Bourdieuan perspectives on social power production:understanding the EU and member states' harmonised responses to Russia's 2022 incursion into Ukraine

This paper contributes to the debate on science and practices as basic features in foreign affairs. It investigates the potential of the framework that builds on Bourdieu’s social interpretations of the ‘international’ as a field characterised by ‘power struggles’, and of ‘practices’ as ‘cultural strategies’ in the international arena; it also draws on the conceptualisation of ‘agency’ as a ‘social power production’. It argues that science and practice hang together, and act as a player in the field of external affairs. It applies this framework to the illustrative example of the European Union (EU) and member states’ response to the Russia’s 2022 incursion into Ukraine, that demonstrated harmonised positions. It explores how social science and politics, combined, help to connect to the ‘symbolic power struggles’ that lead to ‘social power production’, as an agency motivating the EU and member states to adopt a common front. The empirical analysis employs the notions of Ethos; Foreign Policy Identity; Power, Trust and Uncertainty; and the Symbolic Struggle, to uncover the crucial trend of social science and practice playing a role in foreign policy. The conclusion concedes criticism from other models; however, despite the lack of extensive use of this framework, it hints at its potential usage within diverse case studies. The analysis is based on the author’s reflections on data drawn from primary and secondary sources as well as observations of foreign affairs practices. By capturing the symbolic power struggles that the research of the rationalist (neo-realism), soft-constructivist, and radical constructivist camps omitted to represent, this article helps to highlight the importance of the scientific agents revealing influences on foreign policy.