a possible case of an act of misrecognition, a taken-for-granted practice, and a structural constraint on practices. Non-alignment as doxa would not be a challenged practice, and thus it would constrain the formation of new practices, if its presence in the Finnish security and defence policy is not questioned. Features of doxa are linked to the formation of practices within Bourdieu’s approach to the study of practice in this research. The linking of the concept of doxa and the reproduction of practices will provide an approach to explaining the reproduction and stability of the Finnish non-alignment.

The research question is operationalised by developing and applying a ‘doxic approach to the Finnish non-alignment’. This approach is based on the deployment of Bourdieu’s notions of the universe of the undiscussed and the universe of discourse (1977, 168). The universe of the undiscussed reflects the presence of doxa, whereas the universe of discourse presents a field of opinion (1977, 168). This approach is applied to the Finnish security and defence policy reports, published seven times since 1995. These reports form the foundation for the production and implementation of security practices in Finland (Limnéll 2008, 2). Thus, non-alignment is studied within the context of these reports. The universe of the undiscussed and the universe of discourse will be applied to non-alignment present in the reports in order to identify whether non-alignment is an issue under debate, thus present in the universe of discourse, or whether it is present as doxa, located in the universe of the undiscussed. If non-alignment is present in the universe of discourse, it cannot be labeled as doxa. However, if non-alignment is situated in the universe of the undiscussed, it can be labeled as a case of doxa.

The doxic approach developed and applied in this thesis aims to explain the presence of the practice of non-alignment in the Finnish security and defence policy. This thesis links Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of doxa and the reproduction of practices within a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach. Thus, a study of doxa and reproduction of practices will be used as an approach to explain the stability and reproduction of the Finnish non-alignment in order to understand why non-alignment has remained, and is still present, in the Finnish security and defence policy.

1.1. The case of the Finnish non-alignment

The role of Finland in the international system has long been defined by its non-alignment. As a member of the EU and a partner in NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme, Finland has nevertheless taken an active role as a member of the international community in matters of political cooperation and collective security (Ulkoasiainministeriö 2015, 7). Despite the changing security environment in its proximity, dominated by the presence of Russia, Finland has followed a tradition of non-alignment (Etzold and Opitz 2015, 1). Non-alignment is a practice manifesting itself in the Finnish foreign and security policy, which defines and determines the role of Finland as an actor in the international community.

In the context of this thesis, non-alignment is understood as the refusal to join a military alliance, and hence remain non-allied in matters of collective defence (Eerola 2012). However, the problematic nature of defining non-alignment is already evident in such definition. Is the case of the Finnish non-alignment a case of refusal to join a military alliance? On the other hand, to label the Finnish non-alignment as an absence from a military alliance would also be problematic. Yes, Finland is absent from a military alliance. However, its absence is a result of certain practices, such as parliamentary debates and attempts to define the course of the Finnish foreign-and security policy in the changing international system (Blombergs 2013, 489-490).

Thus, the absence of Finland from a military alliance is not given, or inherent to its role – rather, non-alignment is a practice that needs to be constantly promoted and upheld by actors for it to remain an integral part of the Finnish security policy. The Finnish security

policy is not created in a vacuum but in a complex and changing reality that dictates its course (Pesonen 2016, 14). While still problematic and debatable, this thesis will understand the Finnish non-alignment as the refusal to join a military alliance in order to emphasise the practice-oriented nature of the concept.

A significant part to the discussion on the concept of non-alignment is to distinguish it from the concept of neutrality. Particularly in the discussions on the Finnish non-alignment, it is necessary to briefly discuss what is meant by the two concepts. As a non-aligned nation, Finland is not a part of a military alliance. However, to label the role of Finland as neutral raises questions. Some authors argue that in the case of Finland, ‘clearly, one cannot speak of the old neutrality’, while others suggest labeling its case as ‘post-neutral’, even as ‘pre-allied’ (Eerola 2012; Vaahtoranta and Forsberg 2000). As Finland partakes in ‘NATO’s cooperation structures and supports the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)’, speaking of Finland as a neutral country would be a normative statement in itself (Etzold and Opitz 2015, 1). Hence, this thesis suggests taking caution in distinguishing and using the notions of non-alignment and neutrality as mutually inclusive, and continues referring to the absence of Finland from a military alliance as non-alignment rather than neutrality.

The Finnish non-alignment dates back to 1935, when non-alignment was chosen as the official line of the Finnish foreign policy (Pesonen 2016, 50). From the events of the Second World War to the dispute between the two superpowers during the Cold War era, the role of Finland has been mainly dictated by its position as a non-aligned country. The notion of non-alignment has been not only a question of the course of the Finnish security policy, but also a question of its place and purpose as an actor in the international system (Penttilä 2008, 15). Non-alignment is a matter of identity. It has been argued, that the very core of the Finnish identity lies in the idea neutrality; of not being part of the West or the East (Penttilä 2008, 15). As a traditional course of the Finnish security policy, non-alignment has become an embedded part of security practices and policies. As a defining feature of the role of Finland in the international system, it has become engrained in the identity of Finland.

Despite the security environment in its proximity is constantly transforming and raising concerns of the Finnish national security, particularly after the Russian annexation of

Crimea in 2014, the course of the Finnish security policy remains rooted in the notion of non-alignment. Today, the aim of its security policy is to stay non-allied by taking responsibility of defending its own territory, maintaining a good relationship with its neighbour, Russia, and attempting to remain outside of possible disputes and conflicts between the two superpowers, Russia and the United States (Blombergs 2016, 489). Non-alignment can be, therefore, understood as a continuing practice in the Finnish security policy.

However, the practice of non-alignment is constantly challenged. Throughout its history, Finland has had to accommodate its security policies to a political reality in which geopolitics and superpowers play a significant part. As Hans Köchler (1982, 62) argues,

‘non-alignment has a broad, flexible, and dynamic ideological framework which has evolved over a period of time as a response to the national needs on the one hand and to almost continuously changing international environment on the other’.

Thus, the position and role of Finland in the international environment has always been closely linked to the formation and development of the Finnish non-alignment. A shared Eastern border with Russia connects Finland to influences from the East, while its values and identity connect it to the West (Ulkoasiainministeriö 2015, 7-8). The presence of Russia in its proximity, and wars fought against the former Soviet Union, play a significant role in determining the Finnish security practices (Pesonen 2016, 22-23). Geopolitics and history have traditionally been the frameworks for discussion on the Finnish non-alignment (Iloniemi 2015, 11). Today, as fears of Russian aggression have increased, the practice of non-alignment is often seen as not being a sufficient response to the transformations taking place in its nearby security environment (Iloniemi 2015, 11).

The discussion on non-alignment as a sufficient practice in the Finnish security policy has become centered on the question of belonging or not belonging to a military alliance, namely NATO in the case of Finland (Eerola 2012). Non-alignment is not a self-evident practice but a way of adapting to the transforming international system. A decision to join NATO could be understood as such, but currently, a membership is seen as a mere ‘possibility’, rather than a future course for the Finnish security policy (Etzold and Opitz 2015, 2).

To conclude, non-alignment is an evolving practice that has its roots in history. It is not given, not self-evident, or inherently fixed to the security policy of Finland. However, a long tradition of non-alignment has become a determining factor of the Finnish security policy, thus dictating the course of its security practices in the face of the changing international environment.

1.2. The study of the Finnish non-alignment

This sub-chapter provides an overview of how the Finnish non-alignment has been previously studied. It introduces the relevant approaches to the study of the Finnish non-alignment and the issues commonly linked to the study of this phenomenon.

The study of the Finnish non-alignment is largely based on the evaluation of its utility. This is a typical feature of the research conducted on the Finnish non-alignment. The utility of non-alignment is often linked to the role of Finland within the international system, both as a political and security actor. The central question to the study of the Finnish non-alignment is the question of whether non-alignment is more beneficial for the role of Finland than alignment (Penttilä 2008, 12). The research conducted on the utility of non-alignment has been mainly based on the publications by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Tampere Peace Research Institute (TAPRI), the Finnish National Defence University, and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence (Kirstilä 2016, 9).

Researches and official reports by different institutes and ministries have dominated the research conducted on non-alignment in the recent years. Overall, the area of research for non-alignment is narrow, and has become centered on questions of why Finland is not a member of NATO. Hence, non-alignment is linked to the question of a NATO membership. Recent research shows how this has become central to the Finnish non-alignment. Jaakko Iloniemi (2015), in There’s nothing to be done about geography, highlighted the link of the Finnish non-alignment to recent security threats. According to Iloniemi, non-alignment is no longer given to the role of Finland but rather, demands for alignment and thus, a NATO membership, have become to overrule the discussion on

non-alignment (2015, 11). Similarly, in the Security of Finland, Jukka Valtasaari (2015) points out that a NATO membership has become an integral part of the development of the Finnish security policy. Following Valtasaari, Markku Salomaa highlighted the advantages of a NATO membership for Finland, thus arguing against the utility of the Finnish non-alignment in the current, changing security environment (2015).

The discussion on non-alignment, and thus the issue of alignment for the development of the Finnish security and defence policy can be generally understood through three different theoretical approaches. The frameworks of realism, liberalism and constructivism have been introduced as general approaches to the understanding of non-alignment and alignment (Blombergs 2016, iv). Despite the research on the Finnish non-alignment consists of a variety of approaches and points of focus, such as the analysis of the public discussion (See: Rahkonen 2006), these three approaches provide a general understanding of the most commonly adopted approaches to the study of the Finnish non-alignment.

The question of non-alignment within the framework of realism is as follows: ‘what would be the advantages and disadvantages of a Finnish NATO membership compared to the Finnish non-alignment within the approach of political realism?’ (Blombergs 2016, 277). The evaluation of the line of the Finnish security policy is central, and it is linked to the advantages and disadvantages of a possible NATO membership. The approach of realism brings the focus to the dilemma of security, and whether, in an inherently unstable international system, the only option to guarantee the security of Finland is alignment (Blombergs 2016, 320).

The role of Russia is emphasised, as it has historically played a significant role in the formation of the Finnish security policy. The focus is also on the United States and its hegemony, and how this apparent unipolarity is either a positive or a negative consequence for Finland (Blombergs 2016, 321). Traditionally, a realist approach regards the balance of power as a prerequisite for stability in an unstable world, which would also be more beneficial for the security of Finland (2016, 321). A conflict between the US and Russia based on an uneven balance of power would lead to Russia seeking to increase its power in relation to the US, which might lead to an increased Russian aggression also in the proximity of Finland (2016, 321). Thus, within this approach, non-alignment and alignment are generally discussed in relation to these issues and actors.

A liberalist approach to the study of non-alignment focuses on issues of values and community. The focus is on the role of Finland as an actor part of the Western world, and Finland, as part of the West, formulates a set of values that correspond with those promoted by key actors and organisations in the West (Sirén 2016, 347). Alignment would mean closer integration with the West, and to be part of an organisation that promotes a set of values that are also adopted by Finland. Such values promoted by key organisations are based on respecting sovereignty, the rule of law, and policy-making that avoids conflict and war (Sirén 2016, 347). NATO is viewed as a community of security and common values, whose members share roughly the same set of values (Sirén 2016, 347). Member states of NATO do not also resort to the physical use of force against other member states, and conflicts between members are solved by peaceful means (Sirén 2016, 347). As Finland is a part of the European and Western community, a membership in NATO would be an opportunity for closer integration with states who share a similar set of values. Thus, the liberalist approach does not emphasise a security framework for the analysis of non-alignment, but advances a community and a value based approach.

Lastly, the third commonly used approach to the study of non-alignment is constructivism. This approach emphasises the construction of the Finnish identity, and how non-alignment has become an integral part of its identity. As part of the Western community, alignment would clarify the identity of Finland as part of the West and other states who share a similar set of values (Forsberg 2016, 375). However, non-alignment has not been an obstacle for integration, as Finland is a member of the EU and cooperates with NATO in its Partnership for Peace Programme. A constructivist approach views identity as an ongoing construction, and the issue of non-alignment and alignment are closely linked to the construction of the Finnish identity as an actor in the international community (Forsberg 2016, 375).

These three approaches provide a rough overview of the most typical approaches to the study of the Finnish non-alignment and the issues they emphasise. Within these approaches, the realist approach and thus the security-oriented framework it adopts have been the most prominent in the research on non-alignment. This is almost inevitable, as non-alignment is viewed and understood as an issue related to the formation and development of the Finnish security policy.

As already briefly discussed, there is a tendency to analyse non-alignment linked to alignment, and thus, to a NATO membership. A NATO membership is seen as a direction towards which Finland is gradually moving, and some even argue that a sense of such process is promoted by media and researchers alike (Pesonen 2015, 60-61). However, as the security environment in the proximity of Finland is changing, the constant evaluation of the Finnish security and defence policy becomes relevant. Hence, the discussion on the utility of non-alignment contradicted to the benefits of alignment is at the entre of discussion.

By adopting a new approach to the study of the Finnish non-alignment, a practice-oriented approach, this thesis will bring the focus on the phenomenon of non-alignment itself. Non-alignment is analysed as a practice rather than as a security, identity, or a value-based question. By focusing on non-alignment as a practice, the presence of non-alignment as a resilient and unchanged practice will be the framework for studying non-alignment as a phenomenon present in the Finnish security and defence policy. As previous research and approaches have often linked the issue of non-alignment with the idea of a NATO membership, the research has lacked focus on explaining why non-alignment is still present as a practice for Finland. A practice-oriented approach to the study of non-alignment will provide the tools for analysing and theorising the Finnish non-alignment as an unchanged and resilient practice, and thus provide insight as to why the practice of non-alignment is present the Finnish security and defence policy.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter will introduce the theoretical framework chosen for this research. First, it will provide an overview of practice-oriented approaches to the study of International Relations. Then, it will discuss the Finnish non-alignment within the framework of practice

approaches, and define the Finnish non-alignment as practice. Secondly, this chapter will introduce a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach to the study of practice. All further understanding and analysis of practices in this research will be based on the theoretical underpinnings of a Bourdieusian approach within the domain of practice approaches.

Thirdly, this chapter will introduce Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of doxa as an approach to the study of practices, which will be the focus this thesis takes within Bourdieu’s praxeology.

2.1. Practice approaches

Practice approaches bring the focus from ideas and discourses to the context of the physical and structural (Swidler 2001, 75). It is not to deny the importance of norms, ideas and discourses but rather, to focus on how these ‘only exist by virtue of the routinised practices’ of human agents (Reus-Smith 2013, 238). Values, norms and ideas do not exist in a vacuum. They are always embedded in a particular organised context (Adler and Pouliot 2011, 6). Only as a result of practices do they become material phenomena (Reus-Smith 2013, 239). Practices, therefore, can maintain or transform dominant norms and ideas; ultimately, they are what produces and modifies social order, whether it be in the context of the political, economic, or cultural. In world politics, for instance, practice approaches focus on how groups perform ‘their practical activities’ to ‘renew and reproduce social order’ (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 450).

This thesis chooses to speak of ‘practice approaches rather than a practice approach, as it agrees with the notion that there is not one, homogeneous, approach to the study of practice but rather, a collection of diverse approaches. To speak of practice approaches is to draw focus on the fact that many authors within the relevant literature suggest seeing the ‘heterogeneous character’ of practice approaches (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 450). Practice approaches are a ‘diverse family’, and best understood as such (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 450; Bueger 2015, 126).

Furthermore, recognising the diverse nature of practice approaches requires a justification on why a specific approach is chosen, as, for instance, choosing a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach is to locate oneself to a specific strand of practice approach. As Bueger and Gadinger suggest, one should be cautious of the tendency to ‘equate international practice theory solely with Bourdieu’s praxeology’ (2015, 450). While an influential approach within the domain of practice approaches, the importance of the context in which it exists should not be dismissed.

To have a better understanding on the practice-oriented approaches, it is necessary to briefly look into their origins. There are multiple ways in which the origins of practice approaches can be traced. Christian Bueger identified four traditions that help to underpin the foundations of practice approaches, and hence build an understanding on its development (2015, 127). The following table illustrates his tracing of the origins of practice approaches.

As can be seen from the table, the development of practice approaches has underpinned its main characteristics. Material dimensions of all action, practical knowledge, the production and reproduction of social order through practices are all central ideas to practice-oriented approaches, which have become an increasingly popular approach to the study of International Relations (Devetak 2013, 162). The focus of practice approaches in International Relations can be traced to the poststructuralist insight, which stresses how the complex arena of world politics is ‘made up of a myriad of everyday practices that too often get overlooked in scholarly research’, as noted by Emmanuel Adler and Vincent

Pouliot (2011, 2). It is this key insight that underpins the foundation of practice-oriented approaches and their contribution to the study of International Relations.

Early work on a practice-oriented approach in International Relations advanced the notion of seeing world politics as ‘a set of textual practices’ (Der Derian and Shapiro 1989). Much of the early work on a practice-oriented approach was built on the ideas of Michael Foucault and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who both added to the linguistic turn by bringing in the focus on practices (Neumann 2002, 627). Iver Neumann argued for the importance of ‘reminding ourselves’ that the linguistic turn and the turn to discourse in the study of IR involved a turn to practices from the very beginning (2002, 627). This is especially important for practice-oriented approaches, as texts, narratives and discourses have always a practical dimension that constructs and constitutes everyday practices (2002, 627). This notion is key for the focus of this thesis, as it focuses on the connection of text and practice by looking at security policies in relation to a specific practice, non-alignment.

While a relatively new discipline to the study of International Relations, practice-oriented approaches have been used by various scholars as a ‘particularly illuminating’ way of understanding key phenomena in world politics (Reus-Smith 2013, 239). In particular, practice approaches in the study of IR have been ‘championed on three main grounds’ (Kustermans 2015, 2). First, there is the philosophical aspect: practice theories have attempted to overcome deep-rooted dualisms such as the agency-structure debate (Kustermans 2015, 2). Pierre Bourdieu’s approach to the study of practice, formulated in the Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977), for instance, is an attempt to overcome the dilemma of whether structures constrain all action or whether human agents are free to act from these structures by introducing the concept of habitus (Schindler and Wille 2015, 335).

Secondly, practice approaches have been praised on theoretical grounds, mainly due to having provided a promising account for explaining change in world politics (Kustermans 2015, 2). For instance, Vincent Pouliot’s International Security in Practice offers an account of transformations in the relations between NATO and Russia after the end of the Cold War (2010). Pouliot focuses on the change of the security environment after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union that led to a change in security practices. Pouliot’s work demonstrates the promise of practice approaches in explaining

major transformations, such as the change of security practices in the post-Cold War era security environment.

Thirdly, practice approaches have showed promise on methodological grounds. A practice-oriented approach to the study of world politics helps us observe key phenomena ‘as it actually occurs’ (Kustermans 2015, 2). The focus is on practices and how they constitute different phenomena present in the arena of world politics, which is, in essence, the study of how complex workings of world politics ‘actually occur’. Rebecca-Adler Nissen and Vincent Pouliot, in their article Power in practice: Negotiating the international intervention in Libya (2014), demonstrated the workings of everyday performance of international practices on shaping world policy outcomes. By doing so, they demonstrated the methodological promise of a practice-oriented approach to the study of International Relations. Adler-Nissen and Pouliot adopted such approach by providing a ‘detailed account of the negotiations at the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and the European Union’, and demonstrating how, in practice, state representatives transform their skills into influence ‘and generate a power politics that eschews structural analysis’ (2014, 889). Thus, their research demonstrates the methodological application of a practice-oriented approach by theorising power in practice – as it actually occurs.

In the study of International Relations, practice approaches can be divided among five different approaches (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 454). The first, and often the most prominent, is Bourdieu’s praxeology (2015, 454). As already briefly mentioned, the understanding of practice approaches is often connected to the underpinnings of a Bourdieusian-oriented approach to the study of practice. The other four approaches to the study of practice in IR, identified by Bueger and Gadinger (2015, 454), are: (1) studies of global governmentality, based on Foucault’s later work (Walters 2012); (2) the community of practice approach, which focuses on how ‘knowing and doing become related, and how, within communities, ‘meanings is negotiated and knowledge is created’ (Bueger and Gadinger 2014, 29-31); (3) adoptions of actor-network theory based on the work of Bruno Latour (2014), in which he focused on human agency in shaping the physical world; and (4) a collection of approaches following the emphasis on practice and relations, advancing the notion that practices can ‘only be grasped if one takes their (participants’) perspectives as fundamental’ (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 455).

This overview of practice approaches to the study of International Relations has provided an understanding of the origins and development of practice approaches, their promise to the study of IR on philosophical, theoretical and methodological grounds, and finally, a brief look into the different approaches present in the study of practice. These are all central to our understanding of practice-oriented approaches.

2.1.1. The Finnish non-alignment within the framework of practice approaches

Three implications of a practice-oriented approach will be used to explain the motivation to examine the Finnish non-alignment within a framework of practice approaches. First, the focus will be on the interconnectedness of ideas and materiality. Second, the emphasis is brought to the nature of practices as a reproducing or transforming force. Lastly, a look into structures and agency will finish the discussion on the Finnish non-alignment in this theoretical framework. As a result of looking at the Finnish non-alignment within the framework of practice theories, the Finnish non-alignment will be understood as (1) an idea of the purpose and role of Finland in the international system embedded in material reality – in its security policy – as a practice of non-alignment; (2) a stable practice; and as (3) a practice produced in a specific context by agents that are constrained by the context in which they exist.

Ideas and knowledge are situated in practice rather than in ‘mental frames’ or discourse only (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 449). By connecting ideas and materiality, practice theories focus on the ways in which ‘traditions, historical experiences, past cases, practices and ideologies provide support for ‘reasons’ (knowledge) that become socially dominant’ (Kratochwil 1989, 33). All visible practices are a result of a process in which ideas have been materialised by human agents.

Looking at the Finnish non-alignment from this perspective, it is, first and foremost, an idea of the role and purpose of Finland in the international system. This idea is then embedded in material reality as the notion of non-alignment, evident in the Finnish security policy. Past traditions and historical experiences have produced an understanding of the role and purpose of Finland as a foreign policy actor. Practices arising from this context of certain

norms and values, such as the idea of neutrality throughout the history of Finland, have produced and upheld a specific material phenomena, which is the practice of non-alignment embedded in its security policy.

Moreover, practice theories regard the world as the product of ‘ongoing establishment, re-enactment, and maintenance of relations between actors, objects, and material artifacts’ (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 453). The emphasis on process over stasis places the focus on the idea that nothing is inherently fixed or given (2015, 453). All structures, objects, or norms, exist in practice, and are therefore either produced, reproduced or transformed by practices (2015, 453; Pouliot and Adler 2011, 1).

The Finnish non-alignment is a product of practices; it is not given or fixed to its identity. This notion also relates to the interconnectedness of ideas and materiality central to practice theories. Non-alignment is both an idea and practice, and it is constantly upheld as a practice by agents, thus preventing the transformation of the practice. As already briefly discussed, the Finnish non-alignment can be seen as a phenomenon of a ‘continuing practice’ in the Finnish security policy. By focusing on the simultaneous processes of stability and change, practice theories would look at the practice of non-alignment as a stable practice, reproduced by action and interaction within the context in which it exists.

This aspect of reproduction and transformation is crucial. By looking at a ‘stable-seeming’ practice through the lens of practice theories, one will arrive to an interesting dilemma that is central to this thesis. Quoting Roxanne Doty (1997 in Kustermans 2015, 180) on stability, she argued that

‘change, not stability, is the ordinary condition of social life. […] Stability […] is an illusion created by the recursive nature of practice. […] New ways of thinking or doing necessarily emerge from the contingent ‘play of practice’’.

Thus, the practice of non-alignment understood as a stable practice is ultimately an illusion. As practices constantly shape and produce social life, nothing is inherently stable or fixed. This is especially interesting, as the Finnish non-alignment has become embedded to the role of Finland in the international system both as an identity and as a practice.

Finally, the focus of practice theories on the ‘agency-structure’ debate will help to understand how practices are always dependent on the context in which they exist and on the agent performing them. Practice-producing agents are always situated in a specific context that constrains and influences practices that can be produced by agents (Bueger 2015, 128-129). In the context of the Finnish security policy, practice-producing agents are constrained by a context of past historical experiences and traditions. Practices do not develop ‘out of nowhere’, and are thus always influenced by the context in which they are performed in (Reus-Smith 2013, 239; Bueger 2015, 128-129).

The Finnish security-policy is constrained by these factors that need to be considered when focusing on issues of reproduction and transformation. Structural constraints – constraints arising from the context in which agents act – influence action. Thus, non-alignment can also be understood not only as a practice but also as a constraint for action. Embedded in the context of security policy, it influences practices.

A framework of practice theories emphasises the Finnish non-alignment as an ongoing practice. Non-alignment is not, therefore, inherently fixed or given to its role and identity. Stability is not ‘the ordinary condition of social life’. Non-alignment is, however, often seen and described as a stable practice. This dilemma will be next considered within a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach.

2.2. A Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach

This thesis will focus on a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach. As discussed in the chapter on practice approaches, the family of practice approaches consists of a variety of different approaches to the study of practice. Thus, this thesis has to locate itself to a strand of practice theory. The chosen approach is a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach. The following sub-chapter will introduce this approach to the study of practice and to the context of this research.

Central to a Bourdieusian approach to the study of practice is his ‘theory’ of practice he advanced in the Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice was

a result of his research about a case study of the Kabyle society in Algeria (Walther 2014, 7). He used this research of the Kabyle society to interpret the society in terms of domination and relative strength, which Bourdieu argued to be a result of unequal distribution of resources within the society of the Kabyle peoples (Walther 2014, 7). Bourdieu views distinct social spheres as fields of practices, which are shaped by power struggles between different agents who each aim to improve their own position (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 454). Rebecca Adler-Nissen summarises this central feature of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice to the study of practices and the study of politics:

‘it is possible to map political units as spaces of practical knowledge on which diverse and often ‘unconventional’ agencies position themselves and therefore shape international politics’ (Adler-Nissen 2013: 2).

Thus, the social world is divided in units that are ‘spaces of practical knowledge’, and in which agents position themselves and influence practices that shape, for instance, international politics.

Bourdieu’s configuration of practices in the Outline of a Theory of Practices is based on the concepts of a field, habitus and capital. The concept of a field characterises a social space as a unique set of relations, as different social spaces are sites of different, field specific practices (Jackson 2008, 167). Fields are the structuring forces for the production of practices. To overcome the deterministic dilemma of structures shaping all action and leaving no room for agents to act outside the constraints of their surrounding structures, Bourdieu developed the concept of habitus. Habitus is a set of dispositions ‘that inclines actors to perceive, understand, and act upon the world in particular ways’ (Schindler and Wille 2015, 335). These sets of dispositions are influenced by past experiences as the ‘embodied history, internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history’ (Bourdieu 1990, 56). Hence, the structures of a field produce habitus, which influences agents’ behaviour but does not determine it.

As agents produce practices within a field, they are influenced by their habitus, which is a structured structure, as it is produced by the structures of society (Schindler and Wille 2015, 335). However, habitus is also a structuring structure, as it ‘generates and organises practices’ (2015, 335). This interplay between habitus and the field is central to Bourdieu’s understanding of social reproduction, as practices produced by habitus and structures tend to

reproduce the structures they are product of (2015, 335). This is a system of ‘circular relations, which unite structures and practices’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977, 203).

A third aspect in the interplay of structures and practices central to Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice is the concept of capital. Capital is the resource agents use to improve their positioning in a field. Thus, it is understood as a power resource present in each field (Berling 2012, 469). However, capital is always field specific: each field and its unique structuring relations between agents define what counts as capital and what ‘confers power onto someone’ (Leander 2006, 4). While this thesis will not include a more detailed discussion on the different types of capital, it is important to note that Bourdieu distinguished between four types of capital. These are economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital (Walther 2014, 10). These grant the right for actors to access a field, as different fields value different types of capital. Capital also allows agents to move on social fields (Walther 2014, 9).

The concepts of field, habitus and capital form the basis for the production of practices in Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Bourdieu (1984, 101) presents the following equation for the interplay between field, habitus and capital:

[(habitus)(capital)+field] = practice.

Thus, practices are a result of structures and dispositions. This equation demonstrates Bourdieu’s relational approach to the study of practice, as objects investigated by the researcher are to be understood in the context in which they exist (Mohr 2013, 2). Practices are not to be considered as detached from their surroundings but rather, as part of ‘a whole’, which in Bourdieu’s approach is the context of field, habitus and capital. Hence, a Bourdieusian approach to the study of practice adopts a relational rather than a substantialist approach. A substantialist approach would imply that the objects under study are distinct from their properties, and thus relatively independent and durable (Robinson 2014, 1). Bourdieu, however, regards a substantial approach as privileging ‘things rather than relations and, as such, has a tendency to reify the social order’ (Mohr 2013, 2). Thus, practices are studied in their context, and how this context generates and organises practices.

A Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach analyses practices through the interplay between structures and dispositions. As already briefly discussed, these exist in a ‘circular relation’, which is a cycle of reproduction of the defining structures of a field. Thus, this specific approach to the study of practice is concerned with the ‘stability, regularity, and reproduction of practices’, as noted by Bueger and Gadinger (2015, 455). This is central to the focus of this thesis, which is the study of a stable practice.

In addition to being linked to the reproduction and stability of practices, a Bourdieusian approach is situated in the tradition of critical theory. Practice approaches are rooted in at least two traditions, critical theory and pragmatism (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 454). The understanding of practice rooted in the ‘critical theory line of reasoning’ is developed from a Marxian tradition (2015, 454). Marx advanced the notion of societal life as having to be analysed as human practice (2015, 454). Practice approaches within a critical tradition are concerned with power, domination, and resilience (2015, 454). All of these are central to a Bourdieusian approach to the study of practice. Moreover, resilience is linked to the focus of this thesis, as a practice of resilience and stability is chosen as the object of this study. The line of critical theory focuses on questions of hierarchical reproduction, such as in the case of the reproduction of class conflict and relationships of exploitation, and resistance (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 454; Devetak 2013, 171). Bourdieu’s approach further conceptualised the study of reproduction of practices in the form of structures and habitus. Thus, a Bourdieusian approach is based on issues of resilience, stability, and reproduction as an individual approach, but also as a line of practice theory, rooted in a critical tradition.

This discussion links the object of study, the practice of non-alignment, and the chosen approach, a Bourdieusian-oriented practice approach. The link is found in the issue of the stability of a practice, which is the focus of this study. According to the chosen theoretical approach, the stability of the practice of non-alignment would be explained by the use of the concepts of the field (structure) and habitus (disposition), as seen earlier in this sub-chapter. The interplay of these concepts often leads to the reproduction of practices. However, this thesis suggests a different approach to the study of reproduced, and hence resilient, practices. While this research is underpinned by a Bourdieusian practice approach, this thesis will not adopt the concepts of field and habitus in explaining a reproduced and resilient practice. Instead, this thesis introduces Bourdieu’s concept of doxa as an approach in explaining the stability of a practice.

The concept of doxa is often overlooked as an explanation for the stability of practices. However, this thesis aims to draw attention to the similarities of the production of practices and the production of doxa in Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice. Doxa as an approach to the study of practice might function as an explanation for stability. Thus, a Bourdieusian approach to the study of practice might provide a wider and more flexible ‘toolkit’ to the study of practices, namely to the study of stable, resilient and reproduced practices. The following sub-chapter will focus on the concept of doxa and the configurations of practice and doxa.

2.2.1. Doxa

This chapter will provide an overview on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of a doxa. In doing so, the overview will introduce the concept of a doxa as a ‘point of access’ to questions that concern stability of practice and lack of change, such as the case of the Finnish non-alignment. By focusing on issues of stability and change, this thesis will highlight the concept of a doxa as a ‘taken-for-granted’ structural constraint in determining practices, and hence as a key factor in transformations of practices within a field.

Bourdieu defined doxa as that of the undiscussed, self-evident and undisputed (Bourdieu 1977, 164). Doxa is the universe of the taken-for-granted, in which the ‘arbitrariness of the structures in a field has been naturalised to such an extent that they become invisible to the actor’ (Berling 2012, 458). Doxa is not the truth. It is the belief in something, whether it be the ordering principles of the international system or democracy itself, as natural – as given – and therefore as true.

All practices are ultimately based on a system of unrecognised, unspoken assumptions – a doxa – about the world (Chopra 2003, 426; Berlinerblau 1999, 202). The field of international security can rest on the assumptions of cooperation and humanitarian agendas, which produce corresponding practices, such as negotiations via United Nations or humanitarian interventions. Agents act based on a system of assumptions and beliefs without having the knowledge of doing so (1999, 202). Agents who act in the field of international security have the knowledge of producing practices to maintain the agendas of

cooperation and negotiation, for instance, but they do not have the knowledge of why and how these beliefs structure the field. Hence, doxa is labeled as a ‘practical knowledge’, which agents cannot grasp or have the tools to speak about (Bourdieu and Eagleton 1992, 273). In this sense, doxa becomes the unquestioned and taken-for-granted.

Doxic beliefs are shared by all agents within a field. Doxa is an imposed belief that presents itself as the universal point of view, which becomes rooted in the underlying structures of a field (Berlinerblau 1999, 202; Myles 2004, 97). However, while everyone in a field shares the same set of doxic beliefs, these beliefs are only produced and reproduced by the dominant actors in a field (1999, 202). Prevailing understandings of security, for instance, are only produced by those who have the power to speak of security. Doxic assumptions become produced or reproduced by a specific group of agents within the field, but become shared by all agents within this field (1999, 202).

The reproduction of doxa results in the maintaining of the dominant beliefs and assumptions that shape each field. Each field has deep, doxic structures that shape practices (Berling 2009, 25). Doxa can be seen as a limiting factor to agents behaviour, as it determines the ideas and beliefs on which practices are ‘allowed’ or ‘correct’ (Chopra 2003, 426). Simply put, military power lost its practical utility in the field of international security after the end of the Cold War. Today, as security is defined by cooperation and international institutions, rather than military security and balance of power, the corresponding practices are those of negotiation and cooperation on a relevant platform, such as the UN (Berling 2009, 2012). Then, a doxa can be understood as a structural constraint in each field that determines practices, thus maintaining a specific set of assumptions and beliefs, such as neutrality as a foreign-policy actor. As long as practices correspond with the doxic structures of the field, the doxa is maintained.

It is ultimately this feature of the doxa, from which one can look for an understanding on how deeply rooted traditions and practices can be maintained or change in each field. According to Bourdieu, ‘the stabler the objective structures and the more fully they reproduce themselves in the agents’ dispositions, the greater the extent of the field of doxa, of that which is taken for granted’ (1977, 165-166). Stability of structures and their reproduction are therefore linked to the concept of doxa. The concept of a doxa can

therefore work as a point of access to questions and cases that are concerned with issues of stability of practice and lack of change, such as in the case of the Finnish security policy.

2.3. Doxa as an approach to the study of practice

This chapter discusses the concept of doxa in relation to Bourdieu’s theory of practice. What is highlighted in this chapter is the significance of doxa in relation to social reproduction. As a result, this chapter suggests the use of doxa as an analytical tool in cases in which the practices to be looked at are characterised by resilience and stability.

This thesis argues that the concept of doxa is best understood in its context rather than taken out from it. This context is Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Hence, doxa is understood in the context of the field, habitus and capital. However, this thesis will not follow an in-depth analysis of habitus and capital, briefly introduced earlier in this chapter on the chosen theoretical framework. Instead, this thesis emphasises the context of which all practices are the product of, and discusses and situates doxa within this context:

[(habitus)(capital)+field] = practice (Bourdieu 1984, 101).

Doxa is, therefore, understood as situated in the interplay of the concepts above, which produce a practice that this thesis understands as the Finnish non-alignment.

To simplify the equation for practices, one can understand practices as a product of positions and dispositions. Positions are the structural part of Bourdieu’s theory; they represent ‘a structure of objective relations which determines the possible form of interactions and of the representations the interactors can have of them’ (Bourdieu 1984, 244). Within a field, there is a set of dispositions that function ‘at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions’ (Pouliot and Mérand 2013, 29). Hence, the positional logics represent the structural aspect of practices, whereas dispositions are focused on matters of agents’ action in producing practices.

Positional and dispositional logics are crucial in understanding doxa. To briefly visit the definition of doxa, Bourdieu stated that

‘every established order tends to produce the naturalization of its own arbitrariness … when there is a quasi-perfect correspondence between the objective order and the subjective principles of organisation, the natural and social world appears as self-evident. This experience we shall call doxa’ (Bourdieu 1977, 164).

Building on his definition, it is then the perfect alignment of the positional and dispositional logics that produce doxa. Bourdieu continues by arguing that

‘the stabler the objective structures and the more fully they reproduce themselves in the agents’ dispositions, the greater the extent of the field of doxa, of that which is taken for granted’ (1977, 165-166).

So, doxa is only produced by the reproduction of the objective structures in the agents’ dispositions. To maintain a doxa means that a cycle of reproduction must not be broken. Doxa would no longer be maintained if agents’ dispositions no longer produced the objective structures of the field.

To simplify all the above, something becomes a doxa when it is no longer perceived as arbitrary. Such process takes place when agents produce language, discourses and practices that will produce an understanding in which the arbitrary structuring of the field no longer appears as arbitrary, but natural. For example, Richard K. Ashley noted that

‘the realist, sovereignty-focused view of the world was not necessarily synonymous with the ‘truth’ about the organisation of international life. Instead it was just the dominant understanding, upheld by theorists and practitioners alike’ (Ashley 1989; in Berling 2012, 458).

As Ashley argues, doxa is not the truth but, more importantly; it is an illusion of something being true.

To return to the equation of practices, [(habitus)(capital)+field] = practice, it seems that when the positional and dispositional logics are aligned, a doxa is produced. Hence, one could re-formulate the equation as follows:

[(habitus)(capital)=field] = doxa.

Could this imply that doxa is a form of practice? Interestingly, the same equation is true for explaining the maintenance of practices. Social reproduction, as argued by Bourdieu, is a

result of a situation in which habitus (dispositional logics) and structure (positional logics) are ‘in almost perfect alignment’ (Schindler and Wille 2015, 335). In other words, and very similarly to the production of doxa, ‘structures produce habitus, which determines practices, which reproduces structures’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 135). This results in a continuum where no transformation of practices takes place:

However, while both doxa and social reproduction are explained by the same equation, it has not been established that social reproduction is the same as doxa. If such statement were true, this would imply that the Finnish non-alignment is a doxa, as non-alignment is a reproduced practice, as it still exists in the Finnish security field. This is intriguing, especially as the explanation for both doxa and social reproduction is the same. However, there is no evidence that social reproduction equals doxa.

Where does this leave us then? One could argue that doxa is a specific form of practice, tied to the phenomenon of social reproduction. However, the link between doxa and reproduction might not be that simple, which is why one should approach the issue with caution. On the other hand, previous research suggests that a change in doxic understanding means a change in practice, as demonstrated by Trine Berling (2012) in her research on the reconfiguration of the European security field in the 1990s. She suggests that

‘the strategic mobilisations that took place in this field had the effect of changing basic, taken-for-granted knowledge. I call this type of strategic practices in fields under profound change doxic battles’ (2012, 469).

Structures

Practices Habitus

Thus, Berling connects the notion of a doxa to the phenomenon of change. However, this still does not imply that all social change in fields is ultimately a change of doxa. This also means that not all resilient and stable practices are cases of doxa.

Nevertheless, there is enough evidence to suggest that practices, which have been maintained throughout history as unchanged, such as the case of the Finnish non-alignment, should be considered as possible cases of doxa. Hence, this thesis will advance this suggestion by analysing the Finnish non-alignment as a possible case of doxa.

2.4. Reflections on the theoretical framework

The ‘practice turn’ in the study of International Relations does still have some unresolved problems that the current discussion has left to be solved (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 458). Practices are diverse by nature, which has resulted in a multiplicity of approaches to study them. Thus, adopting a specific approach to the study of practice, such as a Bourdieusian oriented practice approach, will always have limitations in theorising the diversity of practices. As Bueger and Gadinger point out, a problem arises from how to best capture and write about practice, and what methodologies are the most suitable to the study of practice (2015, 458). Thus, practice approaches are divided in explaining different practices, and there is no ‘grand’ approach or methodology suitable for the study of all practices.

A Bourdieusian approach, for instance, is often discussed in relation to the notions of power and struggle. These are central to a Bourdieusian approach, as practices are a result of a struggle of power between agents. However, due to a strong focus on domination, power and hierarchies, Bourdieu’s approach might advance an understanding of practices in which practices are always defined by structures of power and domination (Bueger and Gadinger 2015, 455). A vast array of practices exist outside such conceptions, such as other, everyday sociocultural practices (2015, 455). This is an example of how adopting a specific approach to the study of practice might exclude significant notions of practices, and focus on only certain aspects, such as power and domination in the form of practices.

This thesis has decided to adopt a Bourdieusian-oriented practice framework but the focus will be on studying the reproduction of practices rather than aspects of power and struggle. By doing so, this research reminds that a Bourdieusian approach consists of a useful toolkit for the study of practices, despite the focus is not solely on struggle, domination and power. Nevertheless, these are still important features of his approach to the study of practice.

4. RESEARCH DESIGN

This chapter will define and formulate an approach for studying the Finnish non-alignment as doxa. This approach is labeled as the ‘doxic approach for the Finnish non-alignment’. The operationalisation of the approach is outlined in this chapter. Data collection and data analysis will further explain and justify the chosen data and its analysis, and how it fits within the doxic approach. Lastly, this chapter will finish with a discussion on the reliability and validity of this research. Also, the notion of epistemic reflexivity is discussed, as it is key to a Bourdieusian-oriented research.

4.1. How to study the Finnish non-alignment as doxa?

To formulate an approach to study the Finnish non-alignment as doxa is challenging. This challenge mainly arises from the fact that there is little research done on doxa as an approach to the study of practice. Most importantly, the concept of doxa has not been developed as a methodological tool that would allow its application to test whether a case is a doxa. However, this does not mean that doxa has been absent from Bourdieusian-oriented practice approaches in which it has been used as an analytical tool (see Berling 2012; Smith 2001; Hunter 2004; Wacquant 2004; Chopra 2003).

Yet, the research still lacks an approach in which the concept of doxa would be developed as a methodological tool. The most similar to such an approach is a research by Jacques Berlinerblau (1999) on Ideology, Pierre Bourdieu’s Doxa, and the Hebrew Bible. Yes, it is evident that his research is not on security practices. However, the emphasis is now on the use of doxa as an approach to the study of a specific phenomenon or concept, which makes Berlinerblau’s work significant. He labeled his approach to the study of the Hebrew Bible

through the concept of doxa as a ‘doxic approach to the Hebrew Bible’ (1999, 202). Building on this labeling, this thesis could similarly define the study of the Finnish non-alignment as doxa as a ‘doxic approach to the Finnish non-non-alignment’.

The components of Berlinerblau’s ‘doxic approach to the Hebrew Bible’ are the following: (1) the existence of dominant groups or classes across Judahite and/or

Israelite time and space who, (2) sharing certain unrecognized, tacit assumptions about the world with (3) all other synchronous, non-dominant Judahite and/or Israeliti groups and classes, (4) unknowingly inscribed these assumptions in this or that biblical text, and hence (5) unintentionally solidified their own dominant position (1999, 202).

This can now be reformulated to make it not as context-specific, and thus applicable to any field of study. A reformulated approach would look like this:

(1) The existence/identification of dominant agents within a field who, (2) sharing certain unrecognized, tacit assumptions about the world with (3) all other non-dominant agents within the field, (4) unknowingly inscribed these tacit assumptions about the world in their practices, and hence (5) unintentionally solidified their own position.

Ultimately, this approach is the definition of doxa. However, is this approach, as such, compatible with the object of study, the Finnish non-alignment?

This thesis suggests a simplified approach, which is based on Bourdieu’s account of doxa. In the Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977), he discussed the concept of doxa together with the concepts of heterodoxy and orthodoxy. As seen in the figure below, doxa is ‘the universe of the undiscussed’, whereas heterodox and orthodox positions exist in ‘the universe of discourse’ (1977, 168).