International relations - contemporary global security - Essay Example

?Social constructivism and anarchy by Wendt Introduction Social constructivism may be a helpful tool in studying international relations. The discussion will be based on the thesis developed by Alexander Wendt: “Anarchy s what the state makes of it”. International relation theory is basically material. Social constructivism brings in a social ‘zest’ to theory of international relation. This research paper considers social constructivism as a perfect alternative for neorealist theory widely applied for international relations. Materialist theory analyzes behavior of states on the basis of material assets distribution. A balanced relation between states is usually measured by distribution of material power. It is relevant to note, that “social constructivists reject this narrow approach to analysis of the states’ power” (Social constructivism). From the perspective of social constructivism, a social aspect of international relations is of crucial importance. This point of view can be explained as follows: politics and society is developed under the influence of human consciousness (Social constructivism). Moreover, international system doesn’t exist separately. There are a lot of external and internal factors influencing on the global system development. Therefore, making analysis of global relations basing on a material basis is a narrow approach and there is a need to apply another theory that is more complex and socially-oriented. Anthropocentric context of the modern world’s development coincides with the ideas of Wendt, whose claim is discussed further on. Basic claims of social constructivism and neorealism applied for international relations The international society exists among people and thus is influenced by people’s ideas and not just by material assets. The system represents the result of human mental activity. As it is explained, the international system is “a set of ideas, a body of thought, a system of norms, which has been arranged by certain people at a particular time and place, a human invention or creation not of a physical or material kind but of a purely intellectual and ideational kind” (Social constructivism). In this paradigm, a claim made by Alexander Wendt “anarchy is what states make of it” (1992) may be interpreted in a different manner: for example, the system stability is questioned for sure. A constructivist theory of international relations should be considered in detail. For example, the main claim of constructivists is that it is possible to observe a correlation between neorealist uncertainty and materialist nature of the theory. Thus, in accordance with the social constructivism, it is better to focus on thoughts and ideas to realize the core essence of theory about anarchy and power balancing (Wendt, 1992). The difference between neorealism and constructivism can be seen in the following explanation of anarchy from these two different perspectives: thus constructivists claim that structures (i.e., factors and regulations which direct social actions) can’t give explanation to the actors’ mechanical activities and neorealists state that “the structure of anarchy is oppressing for the state actors” (Fierke at al, 2001). Thus, we can see that both theories are focused on discussion about interrelation between actors and structures (Booth, 2005). Structures are actors’ constraints, but constructivists claim that structures can act in such a way that structures would be transformed in new directions. Therefore, there is a need to refer to ‘structuration’ which provides with a more flexible vision of structure and actors interrelation (Wendt, 1992). If to apply structural constructivism to international relation theory it will be clearly seen that anarchy should be considered in a less rigid manner. Power and interests of the state are not material factors, but rather are ‘objective entities’ (Wendt, 1992). Moreover, Wendt claims that anarchy doesn’t lead to self-help. The interaction between states is a decisive factor of the way anarchy leads to. The states create their individuality and concerns in the process of communication with other coubtries. Neorealists claim that states’ identities are known to them a priori and the states’ interests are predetermined before they start their relations with other countries. Wendt explains the states’ relations in the following way: “it is the very interaction with others that create and instantiate one structure of identities and interests rather than another; structure has no existence or causal powers apart from process” (Wendt 1992, p. 394). A common point for neorealists and constructivists is that the countries prefer to be secure and want to survive. The only difference is that security is understood in a different manner by neorealists and constructivists. Types of anarchy by Wendt The concept of security may be different for different states, but in the process of the study of the relations between states the states’ identities and interests may be find out. According to Wendt, “interaction between the States occurs in a system of anarchy” (Wendt 1992, p. 396). Moreover, there is a need to study “the discursive interaction between states in order to discover what specific ‘culture of anarchy’ that has developed between them” (Social Constructivism). Wendt defines “three basic ideal types of anarchy: Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian” (Wendt 1992, p. 257). Hobbesian culture implies that every state relates to each other as to enemies. Consequently in this culture anarchy is “war of all against all” states (Finnemore, 1996). In other words, anarchy is the only possible way to survive under conditions of constant wars and military conflicts between the states. This principle of international relation between the countries existed until the 17th century, as Wendt claims. Lockean culture draws another picture of a military opposition between the states. The states are enemies, but they do not have intention to fight and destroy. Countries realize the right to exist of every state. This type of anarchy occurred after the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648. After that year, this type of anarchy characterized the interaction between the States. Kantian culture implies that the States are friends to each other and they support each other if there is a threat of a third party intrusion (Wendt 1999, p. 299). After the Second World War, Kantian culture characterized relation between liberal democracies. The internalization of the system of anarchy between the states may have a different degree. The states share values in accordance with different degrees of ‘cultural internalization’ (Wendt 1992, p. 254). These degrees range from “a weak commitment to shared ideas to the strong commitment” (Wendt 1992, p. 254). Social constructivism as alternative for international relations Further on, it is relevant to consider Wendt’s claim in accordance with which constructivism doesn’t add “the role of ideas” to current theories of international relations (Burchill, 2001). Under the influence of social interaction and shared ideas the States form their material power and state interest. In other words, it is clear that each state in anarchy system has a certain military potential, but other states may consider this to be a threat to their safety. Wendt claims that once the state possesses military capabilities, “enmity and arms races are not inevitable outcomes” (Wendt 1992, p. 260). In the process of social interaction, the states establish more friendly culture of anarchy. From another perspective, in case the states have vague intentions they have no other choice but only to fight against one another. Neorealists claim that the largest problem the states come across in the system of anarchy is “a problem of uncertainty” (Copeland, 2000). A problem of uncertainty implies that “the states have no exact information about the current and future intentions of other states” (Copeland, 2000). In the system of anarchy the states are in the search for security. The intention to be secure of the state can be misunderstood by other countries. In other words, “realism only needs states to be uncertain about the present and future interests of the other, and in anarchies of great powers, such uncertainty may often be profound” (Copeland 2000, p. 200). At this point a vivid arguing occurs between neorealists and constructivists. Neorealists claim that “Wendt’s constructivist analysis overly downplays the fact that states have difficulties in obtaining trustworthy information about the motives and intentions of other states” (Copeland 2000, p. 204). Thus, opposition between neorealists and constructivists is evident. Constructivists underline an intricate nature of international relations, but constructivists underline that social interaction exerts a great influence on a change in international relations. There is a list of mechanisms of change developed by constructivists: e.g. “a collective learning, cognitive evolution, epistemic change and the life cycles of norms” (Wendt 1999, p. 35). Thus constructivists underline that people’s knowledge and practices are institutionalized (Adler 2001, p. 102). Wendt’s contribution to international relations can be seen in his special attention to social theory and the role the society plays in the international relations. In spite of the fact that social constructivism brings in something new to the study of international relations Marxists researchers strictly criticize this theory. The main claim of a Marxist Wallerstein is focused on the material structure of the world since 16th century (Finnemore, 1996). This claim is directly opposed to social interaction accepted by constructivists. Still, the greatest opposing theory to social constructivism is neorealism. Intellectual cooperation among constructivists is halted by the main principles of neorealists. Liberalism and neo-Marxism are less oppressive to the claims of constructivists. If to sum up the main claims made by Wendt, the main distinctive feature of the states’ interaction is a flux and constant motion of the international relations. Further on, such kind of interaction evokes states’ identities and interests. Unlike Wendt, neorealists reject that the states are not imprisoned by the anarchy; they create it themselves. Constructivism is focused on the possible occurrence of cooperative anarchy caused by social interaction. Moreover, social constructivists reject the principle of inevitability of the world’s politics. They claim: “Everything is inter-subjective and thus uncertain” (Wendt 1999, p. 43). If to interpret this phrase, it would be clearly seen that a ‘social principle of international relations construction’ is determined by values and not by material interests. The states’ identities are changed under the influence of social interaction. Thus, security behavior is changed and the type of anarchy is chosen by the states. Therefore the state’s identity is determined by the state’s attitude to security and the state positioning with regard to the other states. Challenges of social constructivism Still, there are some controversies in the theory of social constructivism applied for explanation of anarchy among the states. In case the state and its identity is the ‘key decision maker’ then the claim that we can observe a constant motion between identities and interests leads to misinterpretation of the phrase “anarchy is what states make of it”. Constructivists are in opposition to neo-realists and rationalists. The theory of social constructivism represents a perfect solution to solve the problem of this kind of opposition. For example, the states’ study is limited by understanding of anarchy by neo-realists; liberals require a theory that would focus their attention on the state’s structure (Guzzini, 2006). At this point thesis by Wendt is helpful: the “transformations of identity and interest through process are transformations of structure” (Wendt 1992, p. 405). Therefore, social constructivism is a connecting bound between realists and liberals. Constructivism is a promise to build a bridge between realism and liberalism. In order to restore a successful cooperation among the states, the international anarchy may be considered as either conflictual or cooperative. The second stage would be the state’s ability to make something out from anarchy. A perfect alternative for the state’s behavior explanation is a ‘two-structure’ approach. Therefore the two basic structures are “international anarchy and intersubjectively constituted structure of identities and interests in the system” (Hurd, 2008). This can be explained in the following way: the states are basic players in the international arena. Countries’ identities are the basic roles relevant for realization of self-interests and determination of the state’s relation with other states. Moreover, anarchy doesn’t determine the state’s behavior, because “the objects of anarchy and self-help have no meaning prior to state interactions, we will only know if anarchy and self-help will lead to conflict or cooperation once we know what states will do socially” (Wendt 1999, p. 65). Wendt provides the readers with an interesting example: if aliens arrived to earth, people wouldn’t start attacking on them until they received social signals from the aliens. Thus, the security dilemma is not natural or caused by anarchy. The same thing is about a social threat; it is not predetermined or natural, it is constructed by the states. Self-help of the state is not natural; it is just a result of a previous experience. In case practices are changed, the intersubjective knowledge or basic knowledge of the system will be changed too. Conclusion Social constructivism brings in a social ‘zest’ to theory of international relation. This research paper considered social constructivism as a perfect alternative for neorealist theory widely applied for international relations. A balanced relation between states is usually measured by distribution of material power. As far as we can see, the central claim developed by Wendt implies that a transformation of the state’s identity and interests takes place under the influence of anarchy: the institution of sovereignty is established; cooperation is evolved and egoistic identities are transformed into collective identities. This is the way modern states function. Thus, states are in constant cooperation and their conflictual behavior is a result of states’ activities and competitive structure of the states. Therefore, social constructivism presents a social interpretation of international relations thus widening a materialistic theoretical approach. From the perspective of social constructivism, a social aspect of international relations is very essential. Moreover, on the background of a constant opposition between neorealists and liberals, constructivists present a reasonable approach to the study of the international relations. Works cited 1. Adler, E., 2001. Constructivism and International Relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B. A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage, pp. 95–118. 2. Booth, K., 2005. Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 3. Burchill, S., 2001. Theories of International Relations. 4. Fierke, K. M. and Jorgensen, K. E. (eds.), 2001. Constructing International Relations. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. 5. Finnemore, M.,1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press. 6. Guzzini, S. and Leander, A. (eds.), 2006. Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics. London: Routledge. 7. Hurd, I., 2008. Constructivism. In C. Reus- Smit and D. Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 298–317. 8. Social constructivism. [online]. Available at: [Accessed March 16, 2011]. 9. Wendt, A., 1992. Anarchy is What States make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization (46), pp. 391-426. 10. Wendt, A., 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More