IR 501 Lecture Notes Constructivist Theories of IR

IR 501 Lecture Notes Constructivist Theories of

IR

Dr. Bezen Balamir Coş[email protected]

Text

Constructivist Approaches in IR

This lecture gives you an overview of Constructivist approaches to international relations theory. Constructivists‘ forerunners are located in the 1980s and in a series of critical reactions to mainstream IR theory in the US, namely neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism. These theories as we discussed here emphasized the distribution of power and the states‘ pursuit of power and wealth, and minimized the power of ideas. Constructivism countered by highlighting how ideas define and can transform the organization of world politics, shape the identity and interests of states, and determine what counts as legitimate action.


• Although initially given a cold reception, Constructivism quickly gained credibility and popularity in the 1990s due to the end of the cold war, the enduring insights of sociological and critical theory, and the ability to generate novel accounts of world politics. Although there are important differences among constructivists they share several commitments that generate a distinctive approach for understanding how the world is made and re-made through human action and intervention.


•The 1980s were dominate by the neos. Notwithstanding their substantive differences, neo-realism and neo-liberalism shared 2 fundamental assumptions: Both assumed that states have innate and fixed interests and are constrained in their ability to further those interests because of material forces such as geography, technology and the distribution of power. Critics drew from sociological and critical theory to argue for greater attention to ideational forces such as ideas, knowledge, norms, and rules in order to deepen our interpretation of the origins of states’ interests, and the organization of world politics. these claims later became part of Constructivism’s intellectual bases.

Origins of Constructivism

•can be traced back to the 1980s.

Waltz’s realism is clear that state interests suffocated any possibility that ideas, norms, or values might shape state behavior. He argued that the structure of the international system has 3 elements:


•anarchy (the absence of a supranational authority)

•functional non-differentiation of the units (because anarchy creates a self-help system, all states had to be self-reliant and safeguard their security)

•the distribution of power


Neo-liberal institutionalism responded neo-realism’s pessimistic view of international system. They claim that states had the capacity to cooperate on a range of issues. States did not always have conflicting interets; they often had convergent interests and realized that they might be able to cooperate in ways that improved their lives.


Neo-realism denies that ideas and norms can trump interests,and neo-liberal institutionalism recognizes that states might willingly construct norms and institutions to regulate their behavior.


1980s was characterized not only by the domination of neos but also by a growing interest in social theory. That is, how to conceptualize the structure and its organizing principles, the actors and the rules that regulate their relations. Neo-realism & neo-liberalism adopted an individualist approach to states as they examined how the international structure constrained the ability of states to pursue their interests.


However, various scholars began to utilize alternative social theories to challenge these claims. At this point the critiques did not come from a single school. Some draw from sociological theory, emphasizing how structures not only constrain but also constitutes the identities and interest of actors.


Others drew from critical theory and the general interest in uncovering the power behind seemingly value-neutral concepts and recovering the interpretations and meanings that actors give to their activities. These scholars were daring international relations to imagine how the structure of international politics constructs the identities and interest of states, to recover the meanings that states give their activities, and to consider how relations between self-reflective states can transform the structure of world politics.


There were many important contributions in the 1980s, but arguably 4 were most influential for establishing Constructivism’s theoretical orientation & conceptual vocabulary:

4 Scholars influencing

ConstructivismJohn Ruggie: directed his crtique at Waltz’s concept of structure. Ruggie directed his attention at the second element, differentiation. The state system, he observed, has been organized according to alternative principles. What marked the movement from the feudal to the modern state-system was the shift from heteronomy and overlapping authorities to states sovereignty and the centralization of authority in the modern state. Ruggie argued that to understand international change and transformation required a consideration of the growing density of interactions among actors located at the inter-state, transnational, and domestic level.


ConstructivismRichard Ashley: critical of neo-realism. Ashley argues that realists are so fixated by the state and cannot see a world populated with non-state actors. Realists treats state as having fix interests and cannot see how their interests are created, constructed, and transformed by global-historical forces. Thirdly, Ashley acused realists not be able to see how global-historical forces are responsible for creating the interets, identities and capabilities of states. Realism, as Ashley criticized constructs an artificial view of society that is compşetely devoid of ideas, beliefs, and rules. Drawing from post-structural and critical theory, Ashley’s devastating critique of the understandings of neo-realism revealed not only its limitations but also the power of post-structural and critical theory.


ConstructivismAlexander Wendt: introduced IR scholarsto the agent-structure problem and its relationship to international relations. The question is how should IR scholars conceptualize the relationship between agents and structures? Wendt argued that Waltz failed to se how structures do more than constrain agents; they also construct or constitute the identities and interests of agents. Employing Anthony Giddens’ concept of structuration, Wendt argued that an international normative structure shapes the identities and interests of states, and thourough their practices and interactions states re-create that very structure. This points to the importance of the actions of states for understanding what sustains and transforms normative structures. Norms do not operate behind the back of actors; actors determine what they are. Frequently actors reproduce these norms without much thought, acting reflexively as a consequence of taken-for-granted knowledge, habits and routines.


ConstructivismYet at other times they self-consciosly attempt to construct new norms that might affect not only the incentives for certain behavior but also the very structure itself. They are constrained by the underlying structure and must overcome resistance by other actors who either have a vested interest in the underlying rules, a prefered alternative, or just cannot imagine anything else. Yet no structure is so determining that it eliminates the capacity for critical reflection and the possibility that agents might knowingly attempt to transform the structure. Wendt expertly used sociological theory to expose conceptual problems in contemporary theorizing and to identify tractable solutions.


ConstructivismFriedrich Kratochwil: Drwing from legal, sociological and linguistic theories Kratochwil offered one of the first treatments of rules and norms in international relations. He introduced IR scholars to the distinction between regulative and constitutive rules. Regulative rules are those rules that regulate already existing activities. Rules for the road determine how to drive, The WTO rules regulate trade. Constitutive rules however do not merely regulate but in fact create the possibility for these activities. The rules of sovereignty not only regulate state practices but also make possible the idea of a sovereign state. He also advised to adopt interpretive methods to recover how actors bring meaning to and understand these norms. He argues that rules should not be treated as naturally existing because they are created and revised through practice.


Constructivism

By drawing from critical and sociological theory these scholars opened a space for an alternative research program in IR.

The Rise of Constructivism

The term Constructivism was coined by Nicholas Onuf in his book ‘The World of Our Making’ (1989). Several background factors affected Constructivism’s rise in the 1990s.

•the end of Cold war. Neos commitment to individualism and materialism meant that they could not begin to grasp what appaered to reside at the heart of this stunning development: the revolutionary impact of ideas to transform the organization of world politics and state identities. Nor did these approaches provide insight into what might come next. The end of cold war triggered national debates over what were those interests which were tied to a consideration of their national identity. States had become actively debating about identity. They had asked wuestions of who are we and where do we belong in order to determine their interests and the desired regional and international order.


• To understand the dissolution and creation of new international orders required, so it seemed, a constructivist sensibility. Finally, the end of cold war clipped the prominence of traditional security themes, neo-realism’s comparative advantage, and mixed the importance of non-traditional security issues, transnationalism, human rights and other subjects that seemingly played to Constructivism’s strengths.


• Constructivists also convinced the mainstream in the US that they were committed to science. At first many mainstream scholars labeled constructivism as anti-science. and post-modern. In response, constructivists worked to widen and modernize the concept of social science to show careful attention to the logic of inquiry.

• Constructivism had gained considerable intellectual insights from critical theory and post-structural approaches but they held the middle ground because they could address these crucial issues within social science (Adler 2000)


• Constructivism’s reliance on sociological theory also furthered its rise to respectability. The debates in IR regarding how to conceptualize the relationship between states and the international system had been played in sociology for over a century as it debated how to conceptualize the relationship between the individual & society.


• Max Weber’s argument that culture shaped the meanings and signifacance that actors gave to their actions.

• George Mead’s analysis of interactions between

individuals through symbols • were resurrected by constructivists and applied

into Constructivist debates with neo-realism and neo-liberalism.


Ultimately, constructivism’s success derived from its ability to further empirical analysis in matters of central concern to neo realism and neo-liberal institutionalism. Peter Katzenstein’s The Culture of National Security (19969 challenged standard neo-realist claims in a series of critical areas including allience patterns, military intervention, arms racing. Great power transformation and demonstrated how identity and norms shape state interests were incorporated to generate superior explanations.

Constructivism• Constructivism is a social theory and not a substantive

theory of international relations. Social theory is broadly concerned with how to conceptualize the relationship between agents and structures and substantive theory offers specific claims and hypothesis about patterns in world politics. Constructivism is best compared to Rational Choice. Rational Choice is social theory that offers a framework for understanding the relationship between actors and their environment. RC offers no claims about the actual patterns of world politics. Like RC constructivism is a social theory that is broadly concerned with the relationship between agent & structure.

Constructivism• While constructivism might appear to be a monolith theory,

there exist divergences and differences among constructivist scholars. Some prioritize agents and others structures. Some focus on inter-state politics and others transnationalism. Different empirical puzzles drive different approaches, and different labels: neoclassical, modernist, post-modern, naturalistic, thick, thin, linguistic, narrative etc.

Still there is unity within such diversity. “Constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life” (Ruggie 1998:56). This suggests a commitment to a form of idealism. the world is defined by material and ideational forces. these ideas are social. Our mental maps are shaped by collectively held ideas such as knowledge, symbols, language and rules. In this way constructivism also accepts some form of holism or structuralism.

ConstructivismThe world is social and cannot be decomposed to the properties of already existing actors. Shared ideas, then shape the organization of world politics. Idealism and holism according to Wendt (1999) are constructivism’s core commitments. The emphasis on idealism does not mean a rejection of material reality. Instead, it recognizes that the meaning and construction of that material reality is dependent on ideas and interpretation. The balance of power does not objectively exists out there waiting to be discovered; instead states themselves debate what is the balance of power, what is its meaning, and how they should respond. Nor does the emphasis on holism deny agency.

Constructivism

• Nor does the emphasis on holism deny agency. Instead it recognizes that agents have some autonomy and their practices and interactions help to construct, reproduce, and transform those structures.

Conceptual Vocabulary

• Social construction of reality: - emphasis on socially constructed nature of actors and their identities

- knowledge, that is, symbols, rules, concepts, categories, and meanings shapes how individuals constructs and interpret their world.

- reality is historically produced, and culturally bound knowledge enables individuals to construct and give meaning to reality.


• Social facts: are dependent on human agreement and are taken for granted. Money, refugees, terrorism, human rights, and sovereignty are social facts.


• The social construction of reality concerns not only how we see the world but also how we see ourselves, define our interests, and determine what constitutes acceptable action. The concept of structuration captures how the underlying normative structures shapes the identities and interests of actors.


• Logic of consequences & the logic of appropriateness: The logic of consequences attributes human behavior to anticipated costs and benefits of particular action, mindful that other actors are doing just the same. This logic highlights how action is driven by an actor’s calculation of how a particular strategy is likely to further their preferences. The logic of appropriateness, on the other hand, suggests that actors are rule following. They determine their course of action depending on a sense of self and what is appropriate for the situation.

Although history is path dependent, there are contingencies, historical accidents, the conjunctions of material and ideational forces and human interventions that can force history to jump the proverbial train tracks. The events of 9/11 and the response by Bush arguably transformed the direction of world politics. This interest in possible and counterfactual worlds works against historical determinism. When Wendt (1992) famously argued that ‘anarch is what states make of it’ he was not suggesting that wishing the world was different would make it so, but rather calling attention to how existing beliefs and practices make the world and the organization of world politics.

Alternative ways of thinking power

Most IR theorists treat power as the ability of one state to compel another state to do something. Constructivists do not deny the importance of power but mainly they are interested in the effect of power. According to constructivist view, power goes beyond the ability to change behavior. Power also includes how knowledge, the fixing of meanings and the construction of identities allocate differential rewards and capacities. Power also exists when identities and interests are constructed in ways that benefit some to the disadvantage of others.

Interdependence

According to constructivists strategic interaction occurs in a cultural context. Strategic interaction exists when the ability of actors to achieve their goals is dependent on the behavior of others. In such a situation of interdependence they must incorporate the strategies of others before determining their strategy, and are likely to try and influence their rival strategies in order to further their goals.

Key Points• Constructivists are concerned with

human consciousness, treat ideas as structural factors, consider the dynamic relations between ideas and material forces as a consequence of how actors interpret their material reality, and are interested in how agents produce structures and how structures produce agents.

Key Points• Knowledge shapes how actors interpret

and construct their social reality

• The normative structure shapes the identity and interests of actors such as states

• Social facts such as sovereignty and human rights exist because of human agreement

Key Points• Social rules are regulative, regulating already existing

activities, and constitutive, making possible and defining those activities

• Social construction denaturalizes what is taken for granted, asks questions about the origins of what is now accepted as a fact of life and considers the alternative pathways that might have produced and can produce alternative worlds

• Power can be understood not only as the ability one actor to get another actor to do what they would not do otherwise, but also as the production of identities and interests that limit the ability to control their fate.

Key Points

• Although the meanings that actors bring to their activities are shaped by the underlying culture, meanings are not always fixed but are central feature of politics.

Documents

IR 501 Lecture Notes Constructivist Theories of IR