Theories of International Relations: Constructivism

Theories of International
Relations
Constructivism
Introduction
Neorealism and Neoliberal Institutionalism
dominated the 1980s and much of the 1990s too.
Both understand states as having interests or a
purpose, given by structure of anarchy.
Neoliberals thought states can mitigate anarchy by
creating institutions that would discourage
cheating and encourage cooperation for mutual
gain. Neorealists are doubtful about this.
Constructivism breaks with the ideas of mainstream
theories and argues that international relations is
a product of human action.
Challenging State-
Centrism
Both neo-realism and neo-liberal
institutionalism assume that states have fixed
interests. Material forces such as distribution of
power constrain states to pursue those
interests.
Constructivist scholars instead emphasized
ideational forces such as ideas, knowledge,
norms, and rules to understand the origins of
states interests
Constructivism is based on the belief that
societies shape the identities and interests
of individuals. Thus, it conceptualizes
international politics not as a system but as a
society
Challenging State-
Centrism
Neorealism does not accept that ideas and norms define
interests.Neoliberalism argues that states might willingly
construct norms and institutions to enhance their long-
term interests.
Neither neorealism nor neoliberalism accept that
ideas and norms construct how states define their
interests.
Neorealism and Neoliberalism share idea that the actors
(states) are given. Their interests exist prior to
interaction with each other. Relations do not shape
interests.
The world is understood as a strategic space, not as
society. So states are rational, not socialized into norms
or ways of behaviour.
Any cooperation for mutual gain does not change
the identity or interests of states.
Challenging State-
Centrism
Constructivists interested in the origins
of state interests or preferences,
and the idea that these change over
time. Variation in the identity of
states is crucial to them.
Hence, anarchy is not the
automatic mechanism as Neorealists
and Neoliberals argue.
For Constructivists, the sovereign state
and anarchy are something humans
have made.
John Ruggie challenges
Kenneth Waltz
Ruggie focused on the centrality of
ideas and norms in international politics.
In his review essay (1983) of Waltzs
Theory of International Politics, Ruggie
challenged Waltz argument that the
structure of the international system
is anarchy.
He criticized that Waltz focused on self-
help logic, distribution power and did
not differentiate between states.
Ruggie instead focused on differentiation.
Richard Ashley challenges
neorealism
He argued that neorealism is so focused on the
state that it cannot see a world composed of
non-state actors. It treats states as having
fixed interests and thus cannot see how their
interests are created.
It is committed to materialism that it
constructs an artificial view of society that is
completely devoid of ideas, beliefs, and
rules.
It fails to see that basic concepts of
international relations such as sovereignty
is socially and culturally produced.
Alexander Wendt introduces
Structure and Agency
problem
For Neoliberals and Neorealists, states pursue their
interests within the constraints of an anarchic
system.
Wendt questions this view of the relationship
between structure (the system) and agency
(states). For him, structures do not just
constrain pre-given agents. They also help to
give agents identities and interests, to
make them.
Agents not just subject to structures. Agents
can make and transform structures too.
The normative structures can create agents
and the agents can create and transform the
structure.
Friedrich Kratochwil
He offered one of the first systemic treatments of
rules and norms in IR.
He distinguished between regulative rules and
constitutive rules.
Regulative rules are those rules that regulate already
existing activities. Rules for the road determine how
to drive or WTOs rules regulate trade.
Constitutive rules do not merely regulate but in
fact create the possibility for new activities. For
instance, the rules of sovereignty not only regulate
state practices but also make possible the very idea of a
sovereign state. The important point is how actors
interpret and give meaning to these rules.
The Rise of Constructivism:
Nicholas Onuf
Constructivism is a term coined by Nicholas Onuf in

his book The World of Our Making (1989).
Onuf criticized mainstream theories for not
predicitng the end of cold war. He argued that due
to their commitment to individualism and materialism,
they failed to see the revolutionary ideas to
transform the organizations of world politics and
state identities.
For Onuf, the mainstream theories also would not
predict how the future international system
would look like after the end of cold war.
For him, the distribution power would not predict
whether the US would be a global hegemon or
would prefer multilateralism and cooperation
with other states.
End of the Cold war: who
are we?
Constructivists argue that states began to
debate their national identity (who are we,
where do we belong?) in order to determine
their interests and the desired
international order.
The end of the cold war undermined the
prominence of traditional security themes
and thus neorealisms dominant position
in the literature. The rise of non-security
issues such as human rights contributed
to the development of constructivism.
IR as a social construction
States, alliances or international institutions
are examples of social phenomenon in IR.
Social phenomena do not exist independent
of human meaning and action
Focus on change: Idea of social construction
suggests difference across context not a single
objective reality (e.g. end of Cold War
questioned regularities in world politics;
transition from conflict to cooperation)
Central themes
Social dimensions: Emphasis on norms, rules
and language and how material and ideational
factors combine in the construction of different
possibilities and outcomes. The focus is on the
diffusion and internationalization of norms
(e.g. spread of liberal democracy)
Processes of interaction: Actors make choices

in the process of interacting with others
bringing historically, culturally and
politically distinct realities into being
(world of our making)
Constructivism is a diverse
theory
Although constructivism is a diverse
theory, they are unified on the
argument that ideas define
international structure that constructs
the identities, interests, and foreign
policy practices of states. They also
agree that non-state actors reproduce
that structure and transform it.
Constructivism is about human
consciousness and its role in
international life.
Concrete facts and Social
facts
Concrete facts such as flowers, oceans,
exist independent of human agreement
or deny their existence.
Social facts on the other hand are
dependent on human agreement.
Money, terrorism, human rights,
and sovereignty are social facts.
Social facts are ideas, norms, rules that
we hold collectively to be true.
Social Facts
Although social facts are dependent on
human agreement, we treat them as
objective facts and thus as constraints on
our action.
States are social facts for Constructivists.
They are ideas or mental structures.
Material facts matter, but human design and
intent shapes material objects and give specific
meaning and use within a context.
The social construction of reality
influences how we see the world and also
how we see what constitutes acceptable
action.
Alternative explanation for
power
The fact that concepts such as sovereignty or
human rights are fixed through politics and that
once these meanings are fixed they have
consequences for the ability to determine the
actions of people suggests an alternative
explanation for power.
Most IR theorists treat power as the ability of
one state to compel another state to do what
it otherwise would not. They assume that
means of power such as military technology
and economic power force states to alter their
behavior.
Constructivists argue that power is not just
material, but also ideational.
Alternative explanation for
power
When human rights activists name and shame, they
embrass law-breaking governments and try to
change their behavior by showing how their
behavior is not consistent with existing legal norms.
Moreover, the effects of power go beyond the ability

to change the behavior. Power also includes how
knowledge, fixing of meanings, and the construction
of identities allocate different rewards and
capacities:
If development is defined as per capita income then

states and some activities namely industrialization are
priviliged; however if development is defined as basic
needs, then other actors namely peasants or women
become important.

Theories of International Relations: Constructivism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories of International Relations: Constructivism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories of International Relations: Constructivism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories of International

Constructivism is a term coined by Nicholas Onuf in

Processes of interaction: Actors make choices

Moreover, the effects of power go beyond the ability

If development is defined as per capita income then

You might also like