Introduction.

Social Constructivism sees the whole discipline of International Relations as a social construction. It
stresses the social dimensions of International relations. Social Constructivism posits the argumentation
that academic discourse as opposed to political engagement is more fruitful in bringing about lasting and
genuine change in global affairs. In the mid 1980s when the Cold War was at its worst stage engendering
the gloomy prospects of a nuclear war between the capitalist and communist Blocs, as represented by the
two super powers , the United States and the Soviet Union, some schools of thought within the
International Relations discipline began to look beyond the traditional and dominant theoretical approaches
of doing politics. This skepticism of the hitherto International Relations theories like the Realism and the
Liberalism called to question their approaches and scientific methods which in the view of the critics of the
Third Debate have negatively and unfortunately implicated in the unfolding prospects of national and
international Belligerence. In short these theories were also seen as being incapable of holding in its grip
the difficulties which arose with demise of the Cold War. Seeing these other International Relations
theories as inefficient in view of the emergent global politics as a result of their materialistic, static,
individualistic, natural-scientific and egocentric approaches, Constructivists came on stage with the under-
mentioned alternatives. Constructivism sees itself as a social Theory that centers on social life and social
change. Focusing on ,,social facts"(Searle 1995) like money, sovereignty and rights which have no material
reality but are inter-subjectively made real by shared ideational forces among peoples, Constructivists
followed the example of Foucauld(1858-1916) who opined that discourse is the root of all successes in
human and social relations. Encompassing a broad range of theories that tackle the questions of
ontology(the science of being), Constructivism insists that actors are shaped by the social environment in
which they found themselves. In this way it researches on how identities and interests are created. Just as
we have earlier noted, it handles also epistemological enquiries such as the material versus the ideational
debate. Distancing itself from Realism, Neo- Realism and other utilitarian and materialist theories,
Constructivism is skeptical about most of their claims such as those bordering on historical and scientific
accuracy. For no single observation and account is flawless. Constructivism argues that situations have to
be approached and studied from different perspectives in order to grasp their full import, for it is not
enough to describe events or situations of things; one needs to dissect the constituting parts of
factors ,things, Beings and situations with a view to knowing how and why they operate, behave in a given
way. In this regard the GSI. Uni-münchen Grundkurs, Internationale Beziehungen (Feb.2006) recapitulates
Social Constructivist agenda in the following way:

Der Sozial konstructivismus problematisiert Identität und Interessen. Diese werden nicht als von außen
objektiv gegeben angesehen, sondern erlangen (erst) durch den Umwelt einen subjektiven
Bedeutungsgehalt. Akteure und Strukturen determinieren auch dabei gegenseitig, die Rolle von Kultur,
Iden und Nomen auf die Präferenzbildung der Akteure wird als Konstitutiv herausgestellt.
This Constructivists' engagement to introduce the social into a discipline that has been unduly under
socialized has earned Constructivism the appellation the jewel of International Rel]ations. This is more so
since International Relations is actually a field in political Science which in itself is a social science.
Scientific objectivity and one-way traffic mathematical calculation as propagated by the realists does not
adequately fit in here.

In the same vein feminists under the auspices of Feminist Constructivism and borrowing the ideas of
Jacques Derrida's Deconstructivism (Deconstruction) took the lead that every text can be dissected and
viewed from multifarious orientations. Feminists argue therefore that the existing documentation in
International Relations have until most recently been men's affaire. Their goal therefore is to dismantle
these International Relations masculine literature and re-interpret them using feminist and womanistic
approaches. Hitherto the realist materialist and militaristic interpretation of Actors' quests and interests
have resulted in Belligerence, Pugnacity and self-help. The feminists strive to deconstruct this anomaly and
reconstruct it using womanistic and gender tools.

Constructivism in International Relations

For decades, the international relations theory field was comprised largely of two more dominant
approaches: the theory of realism, and liberalism/pluralism. However, in recent decades, there has emerged
a new theory: Constructivism in international relations is one of the more recent theories in the field, and
comes at the heels of existing international relations theories of realism, liberalism, and marxism
(economic structuralism). Constructivism takes issue with realist and liberal assumptions about anarchy
and the international system. As we shall see, constructivism focuses on ideas of norms, the development
of structures, the relationship between actors and said structures, as well as how identity influences actions
and behavior amongst and between actors (Reus-Smit, 2005: 188), as well as how norms themselves shape
an actor’s character (Reus-Smith, 2005:198).
There are a number of arguments that constructivists make that differs from realists and liberalists. One of
the key points of departure stems from how these different theorists view anarchy. It is true that all three
theories recognized that the international system is anarchical; there does not exist an overarching power to
govern world affairs. However, scholars of these theories disagree on state behavior in this anarchical
system. For example, realists view anarchy as a condition that leads to state competition for resources,
security, and power. Liberalists/pluralists, on the other hand, view cooperation through international
organizations as possible under an anarchical system; these institutions can help bring about positive gains
for state and non-state actors; they are not constrained by the “negatives” of an anarchical international
system.
Constructivists also focus on the idea of anarchy, but they depart from prior positions on the anarchical
system. Specifically, constructivists disagree with the realist position that anarchy inherently leads to
competition and war.As one of the foremost scholars on constructivism, Alexander Wendt (1992), in his
seminal article Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, says, “self-
help and power politics do not follow either logically or causally from anarchy and that if today we find
ourselves in a self-help world, this is due to process, not structure. There is no “logic” of anarchy apart
from the practices that create and instantiate one structure of identities and interests rather than another;
structure has no existence or causal powers apart from process.” Self-help and power politics are
institutions, not essential features of anarchy (394). He goes on to say that “Anarchy is what states make of
it” (394).
Thus, to constructivists, the anarchical system is whatever the actors want it to be. Thus, there is no reason
that anarchy brings about war, or peace. The actors play a major role in how they interpret the system.
Furthermore, their positions can evolve and shift over time. Thus, unlike realists and liberals,
constructivists allow for attention regarding the “making” of the conditions (Ruggie, 1998: 877); actors do
not respond to “given” conditions, they create them. 
In the classic international relations example of the stag hunt, where hunters are all going after the stag,
realists argue there is little incentive for these different actors to work together to cooperate, and that each
should look out for herself/himself and go after smaller game that will satisfy their survival, even at the
expense of other or a larger benefit through cooperation. The reason: one cannot trust the actions and
motivations of other actors, and thus, in this “self-help” system with no overarching power, one must do
what is best in order to survive. However, constructivists take issue with this position. They argue that at
the beginning of the game, there is no reason for states to think of others as threats, or as cooperative
partners, for that matter. As Wendt (1992) explains, “We…assume too much if we argue that, in virtue of
anarchy, states in the state of nature necessarily face a “stag hunt” or security dilemma. These claims
presuppose a history of interaction in which actors have acquired “selfish” identities and interests; before
interaction…they would have no experience upon which to base such definitions of self and other” (401-
402). He goes on tot say that “To assume otherwise is to attribute to states in the state of nature qualities
that they can only possess in society. Self-help is an institution, not a constitutive feature of anarchy” (401-
402).
As constructivists in international relations explain, states often act differently based on the identity,
interests, culture, and relationship that the states may have with one another. As Alexander Wendt
(1992) explains, “[s]tates act differently towards enemies than they do toward friends because enemies are
threatening and friends are not” (397). Speaking on this, he says in more detail:
“Anarchy and the distribution of power are insufficient to tell us which is which. U.S. military power has a
different significance for Canada than for Cuba, despite their similar “structural” positions, just as British
missiles have a different significance for the United States than do Soviet missiles. The distribution of
power may always affect states’ calculations, but how it does so depends on the intersubjective
understandings and expectations, on the “distribution of knowledge,” that constitutes their conception of
self and others. If society “forgets” what a university is, the powers and practices of professor and student
cease to exist; if the United States and Soviet Union decide that they are no longer enemies, “the cold war
is over.” It is collective meanings that constitute the structures which organize our actions” (397).
Adler (1998) says similar when he states that with people, “Where they go, how, when and why, is not
entirely determined by physical forces and constraints; but neither does it depend solely on individuals
preferences and rational choices. it is also a matter of their shared knowledge, the collective meaning they
attach to their situation, their authority and legitimacy, the rules, institutions and material resources they
use to find their way, and their practices, or even, sometimes their joint creativity” (321). Actions are just
actions, it is through the interoperation of these actions that matter for constructivism.
Thus, constructivists are focused on how one forms an identity based on interactions (Ruggie, 1998).
Through “interactions” with one another, one who prior had no reaction or relationship to a state, now, over
time, can become friends, enemies, or continue to be neither. The same goes for individuals. As Wendt
(1992) explains,  there is no reason for two people first meeting one another to have a pessimistic
relationship, if the interactions doesn’t lead in that direction. However, if their interactions are conflictual,
then over time and over additional tense encounters, this is exactly what could arise.
He gives an excellent hypothetical regarding humans and potential alien life. I have quoted the paragraph
below where Wendt (1992) says:
“Consider an example. Would we assume, a priori, that we were about to be attacked if we are ever
contacted by members of an alien civilization? I think not. We would be highly alert, of course, but whether
we placed our military forces on alert or launched an attack would depend on how we interpreted the
import of their first gesture for our security-if only to avoid making an immediate enemy out of what may
be dangerous adversary. The possibility of error, in other words, does not force us to act on the assumption
that the aliens are threatening: action depends on the probabilities we assign, and these are in key part a
function of what the aliens do; prior to their gesture, we have no systematic basis for assigning
probabilities. If their first gesture is to appear with a thousand spaceships and destroy New York, we will
define the situation as threatening and respond accordingly. But if they appear with one spaceship, saying
what seems to be “we come in peace,” we will feel “reassured” and will probably respond with a gesture
intended to reassure them, even if this gesture is not necessarily interpreted by them as much” (405).

As Wendt (1992) points out, over time, these back and forth actions “will create relatively stable concepts
of self and other regarding the issue at stake in the interaction” (405). Thus, the way the international
system will look will depend on interactions, and when the interactions take place; it is all to be created by
the actors in the international system.
And any institutions or conditions in the international system are only due to how we have conceived them.
As Adler (1998) says, “they are reified structures that were once upon a time conceived ex nihilo by human
consciousness; and that these understandings were subsequently diffused and consolidated until they were
taken for granted” (322).
Thus, for constructivists, it is not that a system cannot be interpreted as “self-help” and pessimistic, or
“cooperative” and positive (Adler, 1998), but rather, that whatever the system is, it is because of
interactions and interpretations of events in a way that leads to viewing the world in that said way.
Constructivism and Norms
Thus, constructivists look at how these norms develop, who presses these norms, and who sets up different
norms from the ones currently set (Adler, 1998: 338). Constructivists do this in everyday international
relations settings, or in more particular contexts such as the development of norms in international
organizations. This notion of norms is one that has occupies international relations for quite some time
(Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). However, partly due to constructivism, there has been a more direct
attention to these ideas once again, with attention to the development of international norms, both in
international and domestic political spaces (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Thus, scholars look at how
norms emerge (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, how they effect states and non-state actors (Finnemore &
Sikkink, 1998) (as well as how these norms are then implemented by states internally (Risse, 2000), and
“which norms will matter and under what conditions” (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998: 894). As Reus-Smith
(2005) explains, “identities are constituted by the institutional norms, values and ideas of the social
environment in which they act” (199).
One case that constructivists have pointed to to help support their theory was the events that led to the fall
of the Soviet Union. To the former theories, they had difficulty explaining the shift in relations between the
United States and the Soviet Union. However, to constructivists, the role of the individual (in this case
President Mikhail Gorbachev) was critical; his willingness to focus on norms such as “common security”
(Walt, 1998: 41). Gorbachev’s shifting of the Soviet Union’s policy from one of security concerns to
working with other states towards this “new” norm is explained by constructivism. 
One could argue that the more recent (and colder) relations between the United States and Russia are not
because of innate distrust or hatred, but rather, actions between one another (whether it is NATO
expansion, Putin’s rights abuses and violations of sovereignty in the Ukraine, etc…) have moved the US-
Russian relationship to their current conditions.