The Constructivist Approach in International Relations - Essay Example

? THE CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS The Constructivist Approach in International Relations There exists no general definition for the term ‘constructivism.’ Many scholars have given their definitions depending on what they believe it should be. This term first appeared in International Relations in 1989, courtesy of Nicholas Onuf. He coined it to refer, in broad terms, to the various post-positivist perspectives. It emerged to critique the traditional theories of the time, those that had gained prominence during the Cold War times. Constructivists had a common ground in rejecting the no- dynamic assumptions, which were material in nature and very common at the time. In place of these assumptions, the constructivists proposed social dimensions in international relations, and the possibility of eventual change. It also critiques the stagnation characterized in many mainstream theories of international relations. The constructivists have over and over questioned the rationale behind the self-centred notion of rationalism. In place of this, Constructivism has favoured some form of social ontology. Its proponents believe that human beings are social actors, and as such can never live away from the society’s power to shape their actions, so that they can conform to certain forms of behaviour (Jackson and Sorenson 2010, 166). However, Wendt admits that, since constructivism is unable to provide international relations with “a clear test of their predictive power...” and without a clear theory to help in assessing domestic politics, it cannot, therefore, solely in studying international relations. It needs a backing from some other theories of international relations (Ronen 2000, p.576). Therefore, my paper seeks to critically assess the strengths and shortcomings of the constructivist approach in International Relations. In doing this, the paper will give a brief discussion on how constructivism has come to be one of the major theoretical approaches of IR. It will also look at the strengths and weaknesses of constructivism. Moreover, it will give a comparison between constructivism and neorealism. The works of various constructivists will be visited to shed more light on the topic. These constructivists include Martha Finnemore, Alexander Wendt, Thomas Risse, and Peter Katzenstein. Today constructivism is actually one of the main theories of International Relations. It is built on the premise that almost all important features of global politics owe their existence to some given social circumstances and events in history. The theory strongly refutes the claim that international politics are controlled by intentional human actions that can never be controlled. It also does not agree with the notion that international politics is controlled by the uncontrollable nature of the same. The intention of constructivism to look at international relations as a result of social construction makes the theory clearly distinct from the traditional approaches to not only realism but also liberalism. There is a lot of emphasis on the human nature of humans as being an outcome of the relations we have with others. We are who we are today because of the social relations. As such, the argument here is that it is our social relations that construct us. However, the same world cannot exist without human beings since it is what it is because of the social relations. Therefore, as the world controls us, we equally control the world. Both humans and the world make each other (Zehfuss 2002, p.4). Constructivism’s importance in international relations is clearly brought out in the claim that the most important debate, now or in future, is that “between rationalists and constructivists.” Another factor that makes constructivism an important tool in the study of international relations is the fact that it occupies “the middle ground between rationalism and more radical approaches, often called reflectivist or relativist” (Zehfuss 2002, p.4). Constructivism has seen grown to be one of the major theoretical approaches of IR. It is a very expansive approach to IR which involves the Weberian form of somehow interpretive sociology as well as symbolic interactionism. It also covers the various forms of Marxism and the Veblenian institutionalism. Moreover, it also widely borrows from post-structuralism as well as hermeneutics (Ronen 2000, pp. 575-576). Constructivism has gained its popularity in the international relations field majorly because of the powerful work of Alexander Wendt. According to him, international relations borrow a bit from social theory. It also clearly comes out as mostly characterized by its idealism (576). Given that constructivism emphasizes the application of “ideas, agency, norms, and transnational connections,” it has greatly contributed in the understanding of international relations. This only shows how, growing from a humble beginning, constructivism has since become one of the most important tools used in getting more insight to the field of international relations (Ronen, 2000, p.575). Various constructivists have given their views on the subject. The first one to be discussed in this work is Alexander Wendt. He challenges the suggestion, by neorealists, that causal powers are as result of the ‘structures’ and that it is given. For Wendt, these powers depend greatly on how the structure has been designed the social practices. He also refutes the argument by neorealists that “identities and interests are given” (Wendt 1992, p.394). For him, it is the actual interactions among people that are accredited with not only making of but also with instantiating the system of identities and interests. The structure can neither exist nor have any causal powers in the absence of the processes. His argument is that constructivism goes beyond just contributing more ideas and roles to the various theories that surround IR. He further argues that power and the interests of the state come into existence due to not only ideas but also social interactions. As such “states in an anarchic system,” despite their possession of powerful arms, generally threatening to its neighbours, does not mean that tension or even war between them cannot be controlled. It is the interactions between nations that promote not only a peaceful but also friendly culture between them. In his systematic analysis, Wendt totally disregards the contribution of internal factors (Wendt 1999, p.254). Another constructivist is Martha Finnemore. However, unlike Wendt, she mostly focuses on those norms of the global community as well as how these impact on not only national identity but also interests. For her, how a state behaves will mostly be determined its identity and interest. The identity and interest are in turn directed by certain forces which are international in nature. These forces are included in the norms of international organizations. They actually advise states on the direction their interests should take. This way, they have the power to shape national policies. When the norms are advanced by the global organizations, it is the interests of the organizations that will policy guidelines in various countries. This is majorly done by either prevailing on the nations to adopt the norms. Unlike the neorealists, she argues that changes in various nations are not easy to explain in relation to national interests, especially in assessing power. This assessment only becomes possible within a constructivist approach, one of which will always echo the importance of norms in international relations (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p.128). Unlike Wendt and Finnemore, who emphasize the importance of international factors in determining national identity, there are some constructivists who think that should not be ignored. One of such constructivists is Thomas Risse. For Risse, domestic environment plays the biggest role in shaping national identity. He clearly shows how the type of a regime in a state, a nation’s experience of civil war, and also the number of organizations that deals with human rights issues, will greatly determine the extent to which a country complies with the norms that protect human rights, at least at the international level (Risse, 1999, 124). Peter Katzenstein is another constructivist who looks at international relations from a different perspective. For him, both culture and identity are very crucial causal factors. The two, he argues, can be used not only in defining national interests but they also are among the factors “shape national security policies and global insecurities” (Jackson and Sorenson 2010, p.166). The theory of constructivism like other aspects of social life has strengths and weaknesses. Herein, the paper will begin by investigating the strengths of constructivism. To start with, theory of constructivism of the international relations has strong tenets that keeps it abreast and of significance than the other theories of international relations (Barnett 2008, 162). The first remarkable doctrine of constructivism is its argument that certain social aspects and historical processes that occur in our societies rely on the outcomes of vital determinants of international politics. Theory of constructivism observes and interprets international relations in the lines of societal construction and composition. Unlike the neorealist who believe that behaviours of individual states depends on the international system where the states exists, constructivists hold that each state is sovereign and has its anarchies that protects it from interference and attack by other states (Brown and Ainley 2009, p.36). Constructivists also argue that the status and condition of any nation in the international system is solely dictated by constituent human beings living in the particular state. The doctrines of the theory of constructivism also embeds that any existing system in the international relation must have been constructed by certain human beings and that the system is subject to occasional and continual renovation, modification and expansion. Thus, from the perception of the constructivists, any international relation or society becomes or assumes the direction set by individual human beings forming the relation (Checkel 1998, 330). In the views of constructivists, international relations develop typically when different states share and agree on certain ideas and not through determination of material affluence of the party states. The shared ideas by the acting states are resources of interests of the individual states while not of nature. Now, from the doctrines and perceptions of the constructivists about international relations, it can be suggested that the individual philosophers defending this theory use self expressions of individual states as one of the tools for identifying and analyzing the concept. Constructivists use self identities of states rather than material possession as the cornerstone determining hoe states behave. Constructivists also use self motivation of individual related states as the one the basic tools for determining and identifying the existence of any international relation (Fierke 2010, 177). Away from the assumptions of neo-realism that critical aspect of international politics is illustrated by the structure of the international relation, Constructivists exemplify that international politics rely on the decisions and interests of individual sovereign states (Wendt 1992, 391). Since neorealist holds behaviour of states in the international system relies on the anarchies of the individual states and which they use to defend their self interests to determine international politics, the theorists then fail to explain or figure international politics at the state level. According to Finnemore and Sikkinki (2001, 391), it is unclear from the explanations of the neorealist whether the exercise of anarchies by individual states will result to development of friendship or enmity between acting states in the international relations. This weakness presented by neorealist paves way for development of the constructivism that insists on the human decisions rather than the materials used to determine level of anarchy in the neorealist to develop international relation. With constructivism, the ideas and decisions taken and presented by the mutual acting states in the international relation determines whether the states become friends or enemies (Wendt 1999, 72). The effectiveness of the constructivism can also be derived from its scope of using states’ interests in determining international structure. Interests develop as result of social interactions that enable each interested participant in the international relation to compare its social value and not power to that of others before merging. Another aspect of effectiveness of constructivists is their ability to follow through the languages used to create the international system and their optimism about the success of the international relation. This attribute of the constructivists is absent in neorealist who are always understood as pessimists who hold on the fear of power conflict derived from material affluence among acting states to paralyze international relation (Jackson 2004, p.337). While neorealist interprets power of a state from the perspectives of combination with other states, constructivists see states as fully sovereign and independent on the states merger to boost its power in the international relation (Hoffmann 2005, p.115). Liberalism and constructivism depicts certain commonalities. Liberalism holds that the behaviour of each state relies on the preferences of the individual states and not their capabilities or power, and so is the constructivism that sees interest and identity as determinants of particular states’ behaviour. Despite the fact that constructivism is more of social theory, Barnett (2008, p.162) faults the theory for it requires a lot of time for the involved parties to agree and get accustomed to the resolutions that guide relation. This is simply because the parties must develop their own ideological strategies and also understand of each other. Constructivism also requires regular assessment to ensure smooth progress of the international relation and evade failure. Regular assessment in most cases has been expensive as it involves development of new policies which must again be shared and harmonized to suit the interests of the state parties. The theory of constructivism in its setting in the international relation involves ideas and it may be uneasy for the individual states to move away from their own ideas and develop neutral view that suits every state in the relation (Adler 1997, p.319). Each state considers its ideas as perfect and one that should be adopted in fostering international relations. Moreover, weakness of the theory of constructivism is that it cannot exist on its own. For constructivism to exist, its developers relied on the neo-realism from where got ideas and points of argument while criticizing the later. The concept of anarchy that states use to defend them and enjoy freedom, contributed to the development of constructivism as the initiators argued that sovereignty ensured by anarchy is what enables states to make their decision and ideas and share them with others of the same interest in international relation (Adler 1997, p.340). Another weakness associate with constructivism is the existence of various theories and disagreements that exists among the proponents. For instance, as a theory that explains international relations, constructivism has another approach of explaining international relations typically developed by the British Committee (Ruggie 1998, p.856). The British Committee, currently called English School approach insists that states are the constituents of international society and that behaviours of individual states can be tampered through certain rules or specially set institution. Constructivism also has another approach called critical theory used to explain international relations (Jackson and Sorenson 2010, p.39). Critical theory was endorsed by Antonio Gramsci who held that power is never natural but is often naturalized by individuals holding it mostly through manipulation. In addition, Ruggie (1998, p.885) indicates that social constructivism developed by Alexander Wendt also provides another divergent approach in explaining international relations. This approach holds that ideas and material forces are the ones used and employed in constructing, sustaining and even destroying international relations. This paper tried to give a critical analysis of Constructivism. It has been found out that this constructivism got itself into international relations as some kind of critique of the traditional theories of international relations. It mainly builds on the premises that almost all important features of international politics are as a result of particular social processes as well as historical events. This means that they are not inherently in existence because of inevitable results of human nature neither is it of the nature of politics. As much as most constructivists claim the major role of international environment in determining the shape a national identity takes, some still believe that domestic environment is equally important. Although constructivism has made some strong contributions to the study of IR, it must be used in conjunction with other theories in order to acquire a full apprehension of the international system and its complications. Constructivism in its existence is spoiled by the so claim proponents who have continually weakened the strengths and powers of constructivism over the other theories. It is also wrong to assume independence of constructivism and involve it critique of other theories since it cannot stand by itself but needs the support of the other theories like liberalism and neo-realism to gain substantial strength. Thus, constructivism theory should be shaped as a theory explaining international relations by combining liberalism and neo-realism rather than criticizing the complimentary theories. Bibliography Adler, E 1997, Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319-363. Barnett, M 2008, Social Constructivism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (Ed.), The Globalization of World Politics (4th Ed.). (pp. 160-173). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, C. and Ainley, K 2009, Understanding International Relations (4th Ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Checkel, J 1998, The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics, 50(1), 324-348. Fierke, K.M 2010, Constructivism. In. T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (eds), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (2nd ed.). (pp. 177-194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K 1998, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 128, 887-917. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391-416. Hoffmann, J. (2005). What’s global about global governance? A constructivist account. In A.D. Ba and M.J. Hoffmann (eds), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, contestation and world order. (pp. 110-129). Oxon: Routledge. Hopf, T 1998, The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200. Jackson, P. T 2004, Bridging the Gap: Toward a Realist-Constructivist Dialogue. International Studies Review, 6, 337-352. Jackson, R. and Sorenson, G. (2010) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (4th ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, P.128 Risse, T 2009, “Social Constructivism and European Integration.” In. A. Wiener and T. Diez (eds), European Integration Theory (2nd ed.). (pp. 124, 144-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ronen, P 2000, “A world of their making: an evaluation of the constructivist critique in International Relations,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 575-576. Ruggie, J 1998, What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855-885. Wendt, A 1992, Anarchy is what States make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425. Wendt, A 1999, Constructing International Politics. International Security, 20(1), 71-81. Zehfus, M 2002, Constructivism in international relations: the politics of reality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More