ABSTRACT
To employ role-theoretical insights in the field of International Relations (IR), specifically for the analysis of international politics and foreign policy, it is helpful to draw on sociological, anthropological, and social-psychological sources. On that basis, I will outline a number of shortcomings stemming from “confusion and malintegration” (Biddle 1986: 68) within the sociological field of role theory, before analyzing the theoretical nexus between role and identity as two major and interrelated concepts in social theory. Drawing on newer insights of political theory and discourse studies, especially those developed by the Essex School of discourse theory under Ernesto Laclau, particular attention will be paid to how roles and identities change, for this aspect is identified as one of the major shortcomings of previous role-theoretical work. I will maintain that identity supplies an actor with an angle through which to interpret his or her social situation and the expectations of appropriate behavior that come with it. In this perspective, an identity is a set of meanings that characterizes an actor in a role. To illustrate how roles are connected to identities and how they are transformed, leadership in international politics will be introduced as an exemplary case. I shall conclude that an over-mechanistic account of roles relying on fixed expectations of appropriate behavior has to be avoided. Instead, it is interesting to see how roles change in times of crises. As discourse plays a significant part in the transformation of meanings, discourse analysis is seen as a suitable tool with which to gain traction on roles in international politics.
