Scribd
Upload
180 views2 pages

Constructivism On International Relations

Constructivism sees reality and knowledge as socially constructed. It argues that ideas and beliefs shape material structures like weapons and the international system of states. Constructivists believe that identities and interests are formed through interactions between states and can change over time. Norms of appropriate behavior for states develop based on their identities and influence actions in a "logic of appropriateness." Constructivism differs from realism in seeing anarchy as defined by shared ideas among states rather than just material forces.

Uploaded by

Vince Abear
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
180 views2 pages

Constructivism On International Relations

Constructivism sees reality and knowledge as socially constructed. It argues that ideas and beliefs shape material structures like weapons and the international system of states. Constructivists believe that identities and interests are formed through interactions between states and can change over time. Norms of appropriate behavior for states develop based on their identities and influence actions in a "logic of appropriateness." Constructivism differs from realism in seeing anarchy as defined by shared ideas among states rather than just material forces.

Uploaded by

Vince Abear
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Constructivism

Constructivism sees the world, and what we can know about the world, as socially
constructed. This view refers to the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge that
are also called ontology and epistemology in research language. Alexander Wendt
(1995) offers an excellent example that illustrates the social construction of reality when
he explains that 500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States
than five North Korean nuclear weapons. These identifications are not caused by the
nuclear weapons (the material structure) but rather by the meaning given to the material
structure (the ideational structure). It is important to understand that the social
relationship between the United States and Britain and the United States and North
Korea is perceived in a similar way by these states, as this shared understanding (or
intersubjectivity) forms the basis of their interactions. The example also shows that
nuclear weapons by themselves do not have any meaning unless we understand the
social context. It further demonstrates that constructivists go beyond the material reality
by including the effect of ideas and beliefs on world politics. This also entails that reality
is always under construction, which opens the prospect for change. In other words,
meanings are not fixed but can change over time depending on the ideas and beliefs
that actors hold.

Constructivists argue that agency and structure are mutually constituted, which implies
that structures influence agency and that agency influences structures. Agency can be
understood as the ability of someone to act, whereas structure refers to the international
system that consists of material and ideational elements. Returning to Wendt’s example
discussed above, this means that the social relation of enmity between the United
States and North Korea represents the intersubjective structure (that is, the shared
ideas and beliefs among both states), whereas the United States and North Korea are
the actors who have the capacity (that is, agency) to change or reinforce the existing
structure or social relationship of enmity. This change or reinforcement ultimately
depends on the beliefs and ideas held by both states. If these beliefs and ideas change,
the social relationship can change to one of friendship. This stance differs considerably
from that of realists, who argue that the anarchic structure of the international system
determines the behaviour of states. Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that
‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992). This means that anarchy can be
interpreted in different ways depending on the meaning that actors assign to it.

Another central issue to constructivism is identities and interests. Constructivists argue


that states can have multiple identities that are socially constructed through interaction
with other actors. Identities are representations of an actor’s understanding of who they
are, which in turn signals their interests. They are important to constructivists as they
argue that identities constitute interests and actions. For example, the identity of a small
state implies a set of interests that are different from those implied by the identity of a
large state. The small state is arguably more focused on its survival, whereas the large
state is concerned with dominating global political, economic and military affairs. It
should be noted, though, that the actions of a state should be aligned with its identity. A
state can thus not act contrary to its identity because this will call into question the
validity of the identity, including its preferences. This issue might explain why Germany,
despite being a great power with a leading global economy, did not become a military
power in the second half of the twentieth century. Following the atrocities of Adolf
Hitler’s Nazi regime during the Second World War, German political identity shifted from
one of militarism to pacifism due to unique historical circumstances.

Social norms are also central to constructivism. These are generally defined as ‘a
standard of appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity’ (Katzenstein 1996, 5).
States that conform to a certain identity are expected to comply with the norms that are
associated with that identity. This idea comes with an expectation that some kinds of
behaviour and action are more acceptable than others. This process is also known as
‘the logic of appropriateness’, where actors behave in certain ways because they
believe that this behaviour is appropriate (March and Olsen 1998, 951–952). To better
understand norms, we can identify three types: regulative norms, constitutive norms and
prescriptive norms. Regulative norms order and constrain behaviour; constitutive
norms create new actors, interests or categories of action; and prescriptive
norms prescribe certain norms, meaning there are no bad norms from the perspective
of those who promote them (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). It is also important to note
that norms go through a ‘lifecycle of norms’ before they can get accepted. A norm only
becomes an expected behaviour when a critical mass of relevant state actors adopt it
and internalise it in their own practices. For example, constructivists would argue that
the bulk of states have come together to develop climate change mitigation policies
because it is the right thing to do for the survival of humanity. This has, over decades of
diplomacy and advocacy, become an appropriate behaviour that the bulk of citizens
expect their leaders to adhere to. Liberals, on the other hand, might reject the notion of
climate change politics in favour of continued economic growth and pursuing innovative
scientific solutions, while realists might reject it due to the damage that climate policies
may do to shorter-term national interests.

You might also like