Social constructivism - Essay Example

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Introduction Social constructivism can be broadly defined as “a social studies approach that attempts to trace the way in which social interests, values, history, actions, institutions and networks, characterize the content of science and technology” (Hess, 1997: 82). The structure of the international system, according to the neorealists consists only of the distribution of material capabilities. On the other hand, for constructivists, the structure is also composed of social relationships which are made up of “shared knowledge, material resources and social practices” (Slaughter, 2004: 35-36). International relations involves all communications and negotiations between nations situated globally, over issues such as security, trade, immigration, etc. Social constructivism is a relatively new theory of International Relations. The sociological approach of the social constructivist theory “emphasizes the dynamic aspect of social concepts: including interests and preferences” (Hirsch, 2004: 180). The ideas, convictions, beliefs and behaviour of people tend to make an impact and influence changes mutually among groups. The transmission of cognitive experience is the basis of social learning. This paper proposes to identify the contributions made by social constructivism to the study of International Relations. Discussion The new theoretical approach of social constructivism was introduced to the study of International Relations at an appropriate time in history. Theorists in International Relations began to gradually include the implications of a social constructivist approach to the study of the discipline, nearly two decades ago. International theory had been developed during the time of the Cold War. The persistent tension between the United States and the Soviet Union had an immense influence on the discipline of International Relations. It underscored conflict as a defining feature of the discipline, and the improbability of the emergence of a peaceful world. The view of international relations as a function involving anarchy and social disorder continued to be maintained by both realists and neoliberal institutionalists “who provided the dominant theoretical approaches to the study of international relations” (Adler, 2005: xii). The fall of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War could not be explained by International Relations theorists who conceptualized anarchy as an essential part of the discipline and failed to predict these developments. Against this background, constructivism had a revolutionary impact on the formulation of International Relations. “Social constructivism provides a new way of looking at and conceptualizing the world that, potentially has significant consequences for all ongoing theories in international relations” (Adler, 2005: xii). Magone (2005: 16) observes that since the end of the cold-war system of international relations, and with transformative changes occurring globally between countries, social constructivism has become a significant paradigm for understanding the new changes. As compared to previous theories of international relations, social constructivism is based on a more dynamic, less static approach. It is clear that nation states are no longer the only actors in the global system, starting from the development of global civil society since the 1970s. The root cause for the transformation in international relations is capitalism (Magone, 2005: 27). Social constructivists take the moderate view or middle ground in any debates between two opposing concepts in the social sciences, such as: rationalism and reflectivism, materialism and idealism, etc. Through the bridge developed by constructivism, advocates of opposing positions are enabled to make contact with each other to engage in dialogue. This has resulted in social constructivism becoming a very broad concept, and opposing views are forming within it Kubalkova (2001: 43). The two main features of social constructivist accounts of international relations are that: there is little agreement over what social constructivism is found to be, and despite the differences, the “fault lines” are between constitutive and explanatory theory. These indicate significant differences within social constructivism over the philosophy of social science issues. In international relations theory, how useful it is to use the blanket term “social constructivism” is required to be seen (Kubalkova, 2001: 40). According to radical constructivists, mainstream approaches to international relations such as realism and neo-liberal institutionalism have been adopted by conventional constructivists. Both radical and conventional constructivists have changed the earlier view of international relations which believed that states are driven by objective interests based on their material circumstances. According to Wendt (1999: 22), who was one of the pioneers of a constructivist approach to International Relations (IR), constructivism is both anti-materialist since it deals with ideas and ideals rather than material interests; and anti-rationalist since it does not believe in the concept of “instrumental calculation based on fixed preferences”. Thus constructivism’s main contribution to international relations is the introduction of ideals and norms to IR. Ruggie (1998: 216) distinguishes between constructivism and instrumental calculation. Constructivism is about human cognition and its function in international life. The realities of international politics are understood through ideas, beliefs as well as material facts; and also through social and physical facts. It implies that only individual perceptions are used for understanding the most of the world as it is. Further, ideas as well as principled beliefs have normative as well as instrumental dimensions. Through a process of felt obligation as well as instrumental calculation they affect behaviour. States can be guided to redefine their sense of selves or their interests through the mechanism of felt obligation which is a process of socialization. Learning that is transformative, that changes the definition of the problem, and the method of resolving it, is a key part of this process. Competence in discussion and persuasion are required of the participants, for impacting transformative changes. On the other hand, Finnemore & Sikkink (1998: 910) reject the concept of materialism versus ideas factor, or norms versus rationality. They insist that those individuals who are supposedly following the norms, are in fact employing strategic practices towards advancing their own interests. Ideas, normative commitments as well as material interests can be included in the calculation on the basis of fixed preferences. The authors reveal the core of constructivism as an account of how norms work, how they impact behaviour to become a part of the social structure that transforms international societies and their mutual functions. Several studies in international relations have found that norms have a compelling power across national borders. For example, human rights norms which are being advocated by increasing numbers of countries globally, has crucially influenced agency behavior in different countries in similar ways (Jacobson, 1995: 283). Thus it is seen that the same norms have an impact on different actors and contexts. Similarly, it is observed that specific social norms have spread across borders, as revealed by actors’ behaviour in particular circumstances. Generally, it is seen that norms profoundly involve people, once they are shared. By sharing norms, their meaning and impact are established. Norms include “assumptions about behavior that are shared by the majority of individuals within a specific area, a decision-making process, a group, or a nation. Thus, norms can be crucial factors in decision making processes” (Klotz, 1995: 155). Adler (2005: xiii) states that constructivists now include the impact of norms and ideas, while taking into consideration material circumstances. Social constructivists have shown that the theory and practice of international relations can undergo profound change, becaue norms and ideas are capable of radical transformation. However, for change to take place, a certain extent of cognitive evolution is required through a change in the established cognitive and inter-disciplinary understanding of the world. This cognitive evolution is not always easily achieved. One of the most important political results of the Cold War was related to the idea of arms control, and it provides an example of cognitive evolution. The idea of arms control took root from one source to many others, through argument and persuasion. Through this process an epistemic (knowledge-based or cognitive) community came into being. This epistemic community convinced policy makers of the importance and viability of arms control; which then impacted policy practice of arms control. This demostrates how policy practice can be influenced and made to work towards new peaceful goals. The concept of arms control was transferred from the epistemic community in the United States to the Soviet Union, and changed the Soviets’ conceptualization of weapons, thus illustrating how social constructivism works. Similarly, social constructivism can be used in the case of Israel; Adler (2005: xiv) believes that the Israelis should establish a new set of identities for themselves as a necessary step towards bringing peace in the region. In this example, constructivism is being used as a mechanism to transform reality, and not merely as a tool to understand social reality. According to Guzzini (2000: 147), constructivism is epistemologically or cognitively about the social construction of knowledge and ontologically or existentially about the construction of social reality. As observed by conventional international relations theory, the concept of security is the main problem of twentieth century international politics. For most of the span of time, there has been inter-capitalist conflict as well as social revolution. Some of the processes which have made up the real content of international relations are revolution, capitalist development, imperialism, general crisis and cold war. “These processes are interrelated with each other in the actual historical development of the international system which is their outcome” (Linklater, 2000: 1199). These interrelationships are dynamic and transforming. Institutional structures link together the societies which form the contemporary international system. In varying degrees and methods, all the societies are affected by the forces that impact their framework. Seeking to discover the social basis of modern international relations, is for the purpose of understanding the ongoing course of international history “in concrete human terms rather than abstract technical terms”. The people forming the various societies of the international community, educate moral choice by drawing out the real human relations involved. The fundamental medium of international politics is language. The theory of communicative action offers an explanation of language. Understanding international relations through the medium of language helps international communities in maintaining mutual security, in following norms, in negotiating transactions, and in other functions. The high degree of behvioural variations within international relations is explained by rational choice analysis which is a vital component of the theory of communicative action. Social constructivism can function optimally through the theory of communicative action (Fierke & Jorgensen, 2001: 193). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the significant contributions made to the study of international relations by social constructivism. Change in a dynamic international system is explained by the constructivist approach to world politics. This is enabled by: the power of ideas in defining different ranges of action in world politics, the significance of identity in defining what actors want, “the importance of the cyclical relationship between actors’ interests, identities, and behaviour, and the social context in which they exist” (Ba & Hoffman, 2003: 31). These insights into social constructivism, its impact on international relations, and the positive and negative aspects of international relations help us to understand world politics and international networks. References Adler, E. 2005. Communitarian international relations: the epistemic foundations of intenational relations. Great Britain: Routledge. Ba, A. & Hoffman, M.J. 2003. Making and remaking the world for IR 101: a resource for teaching social constructivism in introductory classes. International Studies Perspectives, 4: 15-33. Fierke, K.M. & Jorgensen, K.E. 2001. Constructing international relations: the next generation. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52 (4): 894-915. Guzzini, S. 2000. A reconstruction of constructivism in internationalas relations. European Journal of International Relations. 6 (2): 147-182. Hess, D.J. 1997. Science studies: an advanced introduction. New York; London: New York University Press. Hirsch, M. 2004. Compliance with international norms in the age of globalization: two theoretical perspectives. In The impact of international law on international cooperation. E. Benvenisti & M. Hirsch (eds.) The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: pp.166-193. Jacobson, J.K. 1995. Much ado about ideas: the cognitive factor in economic policy. World Politics, 47 (January): 283-315. Klotz, A. 1995. Norms in international relations. The struggle against apartheid. New York: Cornell University Press. Kubalkova, V. 2001. Foreign policy in a constructed world. New York: M.E. Sharpe Publishers. Linklater, A. 2000. International relations: critical concepts in political science. London: Routledge. Magone, J.M. 2005. The new world architecture: the role of the European union in the making of global governance. New Jersey: Transaction Books. Ruggie, J.G. 1998. What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. In Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization. New York: Routledge: p.216. Slaughter, A-M . 2004. International law and international relations theory: a prospectus. In The impact of international law on international cooperation. E. Benvenisti & M. Hirsch (eds.) The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: pp.16-49. Wendt, A. 1999. Social theory of international politics. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Read More