Introducing Constructivism in International Relations Theory

Written by Sarina Theys

This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all
formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below.

Introducing Constructivism in International Relations

SARINA THEYS, FEB 23 2018

This is an excerpt from International Relations Theory – an E-IR Foundations beginner’s textbook.
Download your free copy here.

Constructivism’s arrival in IR is often associated with the end of the Cold War, an event that the traditional theories
such as realism and liberalism failed to account for. This failure can be linked to some of their core tenets, such as
the conviction that states are self-interested actors who compete for power and the unequal power distribution
among states which defines the balance of power between them. By having a dominant focus on the state, traditional
theories have not opened much space to observe the agency of individuals. After all, it was the actions of ordinary
people that ensured the end of the Cold War, not those of states or international organisations. Constructivism
accounts for this issue by arguing that the social world is of our making (Onuf 1989). Actors (usually powerful ones,
like leaders and influential citizens) continually shape – and sometimes reshape – the very nature of international
relations through their actions and interactions.

The basics of 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’

E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 1/4

(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.

Although all constructivists share the above-mentioned views and concepts, there is considerable variety within
constructivism. Conventional constructivists ask ‘what’-type questions – such as what causes an actor to act . They
believe that it is possible to explain the world in causal terms and are interested in discovering the relationships
between actors, social norms, interests and identities. Conventional constructivists assume, for instance, that actors
act according to their identity and that it is possible to predict when this identity becomes visible or not. When an
identity is seen to be under- going changes, conventional constructivists investigate what factors caused which
aspects of a state’s identity to change. Critical constructivists, on the other hand, ask ‘how’-type questions such as
how do actors come to believe in a certain identity . Contrary to conventional constructivists, they are not interested
in the effect that this identity has. Instead, critical constructivists want to reconstruct an identity – that is, find out what
are its component parts – which they believe are created through written or spoken communication among and
between peoples. Language plays a key role for critical constructivists because it constructs, and has the ability to
change, social reality.

Most constructivists, however, position themselves between these two more extreme ends of the spectrum.

Constructivism and Bhutan’s national interests

Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom located in the Himalayas. The material structural conditions are reflected in its
population of approximately 745,000, a territory that amounts to 38,394 square kilometres, a weak economy and a

E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 2/4

very small military. On top of this, Bhutan shares a national border with the two major powers in Asia: China in the
north and India in the south. Bhutan’s location is geographically sensitive as the country serves as a buffer state
between these major powers, which perceive each other as rivals rather than friends. In addition to this, the Chinese
leadership claimed, after it annexed Tibet in the 1950s, that Bhutan’s territory was also part of its mainland. To date
there remains an ongoing border dispute between Bhutan and China and there have been reports that the Chinese
army has made several incursions into Bhutan. Likewise, India has had a hand in Bhutan’s foreign policy. Article 2 of
the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty (1949) notes that ‘Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice of India in regard to
its external relations.’ Although this Article was revised in 2007, commentators have reported that India still holds a
degree of influence over Bhutan.

From a realist perspective, one would argue that Bhutan is in an unfavourable position as it is hindered by its
geographical location and cannot compete for power with its neighbours. The preservation of its national sovereignty
would likely depend on the outcome of the greater competition between China and India. A constructivist view, on the
other hand, would argue that these structural conditions do not necessarily constrain Bhutan’s ability to pursue its
national interests since they are not the only conditions that influence state behaviour: the meaning given to these
structural conditions also matters. For example, when Tibet was annexed by China, Bhutan felt threatened. As a
result, it closed its border in the north and turned to India, its neighbour in the south. From that moment onward,
Bhutan perceived China as a potential threat and India as a friend. To date, Bhutan and India perceive each other as
friends whereas Bhutan has no official relations with China. These social relationships represent the ideational
structure that originated from the meaning given to the material structure. It is important to note, however, that the
social relationships are subject to change depending on the ideas, beliefs and actions of Bhutan, India and China.
For example, an agreement on the border dispute between China and Bhutan could change how both countries
perceive each other. This change might lead to the establishment of an official relationship, the nature of which is
friendship rather than enmity. A constructivist is well placed to detect and understand these changes since their
object of enquiry focuses on the social relationships between states.

Bhutan has also developed a distinctive national identity that differentiates it from its larger neighbours. This identity
projects Bhutan as ‘the last surviving independent Mahayana Buddhist Kingdom in the world’ (Bhutan Vision 2020,
24–25). The usage of the word ‘independent’ refers directly to Bhutan’s national interest – the preservation of its
national sovereignty. Bhutan’s national identity is socially constructed through a Bhutanisation process that started in
the 1980s, when the fourth king of Bhutan introduced the ‘One Nation, One People’ policy. This policy demanded the
observance of a code of conduct known as Driglam Namzhag. This code of conduct is built upon strict observance of
vows – such as strong kinship loyalty, respect for one’s parents, elders and superiors, and mutual cooperation
between rulers and ruled. It also reinforced the rules for wearing a national dress – the gho for men and the kira for
women. In addition to this, Dzongkha was selected as the national language of Bhutan. The Driglam Namzhag can
be thought of as a regulative norm because the aim of the policy is to direct and constrain behaviour. For example,
although Bhutan’s national identity suggests that the Bhutanese comprise one homogeneous group, Bhutan is
actually a multi- ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual country. There are three main ethnic groups: the Ngalongs,
the Sharchhops and the Lhotshampas, who are of Nepali descent. Of these, the Ngalongs and the Sharchhops are
Buddhists, while the Lhotshampas are mostly Hindus who speak the Nepali language. The policy had severe
consequences for the Lhotshampas as Nepali was no longer taught in schools and people who could not prove
residence in Bhutan prior to 1958 were classified as non-nationals. Consequently, thousands of Lhotshampas were
expelled from Bhutan in the 1990s. Thus, the code of conduct is used by the Bhutanese authorities to create cultural
unity and to stimulate citizens to reflect upon their cultural distinctiveness, which is paramount in creating a national
identity.

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, a norm needs to go through a lifecycle before it becomes established. In the case
of Bhutan, we can witness the first phase, norm emergence, in the creation of the Driglam Namzhag by the
Bhutanese authorities. The second phase, norm acceptance, required Bhutanese citizens to accept the Driglam
Namzhag, including the national dress and Dzongkha as the national language. Once this acceptance occurred,
norm internalisation occurs. The completion of this process entails that the behaviour of the Bhutanese citizens is
circumscribed by these norms and practices. This circumscription also shows the constitutive nature of the Driglam
Namzhag, which created new actors – that is, Bhutanese citizens who act and behave according to specific rules.

E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 3/4

We can see, for instance, that these norms and practices are regulated to date. For example, Bhutanese citizens are
obliged to wear the national dress during national events and when they attend school or work. This regulation is, as
explained earlier, important as the behaviour of a state and its citizens should comply with the norms that are
associated with Bhutan’s national identity. The regulation also signifies that these norms are perceived as something
good by the Bhutanese authorities, which underlines the prescriptive nature of norms.

Members of the Bhutanese elite have also created a second identity, which projects Bhutan as a leader in advancing
a holistic and sustainable development paradigm. This identity is based on Bhutan’s development philosophy, Gross
National Happiness (GNH), which criticises the well-known Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approach for being
solely focused on the economy of a state. Instead, GNH promotes a balance between material wellbeing and the
spiritual needs of the mind. It is implemented and embedded in Bhutan’s political and educational systems. Members
of the Bhutanese elite have predominantly used the United Nations as a platform to promote the idea internationally.
Subsequently, the United Nations adopted Resolution 65/309, which states that the pursuit of happiness is a
fundamental goal and that the gross domestic product indicator was not designed to, and does not adequately
reflect, the wellbeing of people. Projecting their country as the last surviving independent Mahayana Buddhist
kingdom in the world and as a leader in advancing a holistic and sustainable development paradigm enables
Bhutanese authorities to signal their country’s status as an independent sovereign state. It also allows Bhutan to
increase its international visibility, which is advantageous when tensions run high with and among its neighbours.

Conclusion

Constructivism is often said to simply state the obvious – that actions, interactions and perceptions shape reality.
Indeed, that idea is the source of the name of this theory family. Our thoughts and actions literally
construct international relations. Yet, this seemingly simple idea, when applied theoretically, has significant
implications for how we can understand the world. The discipline of International Relations benefits from
constructivism as it addresses issues and concepts that are neglected by mainstream theories – especially realism.
Doing so, constructivists offer alternative explanations and insights for events occurring in the social world. They
show, for instance, that it is not only the distribution of material power, wealth and geographical conditions that can
explain state behaviour but also ideas, identities and norms. Furthermore, their focus on ideational factors shows that
reality is not fixed, but rather subject to change.

Find out more about this, and many other, International Relations theories with a range of multimedia
resources compiled by E-IR.

Full references for citations can be found in the PDF version, linked at the top of this page.

About the author:

Sarina Theys is a Contributing Lecturer in the Politics Department of Newcastle University, UK.

E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 4/4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)