Dependency Theory

UNIT 7 CONSTRUCTIVISM*

Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 What is Constructivism?
7.3 Philosophical Foundations of Constructivism
7.4 Major Assumptions of Constructivism
7.4.1 Social Construction of Reality
7.4.2 Influence of Ideational Factors
7.4.3 Mutual Constitution of Agents and Structure
7.4.4 International Anarchy
7.5 Different Versions of Constructivism
7.5.1 Modernist
7.5.2 Modernist Linguistic or Rule-oriented Constructivism
7.5.3 Radical
7.5.4 Critical
7.6 Let Us Sum Up
7.7 References
7.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

7.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this Unit is to examine the uniqueness of Constructivism among
International Relations theories. After going through this Unit, you would be
able to:
Explain the philosophical foundations of Constructivism
Narrate the salient features of Constructivism and
Examine the major versions of Constructivism

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Social Constructivism or Constructivism is a theory in International Relations
which holds that developments in international relations are being constructed
through social processes in accordance with ideational factors such as identity,
norms, rules, etc. This standpoint of Constructivism is contrary to the ‘atomized’
or ‘individualist’ and ‘materialist’ interpretation of international relations by the
mainstream theories in IR [i.e., Neorealism and Neoliberalism]. Both Neorealism
and Neoliberalism hold that material factors such as military capacity and
economic resources are catalysts for developments in international relations. Since
the nature of international relations is anarchical, the actions of nation-states are
heavily depended on their self-interest (i.e., to augment the military capabilities
and economic resources), and calculations about consequences (i.e, to avoid

Dr. Roshan Varghese V., Research Scholar, Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi
*
91
Approaches actions that adversely affect states’ security). In such considerations, there is no
room for normative concerns and sociability. Thus in an anarchical world, states
are concerned about their (self) security; hence, the study of international relations
should be focused on material factors that affect state security. This approach of
mainstream theories neglected the ideational factors, which influence the
behaviour of nation-states.

The developments since the end of the Cold War give impetus to Constructivism.
For instance, Realism and its variant Neorealism hold that stability of the
international system is maintained through a balance of power between major
states and their alliances. Therefore, the proponents of Neorealism believed that
some states would emerge to balance the United States to offset its power in the
absence of the Soviet Union. They also predicted the emergence of new great
powers in a multipolar system. Kenneth Waltz, the chief advocate of Neorealism,
forecasted the rise of new great powers in a short span of time. However, it has
not happened since the end of the Cold War. The developments since the Cold
War also challenged the core assumption of liberalism, liberal optimism or a
belief in progress. Francis Fukuyama’s essay titled, The End of History, which
was published in 1989 and his book titled, The End of History and the Last Man,
which was published in 1992 were about the ultimate victory of liberal values.
According to Fukuyama, the disintegration of the Soviet Union marked the
dismantling of ideological divisions and thereby the world witnessed the
universalization of liberal values. In a similar vein, Robert Keohane shares the
liberal optimism about progress. Liberalism strongly believes that international
relations can be transformed from conflict to cooperation through interdependence
and democracy. Many believed that the victory and universalization of liberal
values after the end of the Cold War would make the world a better place to live
in. However, the world has been witnessing the resurgence of civil wars,
international terrorism, non-state violence and genocide, ‘failed’ states and state
itself involved in ‘ethnic cleansing’ since the end of the Cold War. These
developments undermined the liberal optimism about peace and cooperation at
the domestic and international levels. Thus, the developments since the end of
the Cold War have questioned the ability of Realism and Liberalism and their
variants in predicting and explaining international relations. The critics of Realism
and Liberalism hold that the emphasis on material factors while neglecting the
ideational factors are the major reasons for weakness of these theories in
understanding the recent developments in international relations. The incidents
ranging from genocides to civil wars are very much related to the ideational
factors like ‘identity’; therefore, a new paradigm in analyzing these developments
became the need of the hour.

Moreover, the end of the Cold War and the increasing pace of globalization
drastically altered the international environment hitherto. The new developments
triggered a new set of problems and opportunities for nation-states, transnational
corporations, and civil society groups. At the same time, nation-states across the
world witnessed serious debates on questions such as, what is national identity
and what is national interest? This was to re-shape their policies to address the
changing international environment. A ‘Constructivist lens’ was required in this
regard. In sum, the new developments at the domestic as well as international
relations led to the rise of Constructivism in IR.

92
 Constructivism
7.2 WHAT IS CONSTRUCTIVISM?
The term ‘Constructivism’ encompasses a wide range of theoretical perspectives
whose converging point is the view that ‘we have no direct access to reality’.
But the Social world that is accessible to us, is constructed through our social
relations. Our social relations are constructed through the ideas we share about
the world. In other words, we construct the ‘social world’ in accordance with our
ideas (about the world on the basis of our experiences and perceptions about it).
It holds a view that the social world and our ideas are mutually constitutive.
Constructivism in the academic discipline of IR argues that international relations
are a social construction. States, alliances, and international institutions are the
products of human interaction in the social world. They are being constructed
through human action imbued with social values, identity, assumptions, rules,
language, etc. Constructivism is a three-layered understanding of international
relations involving metaphysics, social theory, and IR theory. First, Constructivism
is a metaphysical stance. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, which examines
and interprets the nature of reality. Therefore the scholars who treat Constructivism
as a metaphysical stance seek to examine and interpret the real nature of
international relations. Second, constructivism as a social theory focuses on the
role of knowledge and knowledgeable agents in the constitution of social reality.
In other words, Constructivists examine the role of shared understanding, and
discourses in the construction of international relations. Shared understanding
means the perception of people or nation-states about their counterparts and the
social world. This shared understanding is formed through perceptions about the
other (people or nation-states) and interactions in society or international relations.
Our perceptions and interactions inform some knowledge about the other and
this knowledge constructs social reality. Thus, our knowledge about social reality
is constructed through our perceptions and interactions. Finally, Constructivism
as an IR theory seeks to conduct research on sound social ontological and
epistemological foundations. In other words, IR Constructivism holds that
international relations are a social construction; therefore, its study requires a
particular set of methods. Constructivism enhanced the scope of IR by
incorporating ideational factors such as identity, norms, and rule into its fold.
For instance, IR Constructivism examines the role of identities, norms in the
constitution of national interests, and the social construction of new territorial
and non-territorial transnational regions.
The term ‘Constructivism’ was coined for International Relations by Nicholas
Greenwood Onuf in his book, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social
Theory and International Relations [1989]. However, it was the works of
Alexander Wendt especially his 1992 article, Anarchy is what States Make of it:
The Social Construction of Power Politics, and his 1999 book, Social Theory of
International Politics which popularized Constructivism in IR. Wendt’s version
of Constructivism, a state-centric and structural one, helped it to find a place
among the mainstream theories of International Relations.

7.3 PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF

CONSTRUCTIVISM
Even though Constructivism is a recent entrant into the club of IR theories, its
genesis can be traced back to the works of German philosopher Immanuel Kant 93
Approaches (1724–1804). Kant heralded a Constructivist turn in epistemology by setting
forth a viewpoint that the production of knowledge is influenced by the
consciousness. Having been influenced by Kant, Neo-Kantians of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries proposed an ‘objective hermeneutics’,
which stressed the importance of understanding consciousness. During this period
a number of German thinkers came forward to state that human sciences [such
as history, literature, law, politics, etc.] could not be studied like natural sciences.
These thinkers argued for a separate methodology for human sciences. The most
influential of them were Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), Edmund Husserl (1869-
1938), Max Weber (1864-1920) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900). The
works of these thinkers had immensely contributed to the birth of Constructivism
in IR. For instance, Dilthey held that the subject matter of human sciences is the
‘human mind’, which reflects in languages, actions, and institutions. In order to
understand the human mind one has to examine cultural aspects and historical
processes in which languages, actions, and institutions are constructed. Husserl
introduced phenomenology as a method for the description and analysis of
consciousness. Weber’s contribution to Constructivism is that he introduced
‘verstehen’ as a method to understand and explain the meaning of motivations
that lead to actions. Nietzsche challenged the concept of ‘objectivity’ and ‘value
neutrality’ in social theories. According to Nietzsche, our statement about the
world is highly influenced by our assumptions and convictions about the world.
Therefore, the piece of knowledge produced by a scientist is inevitably ‘subjective’
rather than the result of an ‘objective’ analysis.

Another influential figure who contributed to the birth of Constructivism is

Austrian philosopher Alfred Schutz (1899–1959). According to Schutz, we always
try to typify people and things to understand them. Further, Schutz argues that
our knowledge about people and things are highly influenced by our perceptions
and interactions with them. Having been influenced by the works of Schutz,
American sociologists Peter Ludwig Berger (1929 – 2017) and Thomas Luckmann
(1927 – 2016) jointly introduced the concept of the ‘social construction of reality’.
According to them, interactions of people in society evolve concepts about human
behaviour and these concepts become habituated and eventually institutionalized.
Our knowledge about society, people, things or our conception of reality is
constructed through our interaction in society and is the result of our
interpretations on the basis of our experiences in these interactions. In other
words, the reality is socially constructed which is the result of our interpretations
on the basis of our experiences in interactions. Berger and Luckmann published
a book titled, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge, (1966) on this theme.

Works of the French philosophers also had profoundly influenced the birth and
evolution of Constructivism. For instance, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) argued
that social phenomena are as real as ‘things’ (material objects) and should be
studied as such. His argument firmly established the Constructivists’ concept of
the primacy of the ideational factors. Other important French thinkers who
influenced the germination of Constructivism were Michel Foucault (1926 –
1984) and Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004). Postmodernism proposed by Foucault
was aimed at uncovering the discourse and power structures that control practices
in society. Discourse can be defined as ‘language-in-action’ or it is about what
we say (language) about things in conversation and how we do (practice) things
in our everyday lives. Foucault believed that discourse or ‘language-in-action’
94 has power. In other words, discourse designs the rules in society about ‘what
should be’ and ‘what should not be’. Poststructuralism set forth by Derrida aimed Constructivism
at deconstructing the dominant readings of reality.

Constructivism came into existence as a response to the ‘third debate’ in IR. The
third debate, between Neorealism and Neoliberalism, was a synthesis movement
to make IR more scientific. It succeeded in reaching a common ontological and
epistemological position between Neorealism and Neoliberalism. Both theories
hold that ‘material resources’ are the catalysts for development in international
relations, the structure of international system shapes the behaviour of nation-
states and nation-states take their decisions on the basis of the logic of
consequences. Epistemologically, both theories adopted positivism to make IR
more scientific. Positivism believes that natural as well as social worlds are
functioning in accordance with certain universal laws. There are regularities in
the functioning of natural and the social world. Due to this reason, the same
methods can be applied in the study of the natural and social world. Therefore,
social science research should also be based on objectivity and value neutrality,
and on the empirical validation and falsification of facts. Mainstream IR theories’
reliance on positivism triggered the ‘fourth debate’ between the proponents of
positivism and postpositivism in IR in the late 1980s and that led to a number of
postpositivist/postmodernist/poststructuralist theories including Constructivism.

When narrating the genesis of Constructivism one cannot ignore the influence of
the English School, which is considered to be the precursor to IR constructivism.
The English School interprets international relations as being social and historical.
Moreover, it believes in the existence of an international society driven by norms
and identity.
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) What do you understand by Constructivism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................

7.4 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS OF

CONSTRUCTIVISM
7.4.1 Social Construction of Reality
Constructivists believe that reality is a project under constant construction. Instead
of treating the social world as a pre-given entity, Constructivists consider it as a
‘world as coming into being’. Social reality is derived from inter-subjective
knowledge and our interpretations about the social world. This is contrary to the
functioning of the celestial body. For instance, Sun, Moon, Earth and other planets
of our solar system are functioning in accordance with certain objective laws.
95
Approaches Our understanding and interpretation of the universe cannot influence and alter
its functioning. However, social reality is constituted of our inter-subjective (or
shared) knowledge and interpretations about the social world and this may
influence and alter our social relations. Here, the knowledge is constructed inter-
subjectively, which means the knowledge is produced in the interactions amongst
people. For instance, Alexander Wendt in his influential article, Anarchy is what
States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, explains how
knowledge is constructed inter-subjectively by depicting the story of ‘Alter’ and
‘Ego’. Alter and Ego, are two imagined characters, who meet each other for the
first time. Therefore, both do not have any idea about the nature of the other,
which means they do not have any friendship and enmity beforehand. In such a
condition, their interactions will inform them about the nature of the other –
whether the counterpart is trustworthy or unreliable, friendly or hostile. The same
thing is happening in international relations, where interactions among nation-
states inform them about the nature of international relations, who are the friendly
nations and enemies. Constructivists also hold that the experiences during the
course of interactions and the interpretations may change the imagery about the
other. In other words, interactions and interpretations may transform the enmity
to friendship and the vice versa. The book titled, The Culture of National Security:
Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter J. Katzenstein (1996) sets
forth the argument that international relations do not function independently of
human action and cognition. Moreover, the book argues that norms and ideas
play a major role in defining the identities of actors thereby prescribe the proper
behaviour for actors. This is just in contrast to the logic of consequences or
rational-choice suggested by Neorealism and Neoliberalism.

7.4.2 Influence of Ideational Factors

Since the reality is socially constructed, we cannot understand social realities
(including international relations) by examining only material forces (such as
military power, economic resources). Instead, Constructivists believe that
understanding of social reality requires the examination of both ideational
(identity, culture, norms) and material factors. For instance, a North Korean
nuclear weapon is similar to a French nuclear weapon in terms of its material
attribute and destructive effects. However, as far as the United States of America
(USA) is concerned, the nuclear weapon of North Korea is dangerous and the
French one is not. Both nuclear weapons get different meanings according to the
nature of the USA’s relations with France and North Korea. Here, ‘identity’ as an
ideational factor gives different meanings to nuclear weapons, as the USA treats
the French as its ally and North Korea as its enemy (and a potential threat to the
USA’s security). The notion of identity is very much related to a binary of ‘we’
and ‘other’. History, culture, political processes, and social interactions are playing
a major role in forming this binary. For instance, the common history of ancestors,
sharing liberal values, mutual understanding and cordial relations inform both
the USA and France that they have a lot of things in common; therefore, both of
them consider each other as a friend. However, on the basis of the same criteria,
the USA realizes that North Korea is the ‘other’. Constructivists argue that
identities are socially constructed through interactions. They, further suggest that
the behaviour of nation-states in the international system is not driven solely by
the distribution of power, but also depends on the ‘distribution of identities’.
96 That is, patterns of cooperation and conflict depend on how states understand
themselves and others in the international system, rather than solely on material Constructivism
factors.

7.4.3 Mutual Constitution of Agents and Structure

Structuration theory was illustrated by the eminent sociologist Anthony Giddens
in a number of his books starting from, New Rules of Sociological Method (1976)
and The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984).
Structuration theory of Giddens argues that structures and agents are mutually
constitutive. Constructivists such as Nicholas Onuf and Alexander Wendt
borrowed Giddens’s theory of structuration to explain the mutual influence of
agents and structure in the field of international relations. According to Onuf
‘people and societies construct, or constitute, each other’. At the same time,
Wendt used the Giddens’s structuration theory to challenge the Neorealist
understanding of the relationship between the structure of the international system
and nation-states proposed by Kenneth Waltz. According to Kenneth Waltz, it is
the structure of the international system that influences behaviour of units (nation-
states or agents) and the other way round is not possible. On the contrary, Wendt
argues that nation-states and the structure of the international system are mutually
constitutive. Not only that, Wendt in his article, Anarchy is what States Make of
it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, puts more weight on agents (nation-
states) over the structure (of the international system) in terms of one’s influence
on the other. In other words, Wendt’s notion of agent-structure relationship is
contrary to that of Neorealist and Neoliberal understanding of the agent-structure
relationship.

7.4.4 International Anarchy

In IR, ‘anarchy’, is conceived as a social system that lacks legitimate institutions
of authority. During the grand debate (neo-neo debate) between Neorealism and
Neoliberalism, there was a consensus about the nature of anarchy. Both Neorealists
and Neoliberals held that the absence of a world government was the major
reason for international anarchy, which created a ‘state of nature’ outside nation-
states. Hence, Neorealists preferred a self-help mechanism to address international
anarchy. On the contrary, Neoliberals suggested interdependence for mitigating
anarchy and overcoming insecurity in the international system. However,
Constructivists have a different opinion about international anarchy. For instance,
Nicholas Onuf holds that the absence of a world government does not lead to
disorder and violence. Rather, there are three categories of rules (i.e. ‘instruction-
rules’, ‘directive-rules’, and ‘commitment-rules’) to constitute and regulate
international relations. Instruction-rules set forth general principles of international
relations (such as sovereignty, human rights, international law, etc.) and their
importance in ensuring peaceful international relations. Directive-rules have
provisions for protecting these principles and punishing offenders. For instance,
invading another nation-state is the violation of state ‘sovereignty’, and then the
international community will join together against the offender. Nation-states
entering into treaties on human rights and environment means they promise to
protect them, means commitment-rules play a significant role in international
relations. Thus, according to Onuf international relations are regulated by rules,
and international anarchy is a rule by no sovereign body, and therefore a rule by
everyone associated with the aforesaid rules. Wendt also negates the Neorealist
and Neoliberal assumption about international anarchy. According to Wendt, there
is no ‘logic’ of anarchy apart from the practices and interactions among nation- 97
Approaches state. Then the nature of anarchy is determined by ideational factors, practices,
and interactions among nation-states. The relationship among friends will be
very cordial, strangers will be lukewarm, and enemies will be hostile in the state
of anarchy. Thus, the outcome of anarchy will be shaped by the interactions and
shared understandings of nation-states.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) What are the Major assumptions of Constructivism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................

7.5 DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF

CONSTRUCTIVISM
According to Emanuel Adler, Constructivist approaches can be classified
according to the type of hermeneutics they use – objective or subjective; and the
cognitive interest they pursue – control or emancipation. According to these
criteria, Constructivism can be categorized into four main types: Modernist;
Modernist Linguistic or Rule-Oriented Constructivism; Radical; and Critical.

7.5.1 Modernist Constructivism

Modernist Constructivism is characterized by ‘objective hermeneutics’ with a
‘conservative interest in understanding and explaining social reality’.
Hermeneutics is a method of interpretation and the ‘objective hermeneutics’ is a
method proposed by Neo-Kantians in accordance with Immanuel Kant’s
understanding of knowledge production. According to Kant, even though the
knowledge is about objective reality, it is filtered through our consciousness. In
other words, our knowledge (about an object) is highly influenced by our
consciousness. Having been influenced by the Kantian notion of knowledge, the
Neo-Kantians argue that learning is a process of applying a priori forms our
minds on the object of study. Therefore, ‘objective hermeneutics’ seeks to
understand consciousness and motivations that lead to actions. It also relies on
cause and effect analysis and reconstruction of historical processes to understand
particular events. In other words, a particular event in history or a social fact is
the result of a concrete historical sequence and the effect of certain causes.
Building on ‘objective hermeneutics’ the modernist constructivists believe that
positivist methods are applicable in the study of developments in international
relations. Another characteristic of modernist constructivism is its conservative
interest in understanding and explaining social reality instead of human
emancipation. For instance, according to Alexander Wendt, the basic tenets of
Constructivism are “(a) structures of human association are determined primarily
by shared ideas rather than material forces, and (b) the identities and interests of
98 purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature”.
Here, the intention of Wendt is only to explain the basic tenets of Constructivism Constructivism
rather than human emancipation. In other words, Wendt does not express any
interest in using his understandings of norms, identities to improve the condition
of humanity. Wendt’s constructivism, also known as Structural Constructivism,
is the modified version of the international structure proposed by Neorealism
and Neoliberalism. According to Wendt, both Neorealism and Neoliberalism see
the structure of the international system through a material lens. For Neorealists,
the structure of the international system is featured by the distribution of material
capabilities. Neoliberals see structure as capabilities and institutions. However,
Wendt treats the structure as a distribution of ideas. In addition to Wendt, Emanuel
Adler, Peter Katzenstein, John Ruggie, Thomas Risse-Kappen, Michael Barnett,
Mlada Bukovansky, Jeffrey Checkel, Martha Finnemore and Jeffrey Legro are
also considered to be the major proponents of modernist constructivism. Modernist
constructivism is also known as traditional constructivism and neoclassical
constructivism.

7.5.2 Modernist Linguistic or Rule-Oriented Constructivism

Modernist Linguistic Constructivists such as Nicholas Onuf argue that
international relations are regulated by rules and these rules are constituted by
the structures of language. Due to this reason, Modernist Linguistic Constructivists
employ ‘subjective hermeneutics’, which is a belief that objective knowledge is
impossible since the ‘reality is the creation of language’. Onuf, further argues
that the rules in international relations are statements about ‘what should do’.
‘What’ informs the actors about the ‘standard behaviour’ according to each
situation in international relations. ‘Should’ is a requirement that each actor in
international relations has to follow that standard behaviour. These rules develop
from three categories of speech acts, according to their function. They are
respectively ‘instruction-rules’, ‘directive-rules’, and ‘commitment-rules’. Speech
acts can be simply defined as a linguistic performance in the form of a command,
requests, promises, etc. Here, the communicator through speech acts influences
the audience to do something. Like speech acts, the aforementioned rules seek to
influence international relations. Instruction-rules inform about values and ideas
or concepts in international relations, the importance of respecting them and the
consequences of disregarding them. For instance, the instruction-rule, ‘to respect
state sovereignty’, means nation-states in the international system have to respect
one another’s sovereignty. Disregarding sovereignty is a bad practice because it
may lead to war. Rules in the form of directive speech act or directive-rules say
what should be done and also sets forth specific consequences of the violation of
the rule. For instance, violation of the directive-rule, ‘respect state sovereignty’,
will have provisions to punish the offenders through military intervention and
trade sanctions. Commitment-rules are the promises made by nation-states to act
in a particular way in international relations. Nation-states conclude international
treaties to protect the environment and human rights are the best example for
commitment-rule.

The scholars associated with Modernist Linguistic Constructivism other than

Nicholas Onuf are Friedrich Kratochwil, Karen Litfin, Neta Crawford, Christian
Reus-Smit, Jutta Weldes, and Ted Hopf. Modernist Linguistic Constructivists
examine how discourse and speech acts construct social reality. Like Modernist
Constructivists, Modernist Linguistic Constructivists also hold ‘conservative
cognitive interests’- an interest only in the interpretation of developments in
international relations, rather than the emancipation of humanity. 99
Approaches 7.5.3 Radical Constructivism
Radical Constructivism is highly influenced by the works of German philosophers
such as Martin Heidegger (1889 -1976), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889—1951),
and French philosophers Michel Foucault (1926-1984) and Jacques Derrida
(1930-2004). Heidegger and Wittgenstein held that social facts are constituted
by structures of language; therefore, both of them challenged positivism and
objectivity in the study of social facts. At the same time, the focus of the
postmodernism suggested by Foucault was to expose the relations between power
and knowledge. Poststructuralism proposed by Derrida tried to deconstruct the
dominant readings of reality. Due to the influence of these philosophers, the
Radical Constructivists adopted a subjective hermeneutics to interpret social
reality, and unmask relationship between truth and power. The mainstream
theories of IR treat ‘anarchy’ as the permanent feature of international relations
and set forth measures to address this issue. However, Radical Constructivists
challenge this standpoint of mainstream theories. For instance, Richard Ashley
argues that anarchy is the result of nation-states’ reluctance to surrender their
sovereignty. By justifying anarchy, mainstream theories seek to retain the present
international system. Hence, Ashley accuses mainstream theorists of virtually
undermining the possibility of an alternative system. According to R.B.J. Walker,
the mainstream theories of IR have shrunk the scope of the discipline into a
prescription for managing national borders and Walker seeks to make IR more
inclusive by incorporating emerging issues of global importance. Walker’s Radical
Constructivism is also criticizing Realism for its pessimism. Walker argues that
theory and practice are intertwined with each other and theories set forth
prescriptions. Since Realism is pessimistic it can offer only cynicism and violent
practices. Feminist scholars such as Spike Peterson, J. Ann Tickner, Cynthia
Enloe, and Christine Sylvester also belong to the Radical Constructivism as they
question the masculine conceptualization of international relations and argue for
reforming core concepts in IR. For instance, the masculine conceptualization of
state, power, interest, and security shape the conduct of foreign policy in a
particular manner. For example, Realism narrates state with masculine
characteristics of sovereignty that emphasizes a hierarchical leader and the
capacity to wage war. According to Feminist scholars this conceptualization of
international relations shapes the practices of war and diplomacy. Therefore,
Feminist scholars seek to redefine and reform the concepts in IR. More than
understanding international relations, Radical Constructivists seek to emancipate
humankind from the oppressive forms of national and international systems.

7.5.4 Critical
Critical Constructivism combines the emancipatory mission with a pragmatist
approach and objective hermeneutics. This approach believes in the active role
of our mind in interpreting our experiences and observations and it holds that we
revise our beliefs according to our experience. It holds that theory is always
influenced by experiences and the former have to be made compatible with the
evidence. Andrew Linklater, Robert Cox, Heather Rae, and Paul Keal belong to
Critical Constructivism. Rather than explaining international relations ‘as it is’,
Critical Constructivists examining ‘how did it become that way’, and ‘how it
ought to be’. Further, the emancipatory mission drives them to move on to the
possibilities of transforming the present international order. Like Radical
Constructivists, Critical Constructivists also hold that the present international
100 system is not given. The present international system is the result of a historical
process, and this process has resulted in the inclusion and exclusion of certain Constructivism
people. Critical Constructivists like Andrew Linklater hold that an investigation
into this historical process is required for emancipating humanity. Robert Cox
also agrees with this standpoint. Heather Rae and Paul Keal are explaining how
the evolution of modern sovereign nation-state with exclusive territorial
jurisdiction is related to the exclusion of minority nonconformist identities from
the body politic.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What are the different versions of constructivism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................

7.6 LET US SUM UP

Constructivism as a theory in IR argues that international relations are constructed
through social practices. This standpoint is contrary to the assumption of
mainstream theories of IR that international relations are regulated by the structure
of the international system. One of the salient features of Constructivism is that
it emphasizes the social dimension of international relations. Instead of focusing
on material factors such as military capacity and economic resources,
Constructivism examines how ideational factors such as identity, norms, language,
etc., influence the developments in international relations. However,
Constructivism is also not free from criticism. Constructivism has been the target
of its critics due to its bankruptcy in predicting the future course of international
relations. Constructivists neither set forth a pessimistic picture of international
relations depicted by Neorealists, nor does it draw a rosier picture as done by the
optimistic Neoliberals. Rather Constructivists are agnostic about the future of
international relations by submitting that the future can either be conflictual,
peaceful or in any other forms, depending on the interactions of actors. Hence,
the critics dub Constructivism as an empty vessel, which focuses only on the
social construction of international relations, and due to this reason, many IR
scholars consider Constructivism as an approach rather than a theory. Even so,
one cannot underestimate the role of Constructivism in enhancing the scope IR
by bringing ideational factors into its fold. Constructivism offers an alternative
explanation of some of the core themes in international relations such as the
meaning of international anarchy, and it also suggests the prospects for change.

7.7 REFERENCES
Adler, Emanuel (2013). ‘Constructivism in International Relations: Sources,
Contributions, and Debates’, in Handbook of International Relations, Second
Edition, London: Sage.
101
Approaches Barnett, Michael (2011). ‘Social Constructivism’, in The Globalization of World
Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Fifth Edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fierke, K.M. (2013). ‘Constructivism’, in International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flockhart, Trine (2012). ‘Constructivism and Foreign Policy’, in Foreign Policy:
Theories, Actors, Cases, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurd, Ian (2008). ‘Constructivism’, in The Oxford Handbook of International
Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2010). Introduction to International
Relations: Theories and Approaches, Fourth Edition, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in
Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zehfuss, Maja (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics
of Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) Your answer should highlight following points
Argues that international relations are a social construction
States, alliances, and international institutions are the products of human
interaction
Is a three-layered understanding of international relations involving
metaphysics, social theory, and IR theory
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
1) Your answer should highlight following points
Social construction of reality in international relations
The influence of ideational factors
The relationship between the agents and structure
The meaning and nature of international anarchy
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
1) Your answer should highlight following
Modernist constructivism
Rule oriented constructivism
Radical constructivism and
Critical constructivism.
102