Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Reminiscing during foreign state visits serves as a discursive means for building interstate relationships. When political leaders strategically narrate their states’ historical legacies, they construct a collective memory that serves as a resource for creating and sustaining amicable relations between states. Studying evocations of past events in 455 speeches delivered during foreign state visits between 2010 and 2020, we demonstrate the prevalence and significance of the practice of reminiscing in interstate politics. We suggest bonding narratives as a device through which a connection is generated between two collectives to create and sustain positive relations. Despite the unique nature of bonding narratives, the constructed collective memory mostly relies on shared memories of wars, once again underlining the link between nations and violence.

Keywords

bonding narratives collective memory foreign state visits interstate relations

Introduction

Scholars of interpersonal communication have long considered reminiscing, the act of recounting past events or the process of reviewing life experiences (Butler, 1963), a means to recreate with others the emotional bonds of a shared history (Reese et al., 1996). At social gatherings, family members or old acquaintances engage in a joint reconstruction of autobiographical memories, harnessing their shared history to build and sustain meaningful relations (Bluck et al., 2005; Fivush, 2008; Vinitzky-Seroussi, 1998). While many studies have examined the forms and functions of reminiscing in interpersonal communication (Blieszner and Roberto, 2004; Fivush, 2008; Reese et al., 1996), accounts of this practice in interstate relations are relatively scarce. This is puzzling since state visits, in which reminiscing plays a prominent role, are a prevalent practice in interstate relations (Goldsmith and Horiuchi, 2009; Kunczik, 2016), “reuniting” two peoples (Golan et al., 2019) and strengthening the bonds between the visitor and the host state (Kunczik, 2016). Such occasions serve as an opportunity for building interstate positive relationship through the construction and reconstruction of past events into a bonding narrative.

In dealing with how the past is harnessed in politics, much literature refers to the politics of memory (Hodgkin and Radstone, 2003), specifically, how the past can be used for domestic political gain, to build national legitimacy and a cohesive identity. Research that focused on collective memory in the context of interstate relations has demonstrated that where constructed collective memories converge, reconciliation or cooperation follows (the German-Israeli relations are a prominent example), and where collective memories diverge, conflict ensues (for instance, China–Japan relations). Previous studies examined, for instance, the role of memory in present interstate relations (Wittlinger, 2007); in reconciliation efforts (He, 2009; Wittlinger, 2018); and in the formation of bilateral initiatives and identity (Hofmann and Mérand, 2020).

A second line of research dealing with how the past is harnessed in foreign affairs focuses on strategic narratives, “a means by which political actors attempt to construct a shared meaning of the past, present, and future of international politics” (Miskimmon et al., 2013: 6). Studies on strategic narratives explore international system narratives that include references to the past, portraying the global structure and international actors’ identities; national narratives dealing with states’ identities, values, and goals (also termed biographical narratives by Berenskoetter, 2014); and issue narratives that set out why a policy is needed and normatively desirable (Roselle et al. 2014).

In this article, we suggest a fourth strategic narrative—a bonding narrative. Such a narrative harnesses cultural, ideological, and historical sources and resources to construct and sustain positive relations between two collectives. Research on bonding narratives builds on the scant literature concerning regional and global collective memory, linking it with discussions of strategic narratives. Asking how states reminisce together and how this serves to strengthen their relations, we demonstrate the significance of bonding narratives, which aim to build relationships between two states by underlining their common history, experiences, and values.

The following suggests a theoretical framework that shows how bonding narratives serve as a device through which past events are constructed and reconstructed as collective memory in order to enhance interstate amicable relations. In contrast to previous International Relations (IR) studies that focused on the conditions under which positive bilateral relations between states are made possible, we demonstrate how these conditions are purposively utilized as a resource to create interstate amity. We argue that when the past is evoked to help build interstate commonality, bonding happens, primarily since these narratives are diplomatically adjusted to do so. Studying evocations of past events in speeches delivered during foreign state visits, we utilize this framework to make sense of a recurrent, though somewhat neglected, practice in interstate politics—how political leaders reminisce during state visits.

Strategic narratives of bonding

Bonding narratives can be considered part of what the literature terms “strategic narratives.” Strategic narratives are stories with a purpose, designed to shape the behavior of domestic and international actors and to provide “an organizing framework for collective action, defining a community’s identity, its values and goals . . .” (Levinger and Roselle, 2017: 94–98). Actors use strategic narratives to make sense of events, even unrelated ones, and establish links between them. The concept of a strategic narrative is distinguished from other related terms such as master narratives, frames, master frames, and images in its instrumental use for advancing policy-related issues (Coticchia and Catanzaro, 2020). Accordingly, by utilizing strategic narratives, political actors advocate a certain policy that adheres to their material or ideological interests (Dimitriu and De Graaf, 2016). Often, scholars focus on how the strategic narratives used by one or more states impact the foreign policies of other states (Miskimmon et al., 2013; Roselle et al., 2014; Schmitt, 2018; Van Noort, 2017).

Roselle et al. (2014) distinguish between three types of strategic narratives: international system narratives that portray the world’s structure and international actors’ identities (Van Noort, 2017). One such narrative is encapsulated in the concept of democratic peace, promoted by the US and additional Western actors and other international organizations in order to inculcate a specific agenda (Ish-Shalom, 2013); national narratives that deal with states’ identities, values, and goals (Chaban et al., 2019). For example, the “China DREAM” narrative, which emphasizes the country’s economic development, return to strength, cultural prestige, and support of CCCP ideology, is one such prominent example of a national narrative that is both domestically and internationally oriented (Hinck et al., 2018); and issue narratives, which account for why a policy is needed and normatively desired (McDonald, 2010). The competing strategic narratives concerning human responsibility for the climate crisis serve as an example of two contrasting issue narratives (Bevan, 2020; Bushell et al., 2017).

In contrast to the other types of strategic narratives that implicitly advance a common ground between states, bonding narratives explicitly engage with building interstate relationships. In this article, we focus on a specific type of bonding narrative: using the past for the creation of a shared collective memory. We term this past-oriented bonding narratives. Before expanding on this type of narrative, it is important to note that we identify two other types of bonding narratives that are also frequently utilized in interstate relations. These include present-oriented bonding narratives that underline common characteristics of the two nations such as regime type, moral values, or geographic and demographic similarities, and future-oriented bonding narratives that instrumentally portray a shared, sometimes utopian, vision for the two collectives (e.g. Lenin’s socialist paradise or the “New Middle-East” vision suggested by Shimon Peres). Taken together, such narratives underline the beliefs, understandings, and interpretations of what is common to two collectives.

At the functional level, similar to the practice of reminiscing in interpersonal interactions, past-oriented bonding narratives serve as a means to recreate with others the emotional bonds of a shared history. The objective of these narratives is thus to build and maintain an appearance of interstate friendship, one of the most significant social bonds in human affairs. In the following, we discuss the connection between bonding narratives, reminiscing, and collective memory.

Bonding narratives and collective memories

As an act of recollecting past experiences, bonding narratives are tightly linked to collective memory. Defined as a social group’s beliefs, understandings, and interpretations of the past (Olick, 1999; Olick and Robbins, 1998), collective memory initially concerns constructing consensus (Shils, 1981) and binding people together under a shared (even if invented) narrative (Anderson, 1991). The construction of collective memory is a selective process, influenced by various actors in society (Adams, 2022; Olick and Levy, 1997). Collective memories are altered and reused to reflect and shape reality, define social identity, and create and help to maintain a narrative that will unify the collective (Forde, 2016; Gillis, 1994; Huyssen, 2000).

Much research has focused on the relationship between memory and politics (Edy and Adams, 2023; Hodgkin and Radstone, 2003). Indeed, “political memory,” previously referred to as a special form of collective memory (Bodnar, 1992), was commonly assumed to be the dominant version of national collective memory, or memory “from above” (Sierp, 2014: 30). Building on the premise that political leaders understand the power the past can exert, a significant number of studies have discussed how they use collective memories to explain the present and shape the future (Adams and Vinitzky-Seroussi, 2022), how they legitimize a society’s current social and political situation (Liu and Hilton, 2005; Mälksoo, 2015; Olick, 1999; Yang, 2021), and how they further their immediate aims, namely advancing or legitimizing state policy (Olick, 1999; Tileagă, 2012; Yang, 2021).

Several studies assess the role of memory for interstate relations. Within this context, it has been shown how collective memory is employed to shape foreign policy (Banchoff, 1997; Berger, 1997). Research focuses on how the memory of traumatic and difficult pasts shapes foreign policy behavior (Becker, 2013; Bell, 2006; Edkins, 2003; Resende and Budryte, 2013; Zehfuss, 2006, 2007) and how national memory can be strategically and instrumentally employed to achieve a specific international goal (Bachleitner, 2019). These studies have demonstrated how collective memories, on the one hand, serve as a resource that provides opportunities to accompany the formation of bilateral initiatives and identity (Hofmann and Mérand, 2020) and, on the other hand, are an obstacle that hinders interstate relations and impedes bilateral cooperation (Gustafsson, 2011; Wittlinger, 2007).

Our analysis adopts the first perspective accordingly collective memories are utilized to build relations. We identify two links between collective memories and bonding narratives: memories (constructed in and of themselves) are both the resource and product of bonding narratives. The first link considers collective memories are a resource for reminiscing, the act of telling (and constructing) bonding narratives. Collective memories can thus be understood as an efficient material for reminiscing since the events described in the narrative (the fabula) are strongly etched in the memories of (at least) two collectives (for example, the atrocities of World War II (WWII) represented in books, films, plays, etc.). Alternatively, also less-known or less-dominant collective memories may serve as the material for bonding narratives, for example, relatively obscure historical events or a personal biography of a political leader that is somehow connected to another state. The new details disclosed in the bonding narrative do not necessarily resonate with the collectives’ memories, but may still be effective in connecting the publics by suggesting a new and original link between them.

The second link between collective memories and bonding narratives is the process wherein bonding narratives strengthen and reinforce collective memories. In cases wherein the bonding narrative is based on a well-known historical event, the already consolidated collective memory that includes amicable links between two publics is further enhanced. In cases wherein the bonding narrative is based on as of yet untold events, collective memory is (potentially) constructed. New details that link between two collectives are added with the hopes to be integrated into both nations’ repertoire of collective memories. In this sense, the historical past is neither fixed nor fully consolidated but rather fluid and open to interpretation. Importantly, the reinforcement and reconstruction of collective memories of bonding harnesses the past for the creation of positive relations in the present.

Reminiscing, narratives of bonding, and positive interstate relations

Past-oriented narratives of bonding consist of the elements that bind people together, including shared experiences and common histories (Fehr, 1996). Reminiscing, the telling and retelling of these narratives, serves as a means to produce with others emotional bonds (Reese et al., 1996) and to build and sustain positive relations (Fivush and Reese, 2002; Vinitzky-Seroussi, 1998). Research on interstate positive relations (referred in IR literature as “special relationships,” “amity,” “friendships,” etc.) explore the conditions under which they become possible (Berenskoetter, 2007; Heimann, 2012; Kampf, Heimann and Aldar, 2022; Oelsner and Vion, 2011; Van Hoef and Oelsner, 2018). These studies underline explicitly or implicitly the requirements of bilateral relationship building, hinging on a diverse set of emotional (love, respect), behavioral (scope and depth of interactions), contextual (common past, shared culture), and normative (mutual commitment, shared values) factors and practices (Bell, 2013; Dumbrell and Schäfer, 2009; Pashakhanlou and Berenskötter, 2021). These studies consider the gamut of conditions as sufficient for the establishment of interstate amicable relations, but do not engage in how they are purposively utilized by state actors in order to establish, sustain, or reinforce such relationships.

In this study, we examine how state representatives intend to produce interstate amity by narrating interwoven histories, past experiences, and common traditions. Building on findings from interpersonal relations studies that underlie the contribution of reminiscing to the creation of friendship, we suggest that through a process of reminiscing in ceremonial events, states leaders aim to produce and strengthen the relations between two states.

Research method

For this study, we investigated how heads of state make references to the past in public speeches delivered during formal foreign state visits. Our methodological decision to inductively analyze how the past is harnessed in these speeches takes a grounded approach and adheres to the following considerations. First, state visits, as a subgenre of summit meetings, are considered a distinguished diplomatic occurrence. The central goals of official state visits are discussing practical questions and strengthening the bond between two countries (Goldsmith and Horiuchi, 2009; Kunczik, 2016). Such visits are bilateral by nature and constitute an initial acquaintance or a “reunion” between two peoples (Golan et al., 2019). Second, speeches delivered during state visits are a formal diplomatic event and as such provide a unique text for examining how relationships are built and maintained. Political communication research has long recognized their importance as a platform on which political actors construct the wider meaning of their policies and farther-reaching societal challenges, as well as their position as part of the larger community of states (Koschut et al., 2017). Third, as part of the official and ritualistic exchange, speeches given during foreign state visits are governed by fixed and firm rules (Pokharel, 2020) and thus constitute an appropriate focus for a comparative study.

Sample

Our corpus consists of three separate data sets of speeches delivered during state visits. The speeches were delivered by the heads of three Western states—the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel—and by the head of states that hosted or visited them (a total of 41 states, from all over the world). Each data set consists of the following:

Speeches made by the respective head of state during visits of other states (as host), for instance, the Israeli data set includes speeches made by the Israeli Prime Minister during state visits of foreign leaders to Israel.

Speeches made by the respective head of state during visits to other states (as visitor), for instance, speeches delivered by Israeli PM during his visits to other states.

Speeches made by foreign states’ political leaders during their visits to the respective state, for instance, the German Chancellor speech during her visit in Israel.

Speeches delivered when the foreign head of state hosted the respective head of state, for instance, the Italian PM speech during the Israeli PM visit to Italy.

Since the study examines reminiscing as a practice, focusing on evocations of past and how these are constructed as bonding narratives, our selection of states adheres to limitations of language and accessibility. In terms of time frame, our decision to focus on state visits that took place in the past 10 years (2010–2020) was guided by our attempt to find references to the past in the present. We decided to end our analysis in 2001 in order to avoid including memories that were established during the visits of the same political leaders. This decision does not testify to our definition of collective memory, and we admit that memories from past visits may also serve as an important rhetorical asset in establishing interstate relations. Nevertheless, since we focus on memories of states rather than on the memories of state officials, we decided to leave events from the last 10 years out of our corpus. The time span of 10 years and the large number of states’ speeches analyzed enabled us to examine the practice of reminiscing beyond specific political figures and ideologies.

Retrieval

We retrieved all speeches given in public in the past 10 years by prominent political actors, typically the incumbent heads of states, of the respective countries. For the United States, we based our data retrieval on the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, a single comprehensive digital online resource that includes all relevant speeches given by US presidents. For the United Kingdom, we relied on GOV.UK, the official website for all government departments and many other agencies and public bodies. For Israel, we relied on the digital archive of the Prime Minister’s Office, Israel’s official government services and information website.

Overall, we collected 852 speeches. As a preliminary stage, we searched for indication regarding the significance of the past in such speeches. We read the texts, searching for references to past events and figures and excluded speeches that did not contain any historical references. Following this procedure, we consolidated a final corpus of 455 speeches that include references to bilateral past events, which stands for 55% of all foreign visit speeches (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample composition.

	US data set	UK data set	Israel data set	Total
Foreign state visit speeches	220	257	352	852
Speeches that refer to the past	87	144	224	455

Analysis

Building on a grounded approach, we conducted a qualitative pilot content analysis of 30 speeches (10 from each data set), closely reading the texts to discern how they rhetorically presented the past, focusing on the context within which the past event is raised and the connections made to positive interstate relations. Following this stage, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of all the texts, coding them according to the following overarching criteria (see Appendix 1 for the codebook): the speaker’s role (host/visitor; shared border), constructions of the past (shared/parallel; historical/recent; collective/personal; cooperation/conflictual; point/ongoing), and constructed relationship between the host and the visitor (friendly/familial). An inter-coder reliability test between two trained coders for all the variables in the codebook achieved a highly satisfying score (Krippendorff’s α > 0.87).

Finally, a qualitative analysis was conducted, guided by the question of which resources states rely on to create and sustain their relations. We specifically looked for instances in which political leaders highlighted perceived similarities between the respective collectives, applying either a reference to shared histories, tying together the peoples of different states through their connection to the same historical event, or referring to parallel histories that point to a resemblance in the plots of their national narratives. When particular differences between states surfaced, analysis also includes additional explanations to improve our understanding of cultural attributions in the utilization of the past.

Harnessing the past for bonding in the present

The following presents the most prominent features of harnessing historical legacies for the sake of securing and maintaining interstate relationship, indicating how statespersons select, organize, and represent the past in their speeches. We begin by demonstrating how primarily bonding narratives are built on a shared, cooperative, and collective past. We then present additional resources that are used for reminiscing, such as presenting the past as a continuing and ongoing (in contrast to pasts that are specific point-events, limited to a specific time frame), typically relying on historical pasts (events that occurred before 1945), and intimate, friendly, and even familial relations when possible. Following this, we reflect on instances wherein political leaders refer to parallel histories and conflictual past events, demonstrating how even these kinds of pasts, albeit with modifications, can be used to convey a sense of amity.

Building relations through a shared, cooperative, and collective past

Analyzing representations of past events across all foreign state visits, a significant pattern emerges: Most of the speeches contain a shared (i.e. past event that both states took part in, even if roles were different in terms of involvement and/or opposing sides), cooperative (i.e. past is constructed as a success story, highlighting heroism, victory, freedom, and friendly relations), and collective past (i.e. national, official reckoning of past). This stands in contrast to a parallel (i.e. similar experiences that facilitate mutual identification), conflictual (i.e. a difficult bilateral past that needs to be overcome), or personal past (i.e. a personal experience that one of the political actors underwent).

A majority of speeches (88%) include reference to a shared past. When referring to the states’ shared past, 92% of the speeches contain cooperative past events, and 95% of them portray this past as a collective one. These three prominent elements (shared, cooperative, and collective) are demonstrated in the following statement made by British Prime Minister, Theresa May, during her visit to Warsaw in 2016. Discussing the relationship between the UK and Poland, she said the following:

It is a partnership that goes back a long way, we will never forget the Polish pilots who braved the skies alongside us in World War 2 to stand up for freedom and democracy across Europe. (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-press-statement-in-warsaw-28-july-2016)

Evoking the shared past of the Second World War, May recalled the Polish pilots’ aid in protecting Britain’s skies during the Blitz. She emphasized the cooperative nature of this shared past by saying “the Polish pilots who braved the skies alongside us,” also underlining the collective memory of the war as an attempt to “stand up for freedom and democracy across Europe.”

Using a shared past creates a sense of commonality in the present. Importantly, this is not about dissolving states’ identities, but rather it relies on the past as a resource to create and maintain a sense of togetherness and cohesiveness. In order to claim this present sense of community, the existence of some kind of shared past must first be validated and confirmed (Vinitzky-Seroussi, 1998). Once a shared past is established, it can then be used to highlight shared attributes in the present. Theoretically, any kind of shared past can suffice in this process. Nevertheless, when speaking about a shared event from the past, findings demonstrate that these typically involve fighting in the same war. It may be argued that this finding is a result of the fact that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel have all been heavily involved in various wars and combat situations. However, the respective leaders’ decision to extensively refer to shared experiences of war and not to alternative non-violent historical events hints to their perception of war as especially efficient in telling bonding narratives. Perhaps unsurprisingly, referring to a common experience of being “brothers in arms” constitutes a binding recollection. Indeed, sharing a harrowing experience such as war is also useful in establishing a sense of togetherness, most commonly against a shared enemy (Gillis, 1994; Mosse, 1990; Winter, 1995).

Although most evocations of a shared past refer to a shared experience of war, other kinds of past events are also represented, for instance, historical treaties and agreements. An example of such a peace-oriented shared past was evident in a statement delivered by American President Barack Obama in 2011 during a meeting with Prime Minister Beji Caid Essebsi of Tunisia:

. . . Tunisia is one of our oldest friends in the world. Tunisia was one of the first countries to recognize the United States of America over 200 years ago. One of the first trade agreements that we had as a country was with Tunisia. . . . I’m confident that we will have at least another two centuries of friendship between our two countries. And the American people will stand by the people of Tunisia in any way that we can during this remarkable period in Tunisian history. (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-beji-caid-essebsi-tunisia-and-exchange-with)

Obama’s statement articulates a shared past of cooperation in terms of state-recognition and the existence of trade agreements between the two countries. Obama expresses gratitude for Tunisia’s historical actions, and in so doing conveys how America is thankful for Tunisia’s friendship. Certainly, expressing gratitude for the role another state played in the past is an inherent part of diplomatic relations, creating the appearance of a political obligation that acknowledges the “debt” one state owes another. Expressing interstate gratitude is significant in binding the two states together in a shared experience, and it is thus efficient in establishing an appearance of friendship in the present.

Additional resources for establishing a relationship based on a shared past

While examples above referred to a shared past that is bound to a specific time and place (point-events), findings demonstrate that American references to shared pasts are primarily (66% of times) about a past that is ongoing, stretching over a span of time. An example of ongoing past can be found in the following statement made by Obama in 2015 during a visit in Jamaica:

There is a long history between our two peoples. It is not just a deep friendship between states, but it is also a family bond that exists, as represented by the many Americans who come here to visit and enjoy Jamaican hospitality, but also the extraordinary Jamaican American community that has done so much to contribute to the growth and development of our country. (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-portia-simpson-miller-jamaica-and-exchange)

Speaking of the “long history” that exists between America and Jamaica, Obama refers to the continuing relationship between the states, demonstrating the constant engagement that is achieved through ongoing visits and personal interactions between the two peoples.

In contrast to the extensive American evocation of ongoing past events, Israeli use of a shared past is mostly articulated through references to specific point-events (60%). For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated during his visit with Peruvian President Ollanta Humala Tasso in 2014:

We remember that Peru supported the UN resolution on the establishment of the State of Israel in 1947, so this is a friendship with deep roots and I believe it will intensify in the coming years. (https://www.gov.il/he/departments/news/eventperu170214)

Netanyahu builds on the point-event of Peru’s recognition of the Israeli state in 1947 to demonstrate contemporary positive relations. The differences between how the US and Israel utilize ongoing or point past events may be explained by differences in power. As a superpower, the US is continuously involved in cultural, economic, and security-related joint projects with many countries. Israel, as a small country, has less opportunities to be involved in such projects, thus relying more on point-events to represent its connection with other states. Other explanations can be linked to the proximity factor and state-age factor. To this extent, in the above example, since Israel and Peru are spatially distant, they may have less opportunities to engage. In terms of state-age, since Israel is a relatively young state, opportunities to produce ongoing cooperation are relatively limited.

When referring to the past, political leaders evoke events that occurred in the distant past or alternatively choose to present recent events. For the purposes of this study, we distinguished between historical past, namely events that occurred before 1945, and recent past, namely events that occurred between 1945 and 2001. Although this is an analytical, arbitrary decision, it builds on periodization that is commonly used in IR literature to distinguish between eras. Specifically, the year 1945 is considered a turning point in recent history, namely the change in the international order that followed the Second World War. Moreover, the decision to select 1945 as a dividing point is due to the fact that events that took place during this time and afterwards are part of the “living memory” of some political leaders and the people they represent. We build on the premise that living memories would be an efficient material for constructing bonding narratives that resonate with the leaders’ audiences. Notably, this analytical distinction is relevant even for Israel, a state that didn’t exist before 1945, since Israeli leaders consider the historical past of Israel to be more than 2000 years old.

Our findings indicate that 60% of past events evoked during foreign state visits refer to the historical past, as demonstrated in the following statement made by British Prime Minister David Cameron during his visit to Hamburg, Germany, in 2016:

The strongest part of our relationship is our shared values and beliefs. We all believe in the importance of trade. And that has been the case for centuries. Go back to the time of the Hanseatic League. And it was the merchants of Hamburg who won the right to sell their wares across England when they were granted a charter by King Henry III in 1266. If you like, they created one of the world’s first trade deals. (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-with-chancellor-merkel-in-hamburg-12-february-2016)

Referring to events that occurred almost eight centuries ago, Cameron evokes a historical past that relates not only to the state he is visiting, that is, Germany, but directly connects to the specific place in which the speech was delivered, namely, the city of Hamburg. Recalling the trading rights awarded by King Henry III, the British prime minister builds on a shared past that sheds light on a specific historical past cooperation between two collectives.

To a lesser extent, in 40% of the speeches political leaders referred to the recent past, namely events that took place between 1945 and 2001. Consider the statement made by the UK Prime Minister Theresa May during her visit to the United States in 2017:

And later, in the aftermath of these wars, our two countries led the West through the Cold War, confronting communism and ultimately defeating it not just through military might, but by winning the war of ideas. And by proving that open, liberal, democratic societies will always defeat those that are closed, coercive and cruel. (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-to-the-republican-party-conference-2017)

Referring to the British and American collaboration in fighting communism during the cold war, May utilizes a shared recent past characterized by collaboration in “the war of ideas.” In spite of the fact the British Prime Minister could have used at least 250 years of UK and US existence as the construction materials of the bonding narrative, she chose to elaborate on events that took place in the recent past to demonstrate the value-driven relationship between the two states (i.e. open, liberal, democratic societies).

In absolute values, the 40% of references to recent past (after 1945) indicate a preference to harnessing living memories in the speeches. However, the finding according to which 60% of past events refer to historical past (before 1945) is somewhat surprising and calls for explanation. We suggest that historical events may be less conflictual and delicate as time goes by, thus rendering them useful within such diplomatic settings. While events that happened after 1945 are part of the living memory and as such are better remembered and understood vis-à-vis present exigencies, events that refer to distant past better serve the bonding purposes of statespersons speeches.

An additional way to establish a relationship based on a shared past is to present the connection in the most intimate way possible. The most important link in human relations is that of kinship, yet this is obviously rare when two statespersons meet. Indeed, when referring to the past during foreign state visits, 98% of speeches do so through the framework of friendly relations. However, when applicable, political leaders present familial relations to demonstrate the close ties between two collectives. These types of relations can be attributed to people who share the same familial background, most often in our data through the dominions of the British Empire. The following excerpt from British Prime Minister Theresa May’s statement during her 2017 visit to Ireland demonstrates the use of familial relations between two peoples:

The unique relationship shared between the United Kingdom and Ireland is one of friendship, close cooperation and a deep sense of shared endeavour, bound by common values and generations of family links between our people. (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-press-conference-with-taoiseach-leo-varadkar-19-june-2017)

Theresa May’s reference builds on historical familial ties, referring to the long history of Ireland as a country within the United Kingdom of Britain. Indeed, as Brysk et al. (2002) demonstrate, former colonizers, such as Spain, France, and Britain, maintain “special relations,” with their ex-colonies, that are articulated through the family metaphor. Inspired by historically rooted notions of identity, these European powers’ perceptions of self-interest build on and derive also from the construction of these collectives as “families.”

In rare cases, political leaders utilize their own personal origins in the other state. One example of this is American President Donald Trump’s statement in his 2017 press conference with Theresa May:

I am honoured to have Prime Minister Theresa May here for our first official visit from a foreign leader. This is our first visit, so, great honour. The special relationship between our two countries has been one of the great forces in history for justice and for peace and by the way, my mother was born in Scotland, Stornoway, which is serious Scotland. (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-press-conference-with-us-president-donald-trump-27-january-2017)

To the extent that states, through their representatives, use all available resources when seeking to establish friendly relations as part of foreign state visits, adding a biographical connection (“my mother was born in Scotland”) is an additional layer that can be used to enhance the connection between the collectives. As demonstrated in this example, political leaders can present a personalized version of the past, inserting a personal story or point of view. Notably, when personalizing the past, political leaders combine the personal and collective perspectives, thus strengthening the basis upon which friendly relations are established and maintained. An explanation for the power of a personalized version of the past lies in the link between political leaders and their states (Balmas and Sheafer, 2013), which makes personal biographies emblematic of the national narrative. This persons-as-states rhetorical resource strives to achieve two discursive goals: to construct an image of a unified social collective and to project the image of a cooperative actor within the international society (Chilton, 1990; Kampf et al., 2019).

Dealing with the lack of shared history or a difficult past

Although when referring to the past during foreign state visits leaders primarily evoke a shared, collective, and cooperative past, we also found references to parallel histories and conflictual past events, and these too are used to convey a sense of friendly relations, albeit with modification. Clearly, in the process of creating a sense of commonality between collectives, shared pasts that demonstrate the collective’s experience of cooperation are the preferred mode of expression. Nonetheless, when one cannot locate such pasts, constructing a parallel past is the next best cultural resource for establishing amity. Insofar as these constructions are used to portray a sense of shared commonality, the parallel past events evoked always relate to shared values and are employed to highlight how these shared values bind the two collectives together. Consider the following statement made by Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China, Liu Yandong, in 2014 during a visit to Israel:

As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Prime Minister, our two peoples are rooted in a tradition of friendship. The Jewish people and the Chinese people are very intelligent peoples. We stand on both sides of Asia and have created tremendous traditions spanning thousands of years of history. We both also made a tremendous contribution to human culture. (https://www.gov.il/he/departments/news/eventliu190514)

Referring to the “tremendous traditions spanning thousands of years of history,” Yandong attempts to create a sense of similarity between China and Israel. Bridging significant cultural differences, China’s vice premier searches for common ground upon which to establish relations, offering the geographical location on “both sides of Asia,” and additional shared characteristics, namely that they are “intelligent peoples,” both of which have made a “contribution to human culture.” Parallel past is thus significant in creating commonality when no other available shared past can be determined. It is used to highlight similarities between the way of life in two states, underlining shared characteristics that serve as a basis for establishing and maintaining friendly relations.

Finally, albeit to a smallest extent, we find some references to a conflictual past, mostly when such an event cannot be ignored or sidestepped. In these cases, the conflictual past will be mentioned, albeit in a very subtle and mitigated manner, and carefully constructed so as not to counter friendship-building measures. As a prominent example, consider how Japanese and American heads of state addressed the issue of Hiroshima in 2016. Assuming the role of victim, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan demonstrated how to discuss this difficult event during his visit to the United States:

I conveyed to the President that I wholeheartedly welcome the decision by President Obama to visit Hiroshima, a place which suffered an atomic bomb. And he is going to visit the Hiroshima as the first-ever U.S. President. I am convinced that when the leader of a nation that is the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon and the leader of the nation that is the nation—only nation to have suffered atomic bombings in the war express the feelings of sincere sorrow and pray for the repose of the souls of those citizens who sacrificed their life will create a significant and strong momentum toward the world free of nuclear weapons. (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-shinzo-abe-japan-and-exchange-with-reporters)

Although this excerpt is a translation, it nonetheless conveys the complexity of dealing with a conflictual past when attempting to create and/or maintain amicable relations. Using personification—the notion of a place being able to suffer—Abe subtly deals with finger-pointing and blaming his host. At the same time, positioning the United States as “the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon,” alongside himself as “the leader of the . . . only nation to have suffered atomic bombings,” Japan’s prime minister creates a sense of togetherness with a mitigated sense of blame. Moreover, Abe raises the past to explicitly state how feelings of remorse and respect toward the dead can serve to teach us lessons of the past, overcome any leftover hard feelings, and build on this commonality to create a better future, a “world free of nuclear weapons.”

American Prime Minister Obama’s statement during the same visit exemplifies what can be called the elephant in the room strategy, namely, how to overcome a difficult past in foreign state visits:

And our visit to Hiroshima will honor all those who were lost in World War II and reaffirm our shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons, as well as highlight the extraordinary alliance that we have been able to forge over these many decades.

Referring to the same historical past, Obama presents the event as though it took place in a void, without actually accounting for America’s role in the atomic bombing. Focusing on how the visit will “reaffirm our shared vision” and “highlight the extraordinary alliance” between the two states, he thus constructs the painful past as the pathway to the present and future. The two statements complement and complete each other, delicately and subtly avoiding any accusations, and together creating a perspective of a conflictual shared past that has been worked through.

Discussion and concluding remarks

Tying between bonding narratives and collective memory, this study demonstrates how state actors harness the past—whether shared or parallel—to strengthen and maintain bilateral state relationship in the present. By reminiscing, political leaders construct strategic narratives of bonding, directed at each other and at their peoples. Our analysis suggests that the components of collective memory serve as resources upon which political leaders rely when narrating the past. In the process of constructing the dyadic story of amity, state actors hierarchically organize events from the past, selecting the most relations-advancing components history can offer. The better the component serves the strategic narrative, the better it will serve the dyadic tale of bonding. Accordingly, political leaders rely on available choice and strategic invocation of past events: first, they depend on a shared past that is based on cooperation between their represented collectives (rather than a parallel past, which is limited to similar experiences and values). They choose to reference ongoing and recent events that still live in the memory of the collectives rather than pointed and distant events. When the opportunity arises to further harness the past for strengthening relationship, political leaders present a familial connection or personalize a past event in order to create an appearance of kinship, the most intimate tie in human relations. When past shadows hover over the bilateral relations, political leaders mitigate the traumatic past, transforming the events into a resource for bonding in the present.

Past-oriented bonding narratives, the product of reminiscing, are thus a political and strategic effort to locate similar past events, constructing and presenting them to convey how collectives rely on and relate to each other. Bonding narratives are also inherently relational. Similar to relational identity and its effect on state behavior and patterns of interstate relationships (Berenskoetter and Giegerich, 2010; Eznack and Koschut, 2014; Hirsch and Miller, 2021), bonding narratives are presented and constructed to capture how collective memories of two states relate to each other. As such, they constitute a shared version of the past, namely past-oriented bonding narratives.

Simultaneously, past-oriented bonding narratives embody the interaction between the dyadic states. While most strategic narratives play on drawing borders between self and other (for example, the past efforts to create a regional European identity as part of an integrative project), bonding narratives seek to generate a sense of togetherness that can be then utilized for creating and/or sustaining positive relations. They allow political actors to locate commonality even in cases of historical and cultural distance between two states. The practice of reminiscing is thus what allows statespersons to bridge between separate political entities, presenting them as though their relationship were positive and stable throughout history.

Typically, evocations of a shared past in bonding narratives entail reminiscing about a war in which both collectives took part. Through collaborations in recent warfare (WWII onward), a sense of brotherhood is established and consolidated. Confronting a shared enemy is thus the most effective glue in maintaining and strengthening interstate relations. Recollections from the battlefield that still resonate in the memories of societies remind the two collectives that they can rely on each other in the event of a (perceived) threat to survival (McDonald, 2010). Overall, the unique character of bonding narratives, which enable the preservation of the excluding component of nation-states, mostly relies on shared memories of wars, underlining once again the problematic link between nations and violence (Giddens, 1986), and the heavy reliance on traumatic pasts as a framework (Olick et al., 2011).

In sum, in this article we dealt with a specific type of bonding narrative: using the past for the creation of a shared collective memory. Other types of bonding narratives are also frequently utilized in interstate relations. They include the narration of events that occur in the present (shared values and interests), and events that may happen in the future (a shared collective vision). Scholars should further examine these latter two strategic narratives of bonding and their unique characteristics in the future.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cac-10.1177_00108367231177795 – Supplemental material for How do states reminisce? Building relations through bonding narratives

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cac-10.1177_00108367231177795 for How do states reminisce? Building relations through bonding narratives by Tracy Adams, Gadi Heimann and Zohar Kampf in Cooperation and Conflict

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (471/22).

ORCID iDs

Tracy Adams

Zohar Kampf

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Tracy Adams is a researcher at the Center for Cultural Sociology, Yale University. Her research interests include the intersection of memory, conflict, culture, and politics and how meaning is constructed through interactive processes of negotiation. Her articles have been published in journals such as the Political Communication, British Journal of Sociology, the International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Sociological Forum, and Media, Culture & Society.

Gadi Heimann is an Assistant Professor in the Department of International Relations at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of two books, Franco-Israel Relations, 1958–1967, and Israel’s Path to Europe (With Lior Herman), and has published several articles and chapters in collected volumes. He is currently working on the subject of friendship in IR.

Zohar Kampf is Associate Professor of Communication at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of two books (Transforming Media Coverage of Violent Conflicts, 2013; Media at Times of War and Terror, 2012) and more than 70 chapters and articles in language and communication journals. He is currently associate editor of Journal of Pragmatics.

References

Adams

(2022) Reorientation of foreign memories in domestic political speech: Considerations and Effects. International Journal of Cultural Studies 25(5): 570–588.

Adams

Vinitzky-Seroussi

(2022) Memories of others for the sake of our own: Imported events in American presidential rhetoric (1945-2020). American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-022-00157-2

Anderson

(1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (2nd edn). New York: Verso Books.

Bachleitner

(2019) Diplomacy with memory: How the past is employed for future foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 15(4): 492–508.

Balmas

Sheafer

(2013) Leaders first, countries after: Mediated political personalization in the international arena. Journal of Communication 63(3): 454–475.

Banchoff

(1997) German policy towards the European Union: The effects of historical memory. German Politics 6(1): 60–76.

Becker

(2013) Memory and trauma as elements of identity in foreign policymaking. In: Resende

Budryte

(eds) Memory and Trauma in International Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 73–89.

Bell

(2013) The “special relationship.” In: Leifer

(ed.) Constraints and Adjustments in British Foreign Policy. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–103.

Bell

(ed.) (2006) Memory, Trauma and World Politics: Reflections on the Relationship between Past and Present. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Berenskoetter

(2007) Friends, there are no friends? An intimate reframing of the international. Millennium 35(3): 647–676.

11.

Berenskoetter

(2014) Parameters of a national biography. European Journal of International Relations 20(1): 262–288.

12.

Berenskoetter

Giegerich

(2010) From NATO to ESDP: A social constructivist analysis of German strategic adjustment after the end of the cold war. Security Studies 19(3): 407–452.

13.

Berger

(1997) The past in the present: Historical memory and German national security policy. German Politics 6(1): 39–59.

14.

Bevan

(2020) Climate change strategic narratives in the United Kingdom: Emergency, extinction, effectiveness. Energy Research & Social Science 69: 101580.

15.

Blieszner

Roberto

(2004) Friendship across the life span: Reciprocity in individual and relationship development. In: Lang

Fingerman

(eds) Growing Together: Personal Relationships across the Life Span. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–182.

16.

Bluck

Alea

Habermas

, et al. (2005) A tale of three functions: The self-reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition 23(1): 91–117.

17.

Bodnar

(1992) Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

18.

Brysk

Parsons

Sandholtz

(2002) After empire: National identity and post-colonial families of nations. European Journal of International Relations 8(2): 267–305.

19.

Bushell

Buisson

Workman

, et al. (2017) Strategic narratives in climate change: Towards a unifying narrative to address the action gap on climate change. Energy Research & Social Science 28: 39–49.

20.

Butler

(1963) The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry 26(1): 65–76.

21.

Chaban

Miskimmon

O’Loughlin

(2019) Understanding EU crisis diplomacy in the European neighbourhood: Strategic narratives and perceptions of the EU in Ukraine, Israel and Palestine. European Security 28(3): 235–250.

22.

Chilton

(1990) Politeness, politics and diplomacy. Discourse and Society 1: 201–224.

23.

Coticchia

Catanzaro

(2020) The fog of words: Assessing the problematic relationship between strategic narratives, (master) frames and ideology. Media, War & Conflict 15(4): 427–449.

24.

Dimitriu

De Graaf

(2016) Fighting the war at home: Strategic narratives, elite responsiveness, and the Dutch mission in Afghanistan, 2006–2010. Foreign Policy Analysis 12(1): 2–23.

25.

Dumbrell

Schäfer

(eds) (2009) America’s “Special Relationships”: Foreign and Domestic Aspects of the Politics of Alliance. London and New York: Routledge.

26.

Edkins

(2003) Trauma and the Memory of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Edy

Adams

(2023) The past as political terrain: How national leaders navigate memories of 9/11. Political Communication 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2201175

28.

Eznack

Koschut

(2014) The sources of affect in interstate friendship. In: Koschut

Oelsner

(eds) Friendship and International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 72–88.

29.

Fehr

(1996) Friendship Processes. London: Sage.

30.

Fivush

(2008) Remembering and reminiscing: How individual lives are constructed in family narratives. Memory Studies 1(1): 49–58.

31.

Fivush

Reese

(2002) Reminiscing and relating: The development of parent-child talk about the past. In: Webster

Haight

(eds) Critical Advances in Reminiscence Work: From Theory to Application. New York: Springer, pp. 109–122.

32.

Forde

(2016) The bridge on the Neretva: Stari most as a stage of memory in post-conflict Mostar, Bosnia–Herzegovina. Cooperation and Conflict 51(4): 467–483.

33.

Giddens

(1986) The nation-state and violence. Capital & Class 10(2): 216–220.

34.

Gillis

(ed.) (1994) Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

35.

Golan

Arceneaux

Soule

(2019) The catholic church as a public diplomacy actor: An analysis of the pope’s strategic narrative and international engagement. The Journal of International Communication 25(1): 95–115.

36.

Goldsmith

Horiuchi

(2009) Spinning the globe? US public diplomacy and foreign public opinion. The Journal of Politics 71(3): 863–875.

37.

Gustafsson

(2011) Narratives and bilateral relations: Rethinking the “history issue” in Sino-Japanese relations. PhD Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

38.

(2009) The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japanese and German-Polish Relations Since World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Heimann

(2012) Can states be friends? The relevance of friendship to international relations. International Proceedings of Economic Development and Research 48(7): 2

40.

Hinck

Manly

Kluver

, et al. (2018) Geopolitical dimensions of “the China dream”: Exploring strategic narratives of the Chinese Communist Party. China Media Research 14(3): 99–111.

41.

Hirsch

MBJ

Miller

(2021) Otherness and resilience in bilateral relations: The cases of Israel–Germany, India–Russia, and India–Israel. Journal of International Relations and Development 24(2): 356–380.

42.

Hodgkin

Radstone

(eds) (2003) Contested Pasts: The Politics of Memory. London: Routledge.

43.

Hofmann

Mérand

(2020) In search of lost time: Memory-framing, bilateral identity-making, and European security. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 58(1): 155–171.

44.

Huyssen

(2000) Present pasts: Media, politics, amnesia. Public Culture 12(1): 21–38.

45.

Ish-Shalom

(2013) Democratic Peace: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

46.

Kampf

Aldar

Danziger

, et al. (2019) The pragmatics of amicable interstate communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 16(2): 123–151.

47.

Kampf

Heimann

Aldar

(2022) “These are just slogans” Assertions of friendship between states. Journal of Language and Politics 21(5): 653–674.

48.

Koschut

Hall

Reinhard

, et al. (2017) Discourse and emotions in international relations. International Studies Review 19(3): 481–508.

49.

Kunczik

(2016) Images of Nations and International Public Relations. New York: Routledge.

50.

Levinger

Roselle

(2017) Narrating global order and disorder. Politics and Governance 5(3): 94–98.

51.

Liu

Hilton

(2005) How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology 44(4): 537–556.

52.

McDonald

(2010) ”Lest we forget”: The politics of memory and Australian military intervention. International Political Sociology 4(3): 287–302.

53.

Mälksoo

(2015) “Memory must be defended”: Beyond the politics of mnemonical security. Security Dialogue 46(3): 221–237.

54.

Miskimmon

O’Loughlin Roselle

(2013) Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. New York: Routledge.

55.

Mosse

(1990) Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars. New York: Oxford University Press.

56.

Oelsner

Vion

(2011) Friends in the region: A comparative study on friendship building in regional integration. International Politics 48(1): 129–151.

57.

Olick

(1999) Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory 17(3): 333–348.

58.

Olick

Levy

(1997) Collective memory and cultural constraint: Holocaust myth and rationality in German politics. American Sociology Review 62(6): 921–936.

59.

Olick

Robbins

(1998) Social memory studies: From “collective memory” to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology 24(1): 105–140.

60.

Olick

Vinitzky-Seroussi

Levy

(eds) (2011) The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

61.

Pashakhanlou

Berenskötter

(2021) Friends in war: Sweden between solidarity and self-help, 1939–1945. Cooperation and Conflict 56(1): 83–100.

62.

Pokharel

(2020) Diplomatic language: An analysis of salutations from speeches used in international diplomacy. Journal of International Affairs 3(1): 180–193.

63.

Reese

Haden

Fivush

(1996) Mothers, fathers, daughters, sons: Gender differences in autobiographical reminiscing. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(1): 27–56.

64.

Resende

Budryte

(eds) (2013) Memory and Trauma in International Relations: Theories, Cases and Debates. New York: Routledge.

65.

Roselle

Miskimmon

O’Loughlin

(2014) Strategic narrative: A new means to understand soft power. Media, War & Conflict 7(1): 70–84.

66.

Schmitt

(2018) When are strategic narratives effective? The shaping of political discourse through the interaction between political myths and strategic narratives. Contemporary Security Policy 39(4): 487–511.

67.

Shils

(1981) Tradition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

68.

Sierp

(2014) History, Memory, and Trans-European Identity: Unifying Divisions. New York: Routledge.

69.

Tileagă

(2012) Communism in retrospect: The rhetoric of historical representation and writing the collective memory of recent past. Memory Studies 5(4): 462–478.

70.

Van Hoef

Oelsner

(2018) Friendship and positive peace: Conceptualising friendship in politics and international relations. Politics and Governance 6(4): 115–124.

71.

Van Noort

(2017) Study of strategic narratives: The case of BRICS. Politics and Governance 5(3): 121–129.

72.

Vinitzky-Seroussi

(1998) After Pomp and Circumstance: High School Reunion as an Autobiographical Occasion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

73.

Winter

(1995) Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History. New York: Cambridge University Press.

74.

Wittlinger

(2007) British-German relations and collective memory. German Politics and Society 25(3): 42–69.

75.

Wittlinger

(2018) A “model of reconciliation”? Fifty years of German–Israeli relations. Cooperation and Conflict 53(4): 507–527.

76.

Yang

(2021) The specter of the past: Reconstructing conservative historical memory in South Korea. Politics & Society 49(3): 337–362.

77.

Zehfuss

(2006) Remembering to forget/forgetting to remember. In: Bell

(ed.) Memory, Trauma and World Politics: Reflections on the Relationship Between Past and Present. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 213–230.

78.

Zehfuss

(2007) Wounds of Memory: The Politics of War in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB