Wendt`s Constructivist Account of International Relations - Dissertation Example

Is Wendt`s Constructivist account of International Relations a “Critical Theory?” Introduction During the 1990s constructivists’ theories of international relations and analysis developed, challenging rationalists’ interpretations of neorealism and neoliberalism and advancing sociological concepts (Price & Reus-Smit, 1998, p. 259). Alexander Wendt’s contribution to this new strand of constructivists theorising is said to be amongst the most significant (Jones, 2001, p. 131). Wendt’s constructivist theory emphasizes the social contours of anarchy in the international order and significantly relies on critical theory in his conceptualization of “international anarchy” (Jones, 2001, p. 132). Even so the relationship between constructivism and critical theory is the subject of considerable debate. Critical theorists in particular are divided in that, one faction argues that constructivism is a variant of critical theory, while other critical theorists reject constructivism and argue that it is no more than a veiled representation of rationalism and positivism (Price & Reus-Smit, 1998, p. 260). This paper argues that constructivists’ account of international relations as presented by Wendt is in principle a critical theory although there are some differences. Drawing on Wendt’s own contention that critical theory is not a “single theory” but rather, a “family of theories” that include constructivists’ theories of international relations it is argued that Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations is a variation of critical theory (Wendt, 1995, p. 172). The binding factor is that this family of theories emphasize the social construction of international politics and advance the argument that international politics is socially constructed as opposed to materially constructed and the underlying structures not only direct actors’ behaviour, but also their identities and their interests (Wendt, 1998, p. 72). This paper compares Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations with critical theory of international relations and identifies the parallels and divergences with a view to demonstrating that for the most part, Wendt’s theory is rooted in critical theory and is indeed a variant of critical theory. The first part of this paper provides a discussion of Wendt’s constuctuvist account of international relations in the context of critical theory, and the second part of this paper provides a summary of Wendt’s constructivist theory. Wendt’s Constructivist Account of International Relations as Critical Theory Critical theory is linked to the Frankfurt School which in turns refers to the work of researchers and thinkers at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, 1923. Max Horkheimer became the Institute’s director in 1930 and is introductory lecture during 1931 The State of Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research lay the groundwork for conceptualizing critical theory of international relations. Horkheimer emphasized the destiny of mankind in the context of members of communities and emphasized their social aspects including law, state, economy, culture and material aspects (Bronner & Kellner, 1989). Horkheimer consciously distanced himself from positivism and in particular, Marxist’s conceptualization of materialism (Bronner & Kellner, 1989). Robert W. Cox’s contribution to critical theory in the 1980s builds on earlier social theories and represents some of the key directions that critical theory of international relations took since Horkheimer’s formulation of the significance of social philosophy. Cox essentially criticized traditional theory of international relations on the grounds that it focused on the state as an action and not on the role of civil society. While this might have been useful during the 18th century it was no longer consistent with the reality of today’s complex “modes of interaction” (Cox, 1986, p. 204). Essentially, critical theory emerged as an emancipation from norms and standards in projecting the path of international politics and international order (Linklater, 2000). According to George and Campbell (1990), critical theory of international relations engages debate and thinking that explores the dynamics of international politics more thoroughly. It is the foundational premise of critical theory that invites deeper exploration of a number of issues. First, critical theory encourages more profound thinking about more “enlightenment” relative to conceptualizing history, “rationality, and truth” which includes the “subject/object” and “agent/structure oppositions” (George & Campbell, 1990, p. 269). Secondly, critical theory of international relations engages debates over connection between social factors and language which invariably include the link between power and knowledge. Critical theory also invites the exploration of the nature and dynamics of human behavioural sciences. As George and Campbell (1990) point out, the various debates encouraged by critical theory do not point to a definitive “conclusion” and do not “mandate a single position” (p. 269). Rather, critical theory points toward enlarging the “thinking space” (George & Campbell, 1990, p. 269). George and Campbell’s (1990) analysis of critical theory is therefore echoed by Wendt (1995) who argued that critical theory is not a “single theory”, but rather, a “family of theories” including “postmodernists, neo-Marxists, feminists and others” (p. 71). Like critical theory, Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations also probes beneath the surface and hones in on social constructs. For example, in rejecting traditional international relations theory (neoliberalism and neorealism), Wendt argues that anarchy and material capabilities cannot fully explain state behaviour. For instance, Cuban missiles and UK missiles have different impacts on US behaviour. Likewise, the US military’s capabilities do not mean the same thing for Canada and for Cuba. As Wendt (1992) states: The distribution of power may always affect states’ calculations, but how it does depends on the intersubjective understandings and expectations, on the distribution of knowledge, that constitute their conceptions of self and other (p. 397). Payne and Samhat (2012) acknowledge that Wendt’s conceptualization of international politics in terms of social factors as opposed to solely material gains is narrow, it does provide a starting point in which critical theory can be enlarged and understood (p. 12). According to Payne and Samhat, when critical theory is interpreted more broadly it takes into account new conditions that shape identity and interests. These new conditions are largely informed by civic society and involve non-governmental organizations and thus non-state actors. In this regard, in an increasingly globalized world where there are increasing shared concerns about economic downturns, human rights, environmental degradation, poverty and so on, state’s identity and interests are informed and influenced by the way that states relate to its citizens and with other states (Payne & Samhat, 2012, p. 13). It therefore follows that Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations differs somewhat from critical theory in that Wendt focuses too narrowly on the social factors in a state centric way. Critical theory focuses attention more profoundly to the human actor and as Payne and Samhat (2012) argue, critical theory raises the “question of human consciousness as an agent for social change” (p. 14). Nevertheless, as Wendt (1995) explains, critical theory is no confined to one theory and includes an amalgamation of theories bound by the shared belief that international politics “is socially constructed” and includes two primary assumptions: international politics is not confined to material power, but is social in nature, and the social factors inform all actors’ interests and identities (pp. 71-72). The social structure of international politics is therefore open to interpretation and the fact that Wendt’s interpretation may be different from the interpretation of mainstream critical theory, does not diminish its value as a critical theory. As Wendt (1995) pointed out: ...some critical theorists are statist and some are not; some believe in science and some do not; some are optimists and some pessimist; some stress process and some structure (p. 72). In this regard, critical theory, taken as a whole invites a social construction of international politics and this necessitates a broader understanding of how states are identified and how they define their interests. Critical theory, like Wendt’s constructivist theory rejects the notion that material capabilities alone can fully explain international relations and politics. Wendt argues that if material capabilities were the sole determining factor, the US would not have a different perspective relative to the UK’s possession of nuclear weapons than it has with respect to North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons. Obviously, the UK is an ally and North Korea is not (Wendt, 1995, p. 73). In this regard, Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations is consistent with critical theory since it contemplates that social relationships impact the way that material power is perceived. In other words, just as critical theory emphasizes social constructs and subjectivity that naturally follows from social structures, Wendt likewise emphasizes subjectivity. For example, critical theorist Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School believed that truth was subjective and could only be discovered by looking beneath the surface (Edkins, 2009, p. 10). Critical theorist Roy Bhaskar also argued that knowledge is “socially and politically consequential and historically reflective of social and political prejudices” (Edkins, 2009, p. 94). Wendt’s example of the US’s relationships with North Korea and the UK is demonstrative of Bhaskar’s contention that knowledge is socially and politically influential and therefore ties together critical theory of the social structures of international politics and the subjectivity that naturally flows from social constructs. Critical theory of the 20th century was re-energized by the work of a number of critical theorists including Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer argued that there were two categories of theories: traditional and critical theories. Traditional theories emphasize externalities and the existence of objective truths. Critical theories by contrast do not believe that truths are objective and that social and political factors produce truths that are subjectively shared (Devetak, 2009, p. 161). In this regard, Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations is not a traditional theory, and according to Horkheimer, it is therefore a critical theory. Moreover, Wendt takes the position that truth is generated by subjectivity and intersubjectivity and is therefore socially constructed. As Dunne, Kurki and Smith (2007) explain, critical theory seeks to incorporate “social reasoning” as well as “discourse ethics into an explicitly normative account of the construction of political community at various levels” (p. 158). Therefore unlike traditional international relations theory, critical theory attempts to understand international relations and international politics and its corresponding power politics by looking into social factors that produce power politics (Dunne, et. al., 2007, p. 158). Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations in its rejection of traditional theories and his emphasis on social constructs is therefore consistent with critical theory although Wendt focuses more narrowly on state actors and does not emphasize the impact of non-state actors. Wendt’s Constructivist Account of International Relations Wendt (1992) argues that neorealists and neoliberals are equally loyal to rationalism and rational choice which dictates that actors’ interests and identities are fixed. For neorealists and neoliberals, behaviour influences “outcomes” (Wendt, 1992, p. 392). Wendt (1992) argues however, that this conceptualization of international relations is flawed since, institutions and processes within the international system are comprised of ideas and thoughts. In the event those ideas and thoughts change, so too will the international system. (Wendt, 1992, pp. 391-425). As Wendt (1999) argues, anarchy derives meaning “from the kinds of people who live there and the structure of their relationships” (p. 309). For example, Wendt (1992) explains that states exhibit different mannerisms and behaviours toward states that they regard as their enemies than they behave toward those states that are perceived as enemy states. This is so even where the enemy and friend have entirely similar “structural positions” (Wendt, 1992, p. 397). Anarchy together with power distribution fails to adequately reveal who are enemies and who are friends (Wendt, 1992). Wendt (1999) points out that neorealism in particular takes the position that anarchy is comprised of state actors who pursue self-interest and their relationships with other states are informed and “structured” primarily by “material forces” p. 309). Although Wendt also takes the position that states are the main actors in international politics and relations, the interests of state actors differ from time to time. Moreover, according to Wendt (1999) the “most important structures in which states are embedded are made of ideas, not material forces” ( p. 309). Ideas dictate what power consists of and what power means as well as how states strategize the pursuit of their respective interest and how they define those interests (Wendt, 1999, p. 309). Wendt (1992) explains that “actors acquire identities” which essentially entails: ...relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self – by participating in such collective meanings. Identities are inherently relational: identity, with its appropriate attachments of psychological reality, is always identity within a specific, socially constructed world (pp. 397-398). States do not have fixed identities. Instead states have a variety of identities tied to its sovereign nature, its position in the international order, its ideologies and any number of relevant factors that are socially grounded. Ultimately, how the state identifies itself and how it is identified by other states function to steer and shape the social dynamics of international politics and international relations. Moreover, Wendt (1992) argues that identities are the foundational basis of states’ interests. States’ interests do not materialize in a vacuum. Instead, state actors interests are formed in a “social context” and are defined “in the process of defining situations” (Wendt, 1992, p. 398). Some situations may bring new experiences and state actors are forced to determine what these new situations and experiences mean and what the appropriate interests are arising out of these new situations and experiences should be (Wendt, 1992, p. 398). An obvious example of a new situation and a new experience would be the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. The US faced a security concern that did not involve state actors but instead involved non-state actors with an international character. As a result, the US in defining an interest out of this new situation and experience declared a global war against international terrorism. In the process, the US had to reach out to other states seeking their cooperation in the identification and prosecution of suspected international terrorists. In turn other states responded depending on their perception of the US as either the leader of the free world or an imperialistic intrusive state. As Jackson and Srenson (2007) observe, Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations therefore informs that: ...the world of international relations becomes less fixated in an age-old structure of anarchy; change becomes possible in a big way because people and states can start thinking about each other in new ways and thus create new norms that may be radically different from old ones (p. 162). Wendt essentially argues that social constructs are comprised of three variables: shared/common knowledge, material forces and practices. In this regard, social forces are partly defined by common or mutual “understandings, expectations, or knowledge” (Jackson & Srenson, 2007, p. 165). Thus, the shared knowledge, understandings or expectations are the main actors in the international system and guide relationships to determine whether those relationships are conflicted or “cooperative” (Jackson & Srenson, 2007, p. 165). For instance, security dilemmas is social in structure because the actors will respond to “inter-subjective understandings” characterized by suspicions in which states will naturally assume the worst about the intention of the other state and thus will identify their interests in terms of “self-help” (Jackson & Srenson, 2007, p. 165). A security community however differs in that states’ shared understanding informs that the other state can be trusted to such an extent that the other state can be expected to cooperate in the peaceful solution to disputes (Jackson & Srenson, 2007, p. 165). Wendt’s interpretation of materialism is different from the materialists perception. Materialists take the position that interests and power have material force in that the anarchist state focuses on achieving or maintaining power and interests. In this regard, ideas have little importance. However, for Wendt, material forces exist within a “larger context of meaning” and ideas thus “define the meaning of material power” (Jackson & Srenson, 2007, p. 165). Essentially, Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations looks beneath the surface in his interpretation of state behaviour. Wendt rejects the concept that there are objective truths. Intersubjectivity is important to Wendt in understanding state behaviour and relationships within the international political system. There is no such thing as an objective truth relative to the international system that can be applied to all actors throughout time. Truth arises out of the intersubjectivity of shared knowledge. For example, informal empires such as the US and the former USSR and their subordinate allies behaved in ways that suggested a shared belief. The US and the former USSR collected allies in circumstances where allies and the two super powers all agreed that the super powers needed allies to strengthen their positions against each other and the allies believed that they needed the security offered by the super powers (Krasner, 1999, pp. 49-50). In other words, state action is not motivated entirely by material capabilities, but also and primarily by ideologies and how those ideologies are shared between states as well as between stronger and weaker states. Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations also argues that when state ideologies are put into practice, the state’s identity is created. For example, when the US intervened in Vietnam, this intervention put into practice an identity associated with the US: imperialistic, a great power, an enemy, an ally among others. As Hopf (1998) puts it: Others observing the United States not only inferred US identity from its actions in Vietnam, but also reproduced the intersubjective web of meaning about what precisely constituted that identity. To the extent, for example, that a group of countries attributed an imperialist identity to the United States, the meaning of being an imperialist state was reproduced by the US military intervention (p. 178). In other words, Wendt’s theory of constructivism takes the position that the international order is socially constructed. Social practice produces shared knowledge and as such reduces uncertainty. For the most part, social practices reveal the identity of state actors and thus generate shared knowledge. Others will know with a reasonable degree of certainty what specific conduct will be taken and what outcomes and responses can be expected. Conclusion Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations has had an uneasy co-existence with critical theory. This uneasy co-existence arises out of the fact that while some critical theorists and scholars recognize that Wendt’s constructivist account of international relations is a critical theory, others reject this view and claim that Wendt’s theory is no more than a veiled version of traditional theory. Regardless Wendt himself admits that his constructivist account of international relations is not only influenced by or rooted in critical theory, but is critical theory. Wendt further argues that critical theory is broad in that it includes a number of theories and cannot be reduced to a single ideology. The binding theme in the family of critical theory is the rejection of traditional theory premised on the social construction of international politics and relations. In this regard, Wendt adopts this approach, although more narrowly than mainstream critical theorists. Bibliography Bronner, S. E. and Kellner, D. (1989). Critical Theory and Society: A Reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Cox, R. W. (1986). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” In Keohane, R. O. (Ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. Colombia University Press. Devetak, R. (2009). “Critical Theory”, in Burchill, S.; Linklater, Devetak, R. et. al. (ed.), Theories of International Relations. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Dunne, T.; Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (2007). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Edkins, J. (2009). Critical Theorists and International Relations. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Jackson, R. H. and Srenson, G. (2007). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. George, J. and Campbell, D. (Sept. 1990). “Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34(3): 269-293. Hopf, T. (Summer 1998). “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security, Vol. 23(1): 171-200. Jones, R. W. (2001). Critical Theory and World Politics. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Linklater, A. (2000). International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. 3. London, UK: Routledge. Payne, R. A. and Samhat, N. H. (2012). Democratizing Global Politics: Discourse Norms, International Regimes, and Political Community. SUNY Press. Price, R. and Reus-Smit, C. (1998). “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 4(3): 259-294. Wendt, A. (Summer 1995). “Constructing International Politics.” International Security, Vol. 20(1): 71-81. Wendt, A. (Spring 1992). “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization, Vol. 46(2): 391-425. Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Read More