Constructivism (international relations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International relations theory

Realism[show]

Liberalism[show]

Constructivism[hide]

Modern constructivism

Post-modern constructivism

Feminist constructivism

Marxism[show]
Other theories[show]
Classifications[show]
Other approaches[show]

Politics portal

In the discipline of international relations, constructivism is the claim that significant aspects of international relations are
historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other essential characteristics of world
politics.[1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Development

2 Theory
o

2.1 Challenging realism

2.2 Identities and interests

2.3 Research areas

2.4 Recent developments

3 Notable constructivists in international relations

4 See also

5 Notes

6 External links

Development[edit]
Nicholas Onuf is usually credited with coining the term "constructivism" to describe theories that stress the socially
constructed character of international relations.[2]Contemporary constructivist theory traces its roots to pioneering work not only by
Onuf, but also by Richard K. Ashley, Friedrich Kratochwil, and John Ruggie. Nevertheless,Alexander Wendt is the best-known
advocate of social constructivism in the field of international relations. Wendts 1992 article "Anarchy is What States Make of It: the
Social Construction of Power Politics" published in International Organization laid the theoretical groundwork for challenging what he
considered to be a flaw shared by both neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists, namely, a commitment to a (crude) form of
materialism. By attempting to show that even such a core realist concept as "power politics" is socially constructedthat is, not
given by nature and hence, capable of being transformed by human practiceWendt opened the way for a generation of
international relations scholars to pursue work in a wide range of issues from a constructivist perspective. Wendt further developed
these ideas in his central work, Social Theory of International Politics(1999).[citation needed]
Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, constructivism has become one of the major schools of thought within international
relations. John Ruggie[3] and others have identified several strands of constructivism. On the one hand, there are constructivist
scholars such as Martha Finnemore, Kathryn Sikkink, Peter Katzenstein, and Alexander Wendt, whose work has been widely
accepted within the mainstream IR community and has generated vibrant scholarly discussions
among realists, liberals, institutionalists, and constructivists. On the other hand, there are radical constructivists who take discourse
and linguistics more seriously.

Theory[edit]
Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how core aspects of international relations are, contrary to the assumptions
of Neorealism and Neoliberalism, socially constructed, that is, they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and
interaction. Alexander Wendt calls two increasingly accepted basic tenets of Constructivism "that the structures of human
association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive
actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature".[4]

Challenging realism[edit]
During Constructivism's formative period Neorealism was the dominant discourse of international relations, much of Constructivism's
initial theoretical work challenged basic Neorealist assumptions. Neorealists are fundamentally causal Structuralists, in that they
hold that the majority of important content to international politics is explained by the structure of the international system, a position
first advanced in Kenneth Waltz's Man, the State, and War and fully elucidated in his core text of Neorealism, Theory of
International Politics. Specifically, international politics is primarily determined by the fact that the international system is anarchic it
lacks any overarching authority, instead it is composed of units (states) which are formally equal they are all sovereign over their
own territory. Such anarchy, Neorealists argue, forces States to act in certain ways, specifically, they can rely on no-one but
themselves for security (they have to Self-help). The way in which anarchy forces them to act in such ways, to defend their own selfinterest in terms of power, Neorealists argue, explains most of international politics. Because of this, Neorealists tend to disregard
explanations of international politics at the "unit" or "state" level.[5][6] Kenneth Waltz attacked such a focus as being reductionist.[7]
Constructivism, particularly in the formative work of Wendt, challenges this assumption by showing that the causal powers attributed
to "structure" by Neorealists are in fact not "given", but rest on the way in which Structure is constructed by social practice.
Removed from presumptions about the nature of the identities and interests of the actors in the system, and the meaning that social
institutions (including Anarchy) have for such actors, Neorealism's "structure" reveals, Wendt argues, very little, "it does not predict
whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other's sovereignty, will have dynastic ties, will be revisionist or status
quo powers, and so on".[8] Because such features of behavior are not explained by Anarchy, and require instead the incorporation of
evidence about the interests and identities held by key actors, Neorealism's focus on the material structure of the system (Anarchy)
is misplaced.[9] But Wendt goes further than this arguing that because the way in which Anarchy constrains states depends on the
way in which States conceive of Anarchy, and conceive of their own identities and interests, Anarchy is not necessarily even a 'selfhelp' system. It only forces states to self-help if they conform to Neorealist assumptions about states as seeing security as a
competitive, relative concept, where the gain of security for any one state means the loss of security for another. If States instead
hold alternative conceptions of security, either "co-operative", where states can maximise their security without negatively affecting
the security of another, or "collective" where states identify the security of other states as being valuable to themselves, Anarchy will
not lead to self-help at all.[10] Neorealist conclusions, as such, depend entirely on unspoken and unquestioned assumptions about the
way in which the meaning of social institutions are constructed by actors. Crucially, because Neorealists fail to recognize this
dependence, they falsely assume that such meanings are unchangeable, and exclude the study of the processes of social
construction which actually do the key explanatory work behind Neorealist observations.

Identities and interests[edit]

As Constructivists reject Neorealism's conclusions about the determining effect of anarchy on the behavior of international actors,
and move away from Neorealism's underlying materialism, they create the necessary room for the identities and interests of
international actors to take a central place in theorizing international relations. Now that actors are not simply governed by the
imperatives of a self-help system, their identities and interests become important in analyzing how they behave. Like the nature of
the international system, Constructivists see such identities and interests as not objectively grounded in material forces (such as
dictates of the human nature that underpins Classical Realism) but the result of ideas and the social construction of such ideas. In
other words the meanings of ideas, objects, and actors are all given by social interaction. We give objects their meanings and can
attach different meanings to different things.
Martha Finnemore has been influential in examining the way in which international organizations are involved in these processes of
the social construction of actor's perceptions of their interests.[11] In National Interests In International Society, Finnemore attempts to
"develop a systemic approach to understanding state interests and state behavior by investigating an international structure, not of
power, but of meaning and social value".[12] "Interests", she explains, "are not just 'out there' waiting to be discovered; they are
constructed through social interaction".[12] Finnemore provides three case studies of such construction the creation of Science
Bureaucracies in states due to the influence ofUNESCO, the role of the Red Cross in the Geneva Conventions and the World
Bank's influence of attitudes to poverty.
Studies of such processes are examples of the Constructivist attitude towards state interests and identities. Such interests and
identities are central determinants of state behavior, as such studying their nature and their formation is integral in Constructivist
methodology to explaining the international system. But it is important to note that despite this refocus onto identities and interests
properties of StatesConstructivists are not necessarily wedded to focusing their analysis at the unit-level of international politics:
the state. Constructivists such as Finnemore and Wendt both emphasize that while ideas and processes tend to explain the social
construction of identities and interests, such ideas and processes form a structure of their own which impact upon international
actors. Their central difference from Neorealists is to see the structure of international politics in primarily ideational, rather than
material, terms.[13][14]

Research areas[edit]
Many constructivists analyze international relations by looking at goals, threats, fears, cultures, identities, and other elements of
"social reality" as social facts. In an important edited volume, The Culture of National Security,[15] constructivist scholarsincluding
Elizabeth Kier, Jeffrey Legro, and Peter Katzenstein - challenged many realist assumptions about the dynamics of international
politics, particularly in the context of military affairs. Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber[16] applied constructivist approaches to
understand the evolution of state sovereignty as a central theme in international relations, and works by Rodney Bruce Hall[17] and
Daniel Philpott[18] (among others) developed constructivist theories of major transformations in the dynamics of international politics.
In international political economy, the application of constructivism has been less frequent. Notable examples of constructivist work
in this area include Kathleen R. McNamara's study of European Monetary Union [19] and Mark Blyth's analysis of the rise
of Reaganomicsin the United States.[20]
By focusing on how language and rhetoric are used to construct the social reality of the international system, constructivists are
often seen as more optimistic about progress in international relations than versions of realism loyal to a purely materialist ontology,
but a growing number of constructivists question the "liberal" character of constructivist thought and express greater sympathy for
realist pessimism concerning the possibility of emancipation from power politics.[21]
Constructivism is often presented as an alternative to the two leading theories of international relations, realism and liberalism, but
some maintain that it is not necessarily inconsistent with one or both.[22] Wendt shares some key assumptions with leading realist
and neorealist scholars, such as the existence of anarchy and the centrality of states in the international system. However, Wendt
renders anarchy in cultural rather than materialist terms; he also offers a sophisticated theoretical defense of the state-as-actor
assumption in international relations theory. This is a contentious issue within segments of the IR community as some constructivists
challenge Wendt on some of these assumptions (see, for example, exchanges in Review of International Studies, vol. 30, 2004). It
has recently been argued that progress in IR theory will be achieved when Realism and Constructivism can be aligned or even
synthesised. [23]

Recent developments[edit]
A significant group of scholars who study processes of social construction self-consciously eschew the label "Constructivist". They
argue that "mainstream" constructivism has abandoned many of the most important insights from linguistic turn and socialconstructionist theory in the pursuit of respectability as a "scientific" approach to international relations. [24] Even some putatively
"mainstream" constructivists, such as Jeffrey Checkel, have expressed concern that constructivists have gone too far in their efforts
to build bridges with non-constructivist schools of thought.[25]
A growing number of constructivists contend that current theories pay inadequate attention to the role of habitual and unreflective
behavior in world politics.[26] These advocates of the "practice turn" take inspiration from work in neuroscience, as well as that of
social theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu, that stresses the significance of habit in psychological and social life.[27][28]

Notable constructivists in international relations[edit]

Emanuel Adler

Anthony Clark Arend

Michael Barnett

Thomas J. Biersteker

Didier Bigo

Mark Blyth

Jeffrey T. Checkel

Martha Finnemore

Ernst B. Haas

Peter M. Haas

Ian Hacking

Rodney Bruce Hall

Ted Hopf

Peter J. Katzenstein

Judith Kelley

Friedrich Kratochwil

Richard Ned Lebow

Daniel H. Nexon

Nicholas Onuf

Erik Ringmar

Thomas Risse

John Ruggie

Chris Reus-Smit

Leonard Seabrooke

Kathryn Sikkink

J. Ann Tickner

Ole Wver

Alexander Wendt

See also[edit]

Constructivist epistemology

Constructivism in psychology

English school of international relations theory

International legal theories

Notes[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel H. Nexon, "Whence Causal
Mechanisms? A Comment on Legro" in Dialogue IO Vol. 1, 2002 [1]

2.

Jump up^ Robert Howard Jackson and Georg Srensen (2010). Introduction to
International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 4th Edition. Oxford University Press.
p. 166. ISBN 0-19-954884-6. Constructivism was introduced to IR by Nicholas Onuf
(1989) who coined the term

3.

Jump up^ John Gerard Ruggie (1998). "What Makes the World Hang Together? Neoutilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge". International
Organization (CUP) 52 (4): 855.doi:10.1162/002081898550770.

4.

Jump up^ Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.1

5.

Jump up^ Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp.8-15

6.

Jump up^ Chris Brown, Understanding International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave

Publishing, 2005), pp.40-43

7.

Jump up^ Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGraw-Hill Higher

Education, 1979)

8.

Jump up^ Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction
of Power Politics" in International Organization (46:2, Spring 1992), p.396

9.

Jump up^ Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction
of Power Politics" in International Organization (46:2, Spring 1992), pp.396399

10.

Jump up^ Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction
of Power Politics" in International Organization (46:2, Spring 1992), pp.399403

11.

Jump up^ Stephen Walt writes on the back cover of Finnemore's book "Many writers
have asserted that social structures assert a powerful impact on national
preferences...but Finnemore is the first to present sophisticated evidence for this claim."

12.

^ Jump up to:a b Martha Finnemore, National Interests In International Society (New

York: Cornell University Press, 1996), p.2

13.

Jump up^ Martha Finnemore, National Interests In International Society (New York:
Cornell University Press, 1996), pp.6-7

14.

Jump up^ Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp.29-33

15.

Jump up^ The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)

16.

Jump up^ Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber, eds., State Sovereignty As Social
Construct(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)

17.

Jump up^ Rodney Bruce Hall, National Collective Identity (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1999)

18.

Jump up^ Daniel Philpott, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern
International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)

19.

Jump up^ Kathleen R. McNamara, The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the
European Union(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999)

20.

Jump up^ Mark Blyth Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change
in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)

21.

Jump up^ Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, ed. "Bridging the Gap: Towards a RealistConstructivist Dialogue" in International Studies Review vol. 6, 2004, pp. 337-352

22.

Jump up^ Andrew Moravscik, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of

International Politics" in International Organization vol. 51, 1997

23.

Jump up^ Cornelia Beyer, "Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower: A Synthetic

Approach", in International Relations vol 23:3, 2009

24.

Jump up^ Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of

Reality(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)

25.

Jump up^ Jeffrey Checkel, Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics
in Review of International Studies Vol.30, 2004

26.

Jump up^ Iver B. Neumann, "Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of
Diplomacy" inMillennium: Journal of International Studies vol. 31, 2002

27.

Jump up^ Ted Hopf, Social Construction of International Politics: Identities & Foreign
Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002)

28.

Jump up^ Vincent Pouliot, "The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security
Communities" in International Organization vol. 62, 2008

External links[edit]

Read an Interview with Social Constructivist Alexander Wendt

[show]

International relations theory

Categories:

Navigation menu

Create account

Not logged in

International relations theory

Constructivism

Talk

Contributions

Log in

Read
Edit
View history

Go

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Wikipedia store
Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Tools

Contact page

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item

Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable version
Languages

Dansk

Deutsch

Franais

Bahasa Indonesia

Lietuvi

Polski

Romn

Article
Talk

Edit links

Ting Vit

This page was last modified on 18 August 2015, at 06:19.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view