Lecture 5: Constructivism - International Relations BAES 2023/2024 PDF

Common Course Introduction to International Relations BAES 2023/2024 Lecture 5 Constructivism 21 November 2023 Dr Clara della Valle Introduction Constructivism both as a meta-theory (method) about the nature of the social world and as a substantial theory of IR Substance and method issues Sub...

Common Course Introduction to International Relations BAES 2023/2024 Lecture 5 Constructivism 21 November 2023 Dr Clara della Valle Introduction Constructivism both as a meta-theory (method) about the nature of the social world and as a substantial theory of IR Substance and method issues Substance Ø Ø Ø Ø What causes war? How is order maintained? Does democracy lead to peace? Does economic development bring social justice? Method Method influence substance and vice versa Ø How should politics be studied? Ø What are the relevant units of analysis? Ø How do assumptions influence conclusions? The methodological debate grew when the discipline became established: in the second half of 1900 Impact of the end of the Cold War on IR v Questioning IR capacity: § § § Descriptive (Rosecrance’s ‘concert of powers’; Ruggie’s multilateralism; Krauthammer’s unipolar moment; Huntington) Explicative (Risse & Grunberg) Predictive (NR vs. NLI; Fukuyama; Ikenberry) Crisis of the discipline due to a) incapacity of forecasting; b) difficulty in explaining; difficulty in applying old theories to the new scenario v Search for interpretative-descriptive approaches adapted to the new situation v Epistemological debate and enlargement of the discipline’s boundaries § § § Multidisciplinary openness Reintegration of neglected variables (e.g. ‘culture’ and ‘geopolitics’) New thematic areas (e.g. globalization; Westphalian system crisis; human security governance; etc.) The epistemological debate CONSOLIDATED APPROACHES POST-POSITIVIST ALTERNATIVES In particular, Neo-realism and Neoliberalism Group of theories and approaches critical of the rationalism prevailing in mainstream IR Post-positivist issues Post-positivist methodologies Rationalists Constructivism as a ‘bridge’ (Adler, 1997) Reflectivists Some relevant concepts of the epistemological debate Ontology: concerns the nature of the social world. Branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental and necessary structures of being, independently of their specific and individual manifestations Ø Objectivist ontology: ‘there is a world out there’ à explanatory theories: the world is external to the theories about it Ø Subjectivist ontology: ‘the world is a social construct’ à constitutive theories: our theories contribute to creating the world as we perceive it Epistemology: concerns how we can obtain knowledge about this world. Theory or methodology of scientific knowledge Ø Foundational epistemology: all statements about the state of the world can be judged as ‘true’ or ‘false’ à Problems: knowledge limited to observable objects; causes are not observable, only correlations are; ‘objective’ observation does not exist because there are always theoretical assumptions that influence it Ø Anti-foundational epistemology: statements about the state of the world cannot be judged as ‘true’ or ‘false’ because there is no neutral basis of reference à Problems: at its extreme, this type of epistemology leads to the fact that scholars cannot study the real world, but only the construction of this world (i.e. language, how this world is constructed) and these are post-modern scholars Positivist epistemologies (e.g. neo-realism and neo-liberalism) are foundational Positivism claims: v The unity of scientific knowledge (thus the possibility in the social sciences to use the methodology of the natural sciences) v The idea that facts and values can be distinguished and that the former are ‘neutral’ with respect to theories v The idea that the social world functions according to rules that social science can ‘discover’ à “explanation” is the theory’s function v The idea that it is possible to ‘test’ theories through the observation of objective facts, and evaluate them as ‘true’ or ‘false’ à ‘empiricist’ epistemology Rationalists: objectivist ontology + foundational epistemology Reflectivists: subjectivist ontology + anti-foundational epistemology Constructivists: objectivist ontology + anti-foundational epistemology à ‘bridge’ Social Constructivism Some definitions Constructivism is “…the view that the manner in which the material world shapes and is shaped by human action and interaction depends on dynamic normative and epistemic interpretations of the material world” (Adler, 1997) Constructivism is “…not a theory but an approach to social inquiry based on two assumptions: (1) the environment in which agents/states take action is social as well as material; and (2) this setting can provide agents/states with understandings of their interests (it can ‘constitute’ them)” (Checkel, 1998) Core concepts v Material structures are only given meaning by the social context through which they are interpreted v The interaction between agents and structures defines interests and perceptions [ à Difference to Neo-Realism and Classical Realism, for which material forces are the determining variables: in the former case, power and the distribution of power; in the latter case, power, interests and human nature. Constructivism has a much less rigid and more dynamic view of the agent-structure relationship] v Social reality is not objective, or external, to the observer of international affairs …Influenced by other social science disciplines Giddens (1984) on the agent-structure relationship: structures constrain actors, but actors can also transform structures by thinking about them and acting on them in new ways Precursors: vGiambattista Vico (18th century) vBerger & Luckmann (1966) vImmanuel Kant (1975) vMax Weber (1977) Constructivism as social theory As a general theory of the social world, social action and the relationship between structures and actors, constructivism emphasises the social construction of reality Key concepts vIdeational ontology: primacy of ideas vCo-constitution of agents and structures vSocial structures defined by shared knowledge, material resources and practices vSocialisation of norms Basic idea: international politics is also a social phenomenon In international politics, reality is not given and objective, but is constituted by the interaction and practices of the actors who live it; who in turn define their own perception of themselves and their interests through interaction (interests and identity are not given either) ‘Ideational’ (and not material) conception of politics: it is IDEAS that give meaning to material actions Types of ideas “Ideas are mental constructs held by individuals, sets of distinctive beliefs, principles and attitudes that provide broad orientations for behavior and policy” (Tannenwald 2005: 15) 1. Ideologies (e.g. liberalism, fascism) 2. Normative beliefs - i.e. beliefs that indicate what is right 3. Causal beliefs - i.e. beliefs about cause-effect or means-end relationships (e.g. on the efficacy of the use of force) 4. Policy prescriptions - i.e. programmatic ideas for setting policy strategies and programs Constructivist theories in IR Applied to IR, constructivism is an empirical approach that focuses on the intersubjective ideas that define international relations Interests and identities, unlike for rationalists, are elaborated in a process of interaction à they are endogenous and not exogenous “The world is of our making” (Onuf, 1989) v The world is the result of ‘collective intentionality’ (orchestra # sum of instruments): the making of an actor acquires sense and meaning as part of a common making (e.g. murder # killing an enemy in war) v The product of ‘collective intentionality’ is a social fact/construct: an objective reality which, however, exists only through an agreement (‘common understanding’) between human beings (e.g. sovereignty; war; money; property; nations as ‘imagined communities’, Anderson) v Shared ideas give meaning to practices and influence how states see themselves, define their interests and pursue their foreign policy goals à ‘logic of appropriateness’ vs ‘logic of consequentiality’ (March and Olson, 1989) “500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons because the British are friends and the North Koreans are not” (Wendt 1995: 73) Cultures of anarchy “anarchy is what states make of it” (Alexander Wendt, 1992) Anarchy has no inescapable consequences: security dilemma and security community coexist Three types of anarchy § Hobbesian: states see each other as enemies; war is endemic because conflict is seen as the only mode of survival. It dominated the state system until the 17th century § Lockian: states see each other as rivals but there are constraints to (violent) action: desire not to eliminate other states/mutual recognition. Society of states that emerged after Westphalia, 1648 § Kantian: states perceive themselves as friends, resolve disputes peacefully and support each other. Condition existing among liberal democracies after the WWII Three degrees of ‘cultural internalization’ The actors know what the norm is and... 1...they obey if forced 2...they obey because they think it’s in their best interest 3...they obey because they consider it legitimate Norms of International Society Different types of norms Regulatory but also constitutive (which make certain activities exist at all à see chess; sovereignty: actors cannot choose whether to follow it or not because it is what makes them actors) à social norms define the scope of the plausible rather than the licit (E.g. Cold War as a social structure) Two mechanisms of socialization (internalization of a norm to the point of taking it for granted) Ø Social influence: adherence to the norm for social benefits or sanctions (non-material à blaming, shaming) Ø Persuasion: adherence to the norm by the conviction of its positivity [influence of the Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas - strength of the best argument / arguing vs. bargaining] à Result: socialization (the norm is internalized) “National Interests in International Society” Martha Finnemore (1996) It investigates how transnational and international social relations redefine the identities and interests of states. The norms of international society are transmitted to states through international organizations. Three case studies: § UNESCO and the bureaucracies of science policy § the International Committee of the Red Cross and the acceptance of humanitarian law § the World Bank and redistribution policies in developing countries The Power of International Organizations (IOs) “Rules for the world” Barnett & Finnemore (2005) IOs are autonomous actors that exercise compulsory power in their own right and ‘construct the social world in which cooperation and choice take place’ IOs hold three types of power in this sense: v Coercive power: they influence member states and other actors through material and regulatory resources v Institutional power: they steer member states behaviour more indirectly through agenda-setting & agenda-making v Productive power: they identify problems in need of solution Constructivist research agenda in IR q learning/ normative transfer/socialisation (see Checkel; Finnemore) q role of epistemic communities in normative transfer q peculiar approach to the study of institutions and regimes q study of how and whether IOs facilitate socialisation (non-homogeneous results) q relationship between culture and politics (see ‘strategic culture’, Johnston) q foreign policy and identity (Hopf) q international institutions q constructivist IPE q dissemination of standards (R2P, nuclear and chemical weapons etc.) q constructivist approach to European cooperation: § § § § Kenneth Glarbo (1999) on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the EU Jeff Checkel and Peter Katzenstein (2009) on European identity Rebecca Adler-Nissen (2014) on opting-out strategies and the European integration process Tim Oliver (2017) on Brexit Critiques to Constructivism Neo-realists § norms exist but are ignored if they conflict with the interests of the most powerful states § the idea that states can become friends through social interaction is unrealisable because of anarchy § constructivists do not sufficiently analyse the problem of the uncertainty of the present and future intentions of other states § few explanations of how norms are formed, how identities are shaped, how interests are determined and why they change à Constructivist response: realists and neorealists see the international order as unchanged. Change is studied through analysis of social interaction. Mechanisms of change: collective learning, cognitive evolution, epidemic change, ‘life cycles of norms’, institutionalisation of knowledge etc. Strong antagonism between constructivists and neo-realists Interactions between constructivists, liberals, International Society theorists, neo-Marxists and post-modern theorists Thank you for your attention! Any question? Dr. Clara della Valle