Understanding Constructivism in International Relations Theory

Constructivism in International Relations

Main Scholars

• Alexander Wendt

Origins and Core Tenets

Constructivism emerged in the 1980s as an alternative perspective to neo-realism and neo-liberalism. It posits that International Relations (IR) is a social construction, not an objective discipline. Reality is mutable; there is no material world independent of human perception and cognition (linking to Immanuel Kant's ideas).

Theoretical Stance

• It adopts a critical and normative view of IR.
• It links conceptually with idealism and Marxism.
• It rejects the notion of an external, objective reality as such.
• It specifically rejects the Hobbesian state of nature concept.
• Social phenomena are understood as being humanly and socially constructed.
• It favors a subjective rather than objective view of human phenomena.
• It shifts focus from explanatory to constitutive theory.

Epistemological Debates

Constructivism involves a complex relationship with positivism:

• Rejection of Positivist Ontology: It rejects positivist individualist ontology.
• Conservation of Epistemology: It conserves positivist epistemology based on observation and testing (similar to realism and liberalism in this aspect).
• It is often termed Social Constructivism.

Critique and Focus Areas

Constructivism offers a criticism of the static assumptions prevalent in mainstream IR theory, emphasizing:

• The crucial role of ideas, norms, and perceptions.
• The importance of social rules and inter-subjective meanings.
• The assertion that social actions do not possess an ‘objective existence’.
• Rationality is viewed as a function of a ‘dominating discourse’.
• Focus is placed on prevailing societal norms, values, and perceptions.
• Emphasis is placed on agents and their subjectivity rather than solely on structure.

Wendt's Central Claim

A key tenet is: “Anarchy is what states make of it.”

Conventional Constructivism and the State

This strand focuses on:

• States as the principal units of analysis, not treated as 'black boxes'; they do not possess uniform interests.
• Identities are products of social beliefs and practices.
• Interests are determined by prevailing social, historical, political, and cultural factors.
• Dramatic changes in beliefs, state policy, and identities are possible.
• It recognizes the role of ‘cultural elites’ and ‘epistemic communities’.
• There is not a necessary linear and causal relationship between independent variables (like identity) and dependent variables (state behavior).
• Societal identities shape state interests and policies.
• Status quo or revisionist stances are understood as “subjective identities.”
• State interests and actions possess a dynamic and mutable nature.
• Social identities (subjective factors) matter significantly.

Revisiting Established Theories

Conventional constructivism revises:

• The Liberal Democratic Peace: “If democracies do not fight with one another, it is because of the way they perceive one another.”
• The concept moves from ‘International Regimes’ toward ‘Security Communities’.

From Conventional to Critical Constructivism

Critical constructivism deepens the theoretical challenge:

• Material interests are not immutable, transparent, or uncontested; they are shaped by prevailing societal identities.
• Focus shifts to societal identities rather than solely anarchy and nation-states.
• It emphasizes the dynamic rather than static nature of agents’ actions.

Critical (Consistent) Constructivism

This approach emphasizes:

• A full commitment to social ontology and social epistemology, leading to a rejection of positivism.
• Focus on cultural and linguistic labels and bias, rather than just state identity.
• It marks the beginning of the dynamic turn in IR theory.
• It embraces a subjective view of IR.
• It seeks to replace realism and revise liberal theory.
• It necessitates a re-consideration of the Democratic Peace (DP) argument, incorporating the role of domestic politics, societal identities, and culture.
• It reinforces the idea that perception drives peace: “If democracies do not fight with each other, it must be because of the way they perceive each other.”
• It highlights the importance of Cultural and Security Communities.

Distinction Summary

There is a clear distinction between conventional (mainstream IR) and critical (or consistent) constructivism.