Constructivism and foreign policy

January 16, 2014

Overview

Rational vs Reflective theories

Why ‘Constructivism’?

Applied constructivism

The key aspects of constructivism

Constructivism meets foreign policy

Rational theories

Liberalism and realismThe two dominate theories

Much of the debate in traditional international politics has been between these two groups

Both sides make much of the differences between the two

Critical scholars argue that actually there isn’t much differences between them - really a very narrow debate

The “neo-neo” debateNeorealism Neoliberalism

Primary actor

State State (NGOs, MNCs)

Global system

anarchy anarchy

Role of institutions

Skeptical - can’t mitigate anarchy

Can help foster cooperation

Cooperation Skeptical - relative gains

Possible - absolute gains

Key focus Security Economy

Rational theories

These theories all share some key points:Problem-solving - take the world as it is

and try to explain it and make run as best as possible

Positivist - use “scientific” approach, to discover the “truth”, make strong distinction between facts and values

Reflective theoriesDiverse collection of theoretical

approaches, which include:Normative theoryCritical theoryPost-modernismFeminist theory

United more by what they reject of rational approaches than what they have in common

Reflective theories

Constitutive - the way we think about and approach the world helps create the world, so can’t just observe the world in a neutral wayE.g. the belief that states are naturally

aggressive helps create that reality - become self-confirming (constitutive)

Reflective theories

Challenge distinction rational approaches make between facts and valuesLimits the study of politics - only how things

work, but not asking why they are that wayNaturalizes the current system - no alternativeAll theories reflect certain values, none are

value neutral, by trying to make a distinction between facts and values, rational theories are putting the values embedded in them beyond discussion - hidden

Constructivism

Constructivism as an attempt to bridge the two camps

Attempt to take some of ideas of reflective approaches and apply them to more rational theories

So get Wendt making the argument that anarchy is what states make of it

Why constructivism?

Failure of mainstream theories to predict end

of Cold War and changing nature of global

system creates space for new approaches to

become more mainstream

Constructivism appealing because not that far

from mainstream approaches

Constructivism does not directly challenge

either realism or liberalism,

Instead offer alternative understanding to some

of the most central themes in international

relations.

Can see the idea of trying to bridge between

rational and reflective

Three cultures of anarchy

Wendt - not just one way of looking at anarchy

Conflictual - based on self-help of realistsCompetitive - based on rivalry of some

liberal perspectivesFriendly - based on cooperation

See Box 4.1 p.82, Ego & Alter on a desert island, as illustration

Key point - both anarchy and culture can change

Changing culture isn’t easy because the system is self-reinforcingE.g. if many see anarchy as a conflictual they

will act in a way that makes it hard to see alternatives

Using constructivism

Can help shed light on how old

practices of rivalry and war-making may

be changed through the

institutionalization, of new identities,

interests and practices, e.g. (European

security).

According to constructivists, the only reason

why we might be in a self-help system is

because practice made it that way.

So this means that practice could also ‘un-

make’ a ‘conflictual’ culture.

NATO and the EU could play important roles in

these ‘un-makings’.

Need to understand how agents’ shared

knowledge, identities and interests are inter-

linked and may contribute to changing deeply

embedded practices and structural

conditions.

But, to do this we need a fundamental break

with some of the realist and liberal

assumptions about how the world works.

The essence of constructivism

The four key constructivist propositions :

a belief in the social construction of reality

and the importance of social facts

a focus on ideational as well as material

structures and the importance of norms and

rules

The essence of constructivism

a focus on the role of identity in shaping

political action and the importance of ‘logics

of action’

a belief in the mutual ‘constitutiveness’ of

agents and structure, and a focus on practice

and action

Social construction of reality

Facts can have different shared meaningsE.g. French nuclear warhead vs North Korean

nuclear warhead

Some facts aren’t really facts at all, instead are social facts - only appear as facts through common agreement, reinforced through social practiceE.g. money

Social construction of reality

Argue that many of the most important concepts and understandings of international relations are social facts

Over time social facts become reified through practice and routine, so appear objective and independent from those that constructed them.

Thus, change is difficult

Ideational and material structures

Ideas matterIdeas language, rules, symbols etc all

shape how we interpret the material world and the actions of others

Structures are codified in rules and normsStructural change is possible by changing

norms

Identity, interests and ‘logics of action’Identity is important because it is tied to

particular interests and preferences.This means the social, cultural, historical and

political contexts in which agents operate becomes important

Logics of actionLogic of consequence and logic of

appropriateness

Agents, structure and practice

Agents and structures are mutually constitutedAgents are influenced by structures (e.g. states

influenced by anarchy)But agents also influence the structure through

their practices

So…Change is possible but difficult

Constructivism meets foreign policy

NATO’s post-Cold War roles could be defined as:

still keeping member states safe from threats Shift from protecting territory to security

still maintaining a common identity, shared knowledge and shared understandings among all NATO’s members Socialization of new members

still engaging in transforming relationships and practices between NATO members and former adversaries

Conclusion

Constructivism can be seen as an attempt bridge between rational and reflective theories

Looks at the role of things like identity, interests, norms and how they shape actions and understanding of the world

Provide important alternative perspectives for analyzing foreign policy