Social Constructivism Which Offers New Avenues for Research in International Relations - Essay Example

To what extent does Social Constructivism offer New Avenues for Theoretical and Methodological Research in International Relations? Introduction and Background Social Constructivism has emerged as a matter of great significance in the theory of International Relations and social interactions as well as communications are an integral part of the international system (Adler, 2002). As suggested by Joerges and Neyer, the social interactions which occur between institutions are often attributed as a process of argumentation and deliberation (Joerges and Neyer, 1997). Without a doubt, excessive submissions to various presses and journals all throughout the world attribute themselves as constructivist, thereby, placing their arguments against those of the constructivists (Checkel, 2004). Constructivists also offer empirical studies with great details which have the capability of augmenting and enhancing their previous theoretical assessments of mainstream outlooks. Moreover, the discourse between rationalists and social constructivists has eventually reached the study of integration (Moravscik, 1999; Aspinwall and Schneider, 2000). Still, with any maturing research programmed, there ought to be the filling of gaps, thereby, meeting the challenges. For that matter, a better appreciation along with the theorization of domestic politics is imperative. Moreover, an unambiguous attention to the methods of research is a call for, along with supplementary work on the linguistic turn centralizing on constructivism, followed by a reassessment of the attempts to form bridges. The focus of Social Constructivism usually lies on the human cognizance of consciousness along with its position in the world affairs. To an extent, it has the capability of eradicating all the social barriers (Bodil and Bjorke, 2005). Moreover, appropriate distribution of material power, such as military forces as well as economic abilities which describe the equilibrium of power and authority between states, thereby, elucidating their conduct, is a major hub for social constructivism. Researchers argue that the most significant feature of International Relations is social and not material (Jackson and Sorensen, 2007). Also, they suggest that the social factuality is not objective or extrinsic to the spectator of international affairs, and the social as well as the political globe which is also inclusive of the world of international relations, does not evolve as a physical entity or materialistic attribute which is extrinsic to human psyche. The international system is existent merely as an inter-subjective cognizance amongst masses, and as a result, it is constituted by ideas and not by any material constraints. It is imperative to clarify where constructivism originates from and for what reason has it established itself as a significant outlook in carrying out researches in International Relations over a short period of time. In current years, the constructivist notion with regards to global political attributes has introduces a whiff of fresh air to the international relations characteristics. With thorough assessment of the arguments of identity as well as interest, constructivist researchers have interpreted a significant corrective to the methodological individualism and materialism which have emerged to lay dominion on much of International Relations. Under various reviews, as indicated in a number of literatures, constructivism has succeeded in delineating its empirical worth, thereby, documenting an innovative and significant role for standards as well as social structure in global politics. However, the outlook towards it remains inarticulate. Meticulously, constructivism fails to elucidate the origins of such anatomies, their occasional transformations along with their influences which differ nationally, or the phenomena by means of which they constitute states and citizens (Checkel, 1998). The reason behind such failure is the absence of the substantive theory as well as attention to the agency that will facilitate them with answers to such baffles, along with the assurance of development of a productive research program (Checkel, 1998). Social Constructivism in International Relations In the regulation of international relations, Social constructivism is the affirmation that important features of international relations are chronologically and socially reliant, rather than predictable results of human nature or other necessary characteristics of world politics (Jackson and Nexon, 2001). Social constructivism is based on precise assumptions with regards to reality, knowledge, and learning. Socialization, social-learning, deliberation, and the like are the buzzwords of choice for constructivists today (Caporaso and Jupille, 1999). A Constructivist can construct a comprehension that would help him attain his goals (Duffy and Kirkley, 2004). In order to comprehend and implement the models of instruction which are rooted in the perspectives of social constructivists, it is significant to be cognizant of the premises such as reality, knowledge, and learning that outline them. Even though, there are current debates in constructivism, the main suppositions of constructivist approach can be put forward in various points which have the capability of challenging the rationalist suppositions. To start with, as put forward by the constructivists, the international system is a set of ideologies, a body of thought, a configuration of standards, which has been assorted by certain people at a particular time and place (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007). Constructivism construes the international system as socially constructed and not proposed. Moreover, as put forward by constructivists, agents are not existent autonomously from their social environment. They are a part of the international system where states are not the only actors. This comprehension has promoted social constructivism in international relations (Christiansen, Jorgensen and Wiener, 1999). As a result, state interests evolve from an environment where states are functioning and are endogenous to the interaction of states with their environment (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007). Lastly, constructivists stress on the significance of normative or ideational structures, along with material anatomies in defining the meaning and identity of an individual. As a result, we can conclude that constructivism challenges the material and rational suppositions of the mainstream International Relations theories, thereby, attempting to address the issues that are usually not paid attention to. The role of constructivism in International Relations is not concerned with the precise theories of International Relations or levels of assessment, but with the outlining conceptions of how the social and political world functions. As we’ve seen above, it is not a theory, but an approach and a step towards the social assessment that is based on two suppositions: The environment in which the states take action is social and material in nature This system can facilitate states with comprehensions of their interests In other words, the scholars question the materialism and methodological individualism upon which the much modern political science scholarship has been established (Checkel, 1998). It is argued that constructivism has succeeded in widening the theoretical contours of the International Relations. With the help of rigorous exploratory issues of identity and interest as highlighted by neo-liberalism and neo-realism, constructivism delineates that its sociological approach has rescued the exploration of identity of international politics (Checkel, 1998). Moreover, constructivism has been of help in rescuing the exploration of identity from post-modernism. With the help of arguing on its significance by bringing into use methods as accepted by majorly scholar, they have been able to confront main-stream assessors on their own land. Constructivism over-stresses the role of social structures as well as standards at the cost of the agents who help in creating and transforming them in the first place (Checkel, 1998). Constructivism as an approach to international relations may approve of any number of forms, but each of them looks forward to position the behaviour of states, or in a social or conventional context, perceiving decision-making as much in ideational as in material terminologies (Mellon, 2008). In its slightest sense, constructivism has been recognized with the work put forward by Alexander Wendt and of those who have admired his work. On the other hand, in its widest sense, constructivism has been implemented as a delineative tag to all critics of realism, neo-realism, and liberal institutionalism (Mellon, 2008). The more traditional usage, however, recognizes constructivism with an approach that locates the sources of behaviour in international politics in the interaction of social and ideational as well as material constraints, while be discerned in the work of a number of eminent assessors and analysts in the field of international relations. As quoted analytically, such an approach mirrors the influence of trends that transcend international relations in the social sciences in general terms. From the outlook of a normative discourse, however, the most explicit approach for a constructivist would be to hoist up arguments of authenticity, which is of reliability with the values of a professed convention, and is of unsteadiness with the values of a professed convention (Mellon, 2008). Constructivism, in context of the international relations, mirrors the impacts of critical international relations theory to a greater level than most of the other constructivists fail to do. Social theory can be efficiently brought into use in order to examine the generation of corporate agency as well as individuality, which may also help in the analysis of the association between an agency and structure. As stated by Wendt, constructivism is not a theory of international politics, as it encourages the view of how agents are socially constructed, but they still do not tell us which agents to study or where they are constructed (Mellon, 2008). Construing constructivism as a result of the liberal-communitarian discourse in political philosophy and the rational inter-pretivist discourse in the philosophy of social science, it is also argued that constructivism looks forward, and to some extent, has managed to find a middle ground between a rational outlook which centralizes on individuality and an interpretive perception which takes into account contextual knowledge and information, steadiness, and human interpretation to be the trademarks of social actuality (Mellon, 2008). It is also suggested that this outlook, however, does not indicate the conclusion of the nation-state or degrade the insignificance of individuals and agency in the international life. Instead, it argues about what arbitrates between states, individuals, and human agency. On the other hand, social structures and configurations are communes of practice. As discussed above, constructivism can bridge the disparities between realists, neo-realists, and liberals, on the one hand, and critical theorists, feminists and post-modernists, on the other (Mellon, 2008). Legitimacy can be an efficacious examination for the moral analysis in international relations. Also, it reflects the test of conscience in personal moral adjudication by which an agent seeks discipline and regulation so as to deny the allowance of enticements in order to succeed in diverting one from following the dictates of conscience (Mellon, 2008). Telling the difference of the true and authentic character of national as well as international values requires critical consideration of now standards and conventions are mirrored historically, culturally, and institutionally. It is not possible for empirical research to always facilitate with values, but it can throw light on what values are asserted to profess. It can also delineate how our comprehension of the implications of such values has developed into. As a matter of fact, constructivism attempts to attain such conclusions. It does not have simple and easy formulas. With thorough consideration to the international relations in the context of history and culture, the comprehension as well as explanation can be efficaciously improvised and enhanced. However, it will not eradicate the essentiality for analysis. Constructivism brings with it centralization and concentration on the human and social side of international relations, but will not make it all lucid by itself, for instance, to what organizations or social communes analysis should be implemented. We can also conclude that constructivism, though being an implement to easiness, can make the job somewhat challenging and hard (Mellon, 2008). Conclusion The suppositions which underlay constructivism account for its disparate comprehension of world politics and international relations. For the reason that agents and structures are mutually constructed, state behaviour in the facet of various disseminations of power and authority is incognizant of a reconstruction of the inter-subjective interpretation of these anatomies and agents. For the reason that agents have multitudinous individualities, and these individualities entail disparate interests, the attribution of similar interests to states in somewhat unacceptable. Moreover, for the reason that authority can be both material and discursive, framed conduct over time ought to be comprehended as a consequence of material or economic authority working in tandem with ideological anatomies, social practices, institutionalized standards, and inter-subjective webs of interpretation (Hopf, 1998). By raising a question of what made constructivism likely, analysts discuss the puzzles and promises of constructivist role in international relations. It is argued that the interactive style which coined constructivism as a movement facilitates with the key too. Amongst the puzzles of centralization, the lack of epistemological overlap, and a disciplinary culture of consecutive debates that attained their apex of non-communication with the following discourse, is prominent. Constructivism develops a cultural conjecture of international politics which contrasts with the realist mainstream (Wendt, 1999). However, constructivism itself is not a theory of international politics, however, is an attempt to assess the ontology of the states configuration or to respond to the second-order questions about what it actually is and how does one identify it. The ontology and comprehension of social actuality here is not individualist, but relational (Ruggie, 1998). From all of the discussions presented in the paper, we can construe that constructivism is grounded on two fundamental principles. Firstly, structures of human relation are recognized chiefly by the exchanged ideologies rather than material forces and, secondly, the identities as well as interests of rational agents that are constructed y these exchanged ideas rather than provided by nature. We can, thus, conclude that constructivism plays the role of structural idealism in International Relations. References 1. Adler, E. (2002) Constructivism and International Relations, in Carlnaes Walter, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations, Sage Publications, London. 2. Aspinwall, M. and Schneider, G. (2000) Same Menu, Separate Tables: The Institutionalist Turn in Political Science and the Study of European Integration. In The Rules of Integration: The Institutionalist Approach to European Studies, edited by Mark Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 3. Bodil, A. and Sven, A. B. (2005) Global Cooperation on E-Learning in EDEN 2005 Annual Conference Proceedings, Helsinki University of Technology, EDEN Pub., Hungary. 4. Caporaso, J. and Jupille. J. (1999) Institutionalism and the European Union: Beyond International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 2:429-44. 5. Checkel, J. T. (1998) The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics, The Johns University Press. 6. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2004) Social constructivisms in global and European politics: a review essay. Review of International Studies (2004), 30:2, Cambridge University Press. British International Studies Association. Pp. 229-244. 7. Christiansen, Thomas, Joergensen, K. E. and Wiener, A. Editors. (1999) The Social Construction of Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 6 (Special Issue). 8. Duffy, T. M. and Jamie, R. K. (eds), (2004) Learner-Centred Theory and Practice in Distance Education, LEA Publishers, US. 9. Hopf, Ted. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1998). The MIT Press. Pp. 171-200. 10. Jackson, P. T. And Nexon, D. H. (2002) Whence Causal Mechanisms? A Comment on Legro in Dialogue IO, Vol. 1. 11. Jackson, R. H. and Sorensen, G. (2007) Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches, USA: Oxford University Press. 12. Joerges, C. and Juergen N. (1997) Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem-Solving: European Comitology in the Foodstuffs Sector. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (December). 13. Karacasulu, Nilufer and Elif Uzgoren. 2007, Explaining Social Constructivist Contrubutions To Security Studies. Summer-Autumn 2007. Perceptions. 14. Mellon, James G. (2008) Constructivism and Moral Argument in International Relations. 2008 CPSA conference. Canadian Political Science Association. 15. Moravcsik, Andrew. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 16. Ruggie, John Gerard. (1998) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. New York: Routledge Press. 17. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, US: Cambridge University Press. Read More