Class 10 Constructivism in International Relations PDF

Class 10. Constructing rather than explaining or interpreting: constructivism in International Relations. Summary The focus of constructivism is on human awareness or consciousness and its place in world affairs. Much IR theory, and especially neorealism, is materialist: it fo...

Class 10. Constructing rather than explaining or interpreting: constructivism in International Relations. Summary The focus of constructivism is on human awareness or consciousness and its place in world affairs. Much IR theory, and especially neorealism, is materialist: it focuses on how the distribution of material power, such as military forces and economic capabilities, defines balances of power between states and explains the behavior of states. Constructivists reject such a one-sided material focus. They argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material. Constructivists argue that that social reality is not objective, or external, to the observer of international affairs. The social and political world, including the world of international relations, is not a physical entity or material object that is outside human consciousness. The international system is not something “out there”, like the solar system. It does not exist on its own. It exists only as an intersubjective awareness, or a common understanding among people. In that sense, the system is constituted by ideas, not by material forces. It is a human invention or creation not of a physical or material kind, but of a purely intellectual and ideational kind. It 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. If the thoughts and ideas that enter the existence of international relations change, then the system itself will change as well, because the system consists in thoughts and ideas. Consequently, the study of international relations must focus on the ideas and beliefs that inform the actors on the international scene as well as the shared understandings between them. Key point: constructivists do not argue that ‘reality’ is an illusion. Rather, the reality that surrounds us is not merely a product of purely objective or material forces, but essentially a product of our shared perceptions, values, ideas, and understanding. This view is clearly illustrated by constructivist Alexander Wendt in the following statement: “500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons”. That means, it is less the material fact of numbers of nuclear weapons that matters; what matters is how the actors think about each other, i.e., their ideas and beliefs. Material facts enter the picture but are secondary to ideas. The example also shows that nuclear weapons by themselves do not have any meaning unless we understand the social context. Reality is always under construction.  Therefore, it is useful to emphasize the contrast between a materialist view held by neorealists (and neoliberals) and the ideational view held by constructivists. According to the materialist view, power and national interests are the driving forces in international politics. Power is ultimately military capability, supported by economic and other resources. Power and interests are seen as ‘material’ factors, as objective entities in the sense that because of anarchy states are compelled to be preoccupied with power and interest. In this view, ideas matter little. In the ideational view held by social constructivists, ideas always matter. Activity: video, Theory in Action: Constructivism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYU9UfkV_XI What is the constructivist approach about? o Changing the rules which the world is based on. That’s what people do all the time. Who can do that? Some people are more ‘listened to’ than others. It is like an endless cycle, where we are constantly changing these rules and the way social life works. o You cannot have international politics unless you have a set of ideas (for example, about states, authority structures or about legitimate governments). o How much of that belief structure do you need to share before there can be international relations at all? o All these things that we take for granted just because they are habitual, could be thought in a different way. It’s all about ideas and beliefs. The rise of constructivism Beginning in the 1980s, constructivism has become an increasingly significant approach, especially in North American IR. During the Cold War, there was a clear pattern of power balancing between the two blocs, led by the United States and the Soviet Union respectively. After the end of the Cold War, and following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the situation turned much more fluid and open. It soon became clear that the neorealist theory was not at all clear about the future developments of the balance of power. Neorealist logic dictates that other states will balance against the US because offsetting US power is a means of guaranteeing one’s own security; such balancing will lead to the emergence of new great powers in a multipolar system. But since the end of the Cold War, this has not happened. Waltz argues that it will eventually happen. The constructivist claim is that neorealist uncertainty is closely connected to the fact that the theory is too materialist, and they argue that a focus on thoughts and ideas leads to a better theory about anarchy, and power balancing.  Some neoliberals have basically accepted neorealist assumptions as a starting point for analysis; they are of course vulnerable to much of the criticism directed against neorealists by constructivists. While some neoliberals also began to focus more on the role of ideas after the end of the Cold War, they were mostly interested in the concrete advance of liberal, democratic government in the world. Even if constructivists are sympathetic to several elements of the liberal and neo-liberal thinking, their focus is less on the advance of liberal ideas: it is more on the role of thinking and ideas in general. So, the historical context (end of the Cold War) and the theoretical discussions between IR scholars helped set the stage for a constructivist approach. Constructivism became especially popular among North American scholars because that environment was dominated by the neorealist/neoliberal approaches. In Europe, the International Society approach had already to a significant extent included the role of ideas and the importance of social interaction between states in their analysis. Constructivism has deeper roots; it is not entirely a new approach. It also grows out of an old methodology that can be traced back at least to the eighteenth-century writings of the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico. According to Vico, the natural world is made of God, but the historical world is made by Man. History is not some kind of unfolding or evolving process that is external to human affairs. Men and women make their own history. They also make states, which are historical constructs. States are artificial creations, and the state system is artificial too; it is made by men and women and if they want to, they can change it and develop it in new ways. Immanuel Kant is another forerunner of constructivism. Kant argued that we can obtain knowledge about the world, but it will always be subjective knowledge, in the sense that it is filtered through human consciousness. Max Weber is another important point of reference for constructivists: he emphasized that the social world (i.e., the world of human interaction) is fundamentally different from the natural world of physical phenomena. Human beings rely on ‘understanding’ of each other’s actions and assigning ‘meaning’ to them. To understand human interaction, we cannot merely describe it in the way we describe physical phenomena. We need a different kind of interpretative understanding, or ‘verstehen’. Constructivists rely on such insights to emphasize the importance of ‘meaning’ and ‘understanding’. Constructivism as social theory Constructivism is both a social theory (that is, a theory about the social world, about social action and about the relationship between structures and actors), but it is also more specifically several different IR theories, that is, theories about some aspect of international relations.  Constructivists were inspired by theoretical developments in other social science disciplines, like philosophy and sociology. In sociology, Anthony Giddens proposed the concept of ‘structuration’ as a way of analyzing the relationships between structures and actors. According to Giddens, structures (i.e., the rules and conditions that guide social action) do not determine what actors do in any mechanical way, an impression one might get from the neorealist view of how the structure of anarchy constrains state actors. The relationship between structures and actors involves intersubjective understanding and meaning. Structures do constrain actors, but actors can also transform structures by thinking about them and acting on them in new ways. The notion of structuration therefore leads to a less rigid and more dynamic view of the relationship between structures and actors. IR constructivists use this as a starting point for suggesting a less rigid view of anarchy. In social theory, constructivists emphasize the social construction of reality. Human relations, including international relations, consist of thought and ideas and not essentially of material conditions or forces. According to constructivism as a social theory, the social world is not a given. The social and political world is not part of nature. The social world is a world of human consciousness: of thoughts and beliefs, of ideas and concepts, of languages and discourses, of signs, signals, and understandings among human beings, especially groups of human beings, such as states and nations. The social world is an intersubjective domain: it is meaningful to the people who made it and live in it. The social world is in part constructed of physical entities; social structures are formed also by material resources. The international system of security and defence for example, consists of territories, populations, weapons, and other physical assets. But it is the ideas and understandings according to which those assets are conceived, organized, and used that is most important. The physical element is there, but that element is secondary to the intellectual element which infuses it with meaning, organizes it, and guides it. The core element upon which constructivists focus is intersubjective beliefs, ideas, and assumptions that are widely shared among people. Ideas must be widely shared to matter. There are many kinds of ideas. Nina Tannenwald identifies four major types: 1. Ideologies or shared beliefs systems; 2. Normative beliefs; 3. Cause-effect beliefs; and 4. Policy prescriptions (see slide). Constructivist theories of international relations Constructivism as social theory operates at a high level of abstraction. Constructivist theory of international relations, by contrast, focus specifically on how a constructivist framework can be used to better understand or explain the substance of IR. It focuses particularly on the intersubjective ideas that define international relations.  Constructivist theories of international relations owe much to the work of Alexander Wendt. The core of Wendt’s argument is the rejection of the neorealist position, according to which anarchy must necessarily lead to self-help. Whether it does or not cannot be decided a priori, it depends on the interaction between states. It is in these processes of interaction that the identities and interests of states are created. That is the insight behind the oft-repeated phrase by Wendt: ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (1992). For neorealists, identities and interests are given. States know who they are and what they want before they begin interaction with other states. For Wendt, it is the very interaction with others that create one specific structure of identities and interests rather than another. Structure has no existence apart from process. States want to survive and be secure; neorealists and constructivists agree on that; but what kind of security policy follows from this? Do states seek to become as powerful as possible? Wendt argues that we can only find out by studying identities and interests as they are shaped in the interaction between states. In concrete terms, if the US and the Soviet Union decide that they are no longer enemies, “the Cold War is over”. it is collective meanings that constitute the structures which organize our actions. Actors acquire identities by participating in such collective meaning. Wendt’s point of departure is similar to Waltz (neorealism): interaction between states in a system characterized by anarchy. But anarchy need not necessarily lead to self-help and competition between states. It calls for further study of the discursive interaction between states to discover what specific ‘culture of anarchy’ has developed between them. Wendt suggests three major ideal types of anarchy. 1. Hobbesian. In the Hobbesian culture, states view each other as enemies; the logic of Hobbesian anarchy is ‘war of all against all’. States are adversaries and war is endemic because violent conflict is a way of survival. Hobbesian anarchy, according to Wendt, dominated the state system until the seventeenth century. 2. Lockean. In the Lockean culture, states consider each other rivals, but there is also restraint; states do not seek to eliminate each other, they recognize the other states’ right to exist. Lockean anarchy became a characteristic of the modern state system after the Peace of Westphalia (1648). 3. Kantian. In a Kantian culture, states view each other as friends, settle disputes peacefully and support each other in the case of threat by a third party. A Kantian culture has emerged among consolidated liberal democracies since the Second World War. In sum, according to Wendt, constructivism is not merely about ‘adding the role of ideas’ to existing theories of IR. Material power and state interest are fundamentally formed by ideas and social interaction. Therefore, states in an anarchic system may each possess military and other capabilities which can be seen as potentially threatening by other states; but enmity and arms races are not inevitable outcomes. Social interaction between states can also lead to more benign and friendly cultures  of anarchy. Thus, Wendt’s analysis focuses on interaction between states in the international system, while disregarding the role of domestic factors within states. Martha Finnemore has proposed another variant of constructivist analysis in her 1996 book, ‘National Interests in International Society’. She starts from the definition of states’ identities and interests. But instead of looking at the social interaction between states, the focus is on the norms of international society and they which in they affect state identities and interests. State behavior is defined by identity and interest. Identity and interests are defined by international forces, that is, by the norms of behavior embedded in international society. The norms of international society are transmitted to states through international organizations. They shape national policies by ‘teaching’ states what their interests should be. One example is how states have come to accept norms/rules of warfare. The argument is that an international organization, namely the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), was instrumental in promoting humanitarian norms in warfare. The ICRC succeeded in prescribing what was ‘appropriate behavior’ for ‘civilized’ states involved in war. The ICRC could push through new norms in an area (war) that neorealists would consider critical for national interests, namely the right to unconstrained use of force during times of war. Thus, Finnemore argues that international norms promoted by international organizations can decisively influence national guidelines by pushing states to adopt these norms in their national policies. She emphasizes the central role of norms in the international society. The role of international organizations (IOs) has been stressed even more by constructivists. In their analysis, Barnett and Finnemore make the argument that IOs are key and should not be reduced to useful tools to carry out functions for states. On the one hand, they are autonomous actors who might exercise power in their own right. On the other hand, they “construct the social world in which cooperation and choice take place. They help define the interests that states, and other actors come to hold” (Barnett and Finnemore, 2005: 162). IOs are powerful because they are bureaucracies and because they pursue liberal social goals considered attractive by other major actors. They have power, in the sense that they control material resources that can be used to influence others. For example, the World Bank has money, and the UN peacekeepers have weapons. Another form of power is made up of normative resources. The European Union, for example, is hard at work persuading members to reconfigure domestic institutions and practices in ways that harmonize with European and international standards. IO’s ‘institutional’ power stems from their ability to guide behavior in more indirect ways. Another major example is the agenda-setting activities of IOs. The organizations are often able to determine the agenda of meetings and conferences held under their  auspices. Therefore, they significantly influence what is discussed and what is eventually decided. For instance, the UN Secretary-General’s decision to make humanitarian intervention a defining theme of his 1999 address to the General Assembly shaped subsequent discussions. Finally, IOs also have ‘productive’ power in relation to their role in constituting the problems that need to be solved. In this respect, IOs act as authorities who formulate, define, and present certain problems to others; they also contribute to solving problems by offering solutions and convincing others to accept them. An example of a constructivist approach: the case of Bhutan Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom located in the Himalayas. The material structural conditions are reflected in its population of approximately 745,000, a territory that amounts to 38,394 square kilometres, a weak economy and a very small military. On top of this, Bhutan shares a national border with the two major powers in Asia: China in the north and India in the south. Bhutan’s location is geographically sensitive as the country serves as a buffer state between these major powers, which perceive each other as rivals rather than friends. In addition to this, the Chinese leadership claimed, after it annexed Tibet in the 1950s, that Bhutan’s territory was also part of its mainland. To date there remains an ongoing border dispute between Bhutan and China and there have been reports that the Chinese army has made several incursions into Bhutan. Likewise, India has had a hand in Bhutan’s foreign policy. Article 2 of the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty (1949) notes that ‘Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice of India in regard to its external relations.’ Although this Article was revised in 2007, commentators have reported that India still holds a degree of influence over Bhutan. From a realist perspective, one would argue that Bhutan is in an unfavourable position as it is hindered by its geographical location and cannot compete for power with its neighbours. The preservation of its national sovereignty would likely depend on the outcome of the greater competition between China and India. A constructivist view, on the other hand, would argue that these structural conditions do not necessarily constrain Bhutan’s ability to pursue its national interests since they are not the only conditions that influence state behaviour: the meaning given to these structural conditions also matters. For example, when Tibet was annexed by China, Bhutan felt threatened. As a result, it closed its border in the north and turned to India, its neighbour in the south. From that moment onward, Bhutan perceived China as a potential threat and India as a friend. To date, Bhutan and India perceive each other as friends whereas Bhutan has no official relations with China. These social relationships represent the ideational structure that originated from the meaning given to the material structure. It is important to note, however, that the social relationships are subject to change depending on the ideas, beliefs and actions of Bhutan, India and China. For example, an agreement on the border dispute between  China and Bhutan could change how both countries perceive each other. This change might lead to the establishment of an official relationship, the nature of which is friendship rather than enmity. A constructivist is well placed to detect and understand these changes since their object of enquiry focuses on the social relationships between states. Critiques of constructivism Neo-realist critique: neorealists are skeptical about the importance that constructivists attach to norms, in particular international norms. Such norms surely exist, but they are routinely disregarded if that is in the interest of powerful states. Since the Peace of Westphalia, powerful states have violated the autonomy of and the integrity of weak ones. Norms do not have that much influence on the behavior of states. At the same time, neorealists are not ready to accept that states can easily become friends due to their social interaction. Such a goal may be desirable in principle, but not realizable in practice since the structure of the international system forces states to behave as egoists. Anarchy, offensive capabilities, and uncertain intentions combine to leave states with little choice but to compete aggressively with one another. For neorealists, trying to infuse states with communitarian norms is a hopeless cause. The major problem that states face in anarchy, according to neorealists, is a problem that is not sufficiently analyzed by constructivists, namely the problem of uncertainty. Uncertainty is about the present and future intentions of other states. At any given moment, there may be peace in the international system. But in anarchy, states are always seeking security; moves in that direction can be misread by other states, that is what the security dilemma is all about. According to neorealists, Wendt’s constructivist analysis for example overly downplays the fact that states have difficulties in obtaining trustworthy information about the motives and intentions of other states. The problem of uncertainty is also increased by the fact of deception. Constructivists tend to assume that social interaction between states is always sincere and that states genuinely attempt to express and understand each other’s motives and intentions. But there is a pervasive element of deception in the relations between many states. In other words, are states really peaceful or do they merely pretend to be peaceful? Against this critique, constructivists will maintain that anarchy is a more complex entity than posited by neorealists. It need not always lead to self-help, mutual aggression, and the risk of violent conflict. Without incorporating a focus on ideas and social interaction, on the formation of interests and identities, it will not be possible to produce a precise analysis about the nature of anarchy. It can be true that states sometimes may only pretend to be amicable and peaceful, but that can be interpreted according to different degrees of internalization of shared ideas and beliefs.  Another critique by neorealists concerns the constructivist view of change. Constructivists, according to neorealists, do not provide insights on how change takes place, and they fail to explain how norms are formed, how identities are shaped, and how interests are defined. Constructivism does not really tell us about change in international relations. Constructivists argue that they do study change and claim that they most certainly do that through the analysis of social interaction. The analysis of change points to areas where constructivists can cooperate with (neo)liberals and international society theorists. (Neo)Liberals focus on processes of democratization, interdependence, and international institutions. Liberal progress can help create norms and ideas of cooperation. As for international society theorists, they emphasize the existence of common interests and common values between states (which is what makes relations between states into an international society instead of a mere system of states). Constructivists are thus largely in line with these theories. Glossary Key concepts Constructivism Structuration Hobbesian culture of anarchy Lockean culture of anarchy Kantian culture of anarchy Norms of international society Constructivism Constructivists argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material. They argue that this social reality is not objective, or external, to the observer of international affairs. The social and political world, including the world of international relations, it not a physical entity or material object that is outside of human consciousness. Consequently, the study of international relations must focus on the ideas and beliefs that inform the actors on the international scene as well as the shared understandings between them. Structuration A concept suggested by Anthony Giddens as a way of analyzing the relationship between structures and actors. Structures (i.e., the rules and conditions that guide social action) do not determine what actors do in any mechanical way, an impression one might get from the neorealist view of how the structure of anarchy constrains state actors. The relationship between structures and actors involves intersubjective understanding and meaning. Structures do constrain actors, but actors can also transform structures by thinking about them and acting on them in new ways. The notion of structuration therefore leads to a less rigid and more dynamic view of the relationship between structures and actors. IR constructivists use this as a starting point for suggesting a less rigid view of anarchy. Hobbesian culture of anarchy The founder of the social constructivist approach in the theory of international relations – Alexander Wendt - distinguished three types of the anarchy of the international system. The Hobbesian culture of anarchy is characterized by a struggle for dominance and the presence of hostile relations between actors. The basic foundations of the functioning of this type of anarchy are egocentricity, rationality and the possibility of the unrestrained use of power in the foreign policy strategy of the actors. In the Hobbesian culture of anarchy, states see each other as enemies and the use of violence is potentially unlimited. “The war of all against all”. Lockean culture of anarchy The founder of the social constructivist approach in the theory of international relations – Alexander Wendt - distinguished three types of the anarchy of the international system. In the Lockean anarchy, actors play the role of rivals. The relations between them are formed on the basis of the principle of balance of power. It affects the limitation of their goals in the international environment. The rivals create an impression of themselves and others within the category of violence but they are less threatening than in the previous type. Unlike the general representations of the enemies, rivals expect from each other to pursue a behavior aimed at recognizing the sovereignty and freedom of the others where the desire for domination in the international environment is absent. “Live and let live”. Kantian culture of anarchy The founder of the social constructivist approach in the theory of international relations – Alexander Wendt - distinguished three types of the anarchy of the international system. In the Kantian culture of anarchy, states construct a common notion of “We”, adhering to the general rules and norms conducted in the international system. Within the Kantian culture actors are positively identified by each other but sometimes they can use force to settle disputes. States see each other as ‘friends’ and expect from each other to settle disputes without the threat of a war and that they will act collectively if any of them is threatened by a third party. Norms of international society According to constructivism, norms are conceptualized as aspects of social structure that emerge from the actions and beliefs of actors; norms shape actions and beliefs by constituting actors’ identities and interests. Constructivist Martha Finnemore highlights that state behavior is defined by identity and interest. Identity and interests are defined by international forces, that is, by the norms of behavior embedded in international society. The norms of international society are transmitted to states through international organizations.