Social psychology focuses on human interaction in social settings and how that interaction can affect individual behaviour. Variables such as perceptions and images are used to account for what influences the decision making process. This approach enriches rationalist assumptions of judgement and choice by accounting for belief perseverance, attribution errors and overconfidence (Tetlock and Goldgeier, 2000). How, for instance, can images of others be challenged, modified and ultimately contribute to a change in behaviour? This is particularly useful in understanding relations such as those between the EU and Africa, which for decades were premised on a fundamental asymmetry in power and the perceptions such an imbalance entailed.
Efforts at changing the historic relationship took bolder strides in the 21st century as Africa began to enjoy a new prominence, based on changing perceptions of a continent “rising”, driven by an ambitious generation of new rulers, backed by strong growth rates, decreasing conflict, and notable gains in democratic governance. Africa’s rise also coincided with a period of significant institutional change for the European Union, including enhanced foreign and security policy ambitions through the Lisbon Treaty. The most notable output of that more propitious environment was the 2007 Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES). The Strategy represented an ambitious attempt to broaden areas of cooperation between the sides and redress the imbalance that had hitherto characterised the relationship.
Yet challenging perceptions, as the JAES did, required not only a reconstitution of the physical framework through which the sides interacted, it also demanded change at the ideational level. Long held perceptions, coupled with fickle levels of trust, proved a significant cognitive barrier to change.
This paper represents a contribution to an ongoing effort to operationalise the concept of perceptions and their input in international relations decision making. To assess change between the EU and Africa an analysis of the negotiation of the JAES is undertaken, exploring how and if perceptions of self, other and situation were modified over the course of the negotiations. Interviews conducted with most of the JAES negotiators from both the EU and AU revealed notable redressing of previously held images, with consequences for the way in which the negotiations were not only perceived but also conducted.
However, not all actors were capable of perception change. By breaking down the constituents privy to the negotiations by levels, it is demonstrated that decision makers further removed from the negotiation process held images that were hardly modified over time. This led to an inability to frame the JAES as an exercise in mutual benefit, leading to a push by some leaders for a more conventional agreement and -- ironically -- a replication of some of the historic dynamics which the JAES was meant to banish. This juxtaposition of entrenched, historic, images and a modernising impetus remains consistent to this day.
