1
COHEN
International Relations Notes
Chapter 9: Social Constructivism
Guide:
o Chapter is an overview of constructivist approaches to IR theory
o Constructivism originated in the 1980s
o Critical reaction to neo-liberalism and neo-realism
Emphasized the distribution of power and pursuit by states of power and wealth and
minimized the power of ideas
o Constructivism countered these ideas by highlighting how ideas:
Define and transform the organization of world politics
Shape identities and interests of states
Determine what counts as legitimate action
o Initially poorly received, gained credibility in the 90s due to the end of the cold war
I. Introduction
o Constructivism is widely recognized for its ability to capture important features of global politics
o Critics drew from sociological and critical theory to argue that social forces such as ideas, knowledge,
norms and rules influence states’ identities, interests, and the organization of world politics
o American context influenced constructivism’s evolution – highlights how constructivism’s conceptual
contours and research agenda have profoundly been shaped by its struggle for acceptance in an American
disciplinary context
o Various versions of constructivism, but a common concern with how ideas define the international structure
How this structure shapes identities, interests, and definition of world politics
How state and non-state actors reproduce that structure
And how is it transformed?
o The concern with the making and re-making of world politics underscores constructivism’s strong interest
in global change
o Focus of this chapter:
The convergence by states (organizing their domestic and international life)
How norms become internationalized and institutionalized (globally accepted, etc.)
Constructivist arguments help us understand elementary features of the globalization of
world politics
II. In the beginning…
o Waltz aspired to make realism more rigorous, scientific, and amenable to hypothesis testing
Did so by specifying the nature of the units and their preferences and how the structure of
the international system constrains those preferences
o Most important actors: STATES
Kenneth Waltz was unclear whether they pursued survival, security or power, and
whether they maximized or satisficed
Clear that these interests suffocated any possible that ideas, norms, and values might
shape state behavior
Argued that the structure of the international system had three elements:
i. Anarchy
ii. Functional non-differentiation of the units (because anarchy created a
self-help system)
iii. Distribution of power
Because the world has always been anarchy and states have always obsessed over their
survival; to understand enduring tendencies in world politics required scholars to focus
only on the position of the state in international hierarchy and dist. Of power
Waltz depicted a dreary world in which states were suspicious, misanthropic, and
aggressive because the society would punish anything else 2
COHEN
o Neo-liberal institutionalism responded to neo-realism’s pessimistic view of international politics by
demonstrating that states had the capacity to cooperate on a range of issues
o A primary obstacle to cooperation: States did not trust one another to abide by their agreements
o Individualism: view that actors have fixed interests and that structure that constrains their behavior derives
from the aggregation of the properties of actors
o Materialism: view that structure that constrains behavior is defined by distribution of power, technology,
and geography
o Neo-realism denies that ideas and norms can trump interests
o Neo-liberal institutionalism recognizes that states might willingly construct norms and institutions to
regulate their behavior b/c doing so will enhance their long-term interests
o NEITHER theory contemplates that ideas and norms might define their interests
o 1980s were characterized by the dominance of neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism, but ALSO a
growing interest in social theory:
How to conceptualize the structure and its organizing principles- the actors and the rules
that regulate their relations and relationship between the structure and actors
o Challenged the theories of individualism and materialism
o Many important contributions in the 1980s, but the most influential for establishing constructivism’s
theoretical orientation and conceptual vocabulary:
John Ruggie’s review essay of Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (helped establish
a countermovement)
-Attacks Waltz’s structure (anarchy, functional non-differentiation b/w states,
and distribution of power)
-Ruggie argued that we should pay more attention to the second element
-The states-system, he observed, has been organized according to alternative
principles
-EXAMPLE: the modern international system begins with the end of feudalism
and emergence of sovereignty with a shift from heteronomy and overlapping
authorities to state sovereignty and centralization of authority in the modern
state
-Waltz neglected sovereignty- the defining organizing principle of the modern
states system
Richard Ashley (1984):
-Immensely influential critique of neo-realism
-Draws from post-structural and critical theory
-His view: neo-realism is so fixated on the state that it cannot see a world
populated by non-state actors
-Treats states as having fixed interests thus cannot see how their interests are
created, constructed, and transformed by global-historical forces.
-So committed to individualism- can’t see how societies shape individuals and
how global-historical forces create identities, interests, and capacities of states
-So committed to materialism- constructs an artificial view of society;
completely devoid of ideas, beliefs and rules
-ESSENTIALLY treats aspects of IR (such as sovereignty) as though they’re
natural, thus incapable of seeing the social and cultural construction within a
historical context
-His critique revealed both neo-realism’s limitations and the power of post
structural and critical theory
Alexander Wundt introduced the agent-structure problem to international relations
scholars :
-How to conceptualize the relationship between agents (states) and structures
(the international structure)
-Argues that Waltz’s argument about states’ capabilities is problematic b/c
structures do more than constrain agents; they also construct/ constitute their
identities and interests 3
COHEN
-Employing Anthony Giddens’s concept of structuration, Wendt argued that
international normative structure shapes identities and interests of states and
through their interactions states re-create that very structure
-This approach regenerates a more complete understanding of the relationship
b/w states (actors) and the international system (normative system)
-Actors are constrained by underlying structure
Friedrich Kratochwil (1991):
-One of the first systematic treatments of rules and norms in IR
- Regulative Rules: regulates pre-existing activities
(i.e. RULES OF THE ROAD, World Trade Organization now regulates trade)
-Constitutive Rules: create the very possibility for these activities
(i.e. rules of Rugby)
-RULES ARE NOT STATIC- rather, revised through practice, reflection, and
argument
-Kratochwil insisted that scholars adopt interpretive methods to understand the
true meanings of rules
o RESULT: the mainstream responded coolly to these challenges to the dominating theories, demanded that
critics demonstrate superiority of alternative claims through empirical research
III. The Rise of Constructivism
o CONSTRUCTIVISM: term coined by Nicholas Onuf in his book, The World of Our Making (1989)
o Four background factors sponsored his rise; mainly, the end of the cold war
Meant there was new intellectual space for scholars to challenge existing theories of
international politics
o Constructivists drew from established sociological theory to demonstrate how social science could help
international relations scholars understand the importance of identities and norms in world politics
o Constructivists demonstrated how attention to norms and states’ identities could help uncover important
issues neglected by neo-realism and neo-liberalism
IV. Constructivism
o Constructivism is a social theory, not a substantive theory of international politics
o Social theory is broadly concerned with how to conceptualize the relationship between agents and
structures (example: how should we think about state and structure of international politics?)
o Substantive theory offers specific claims and hypotheses about patterns in world politics (example: how
do we explain democratic peace theory?)
o Constructivism is best compared with rational choice:
A social theory that offers a framework for understanding how actors operate with fixed
preferences that they attempt to maximize under a set of constraints
Makes ZERO claims about the content of said preferences (they could be anything from
wealth to religious salvation)
Does not assume anything about the content of these constraints (could be guns or ideas)
RATIONAL CHOICE OFFERS NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE ACTUAL
PATTERNS OF WORLD POLITICS (unlike constructivism)
Neo-realism and neo-liberalism both subscribe to rational choice, but arrive at rival
claims about patterns of conflict and cooperation in world politics b/c they make different
assumptions about the effects of anarchy
Like rational choice, constructivism is a social theory that is broadly concerned with the
relationship b/w agents and structures, but is not substantive
FOR INSTANCE: Constructivists have different arguments regarding the rise of
sovereignty and the impact of human rights norms on states
In order to generate substantive claims, scholars must delineate who are the principal
actors, their interests, capacities and what is the content of said normative structure
o “Constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life” –Ruggie 4
COHEN
o Focus on human consciousness suggests a commitment to idealism and holism (“represent the core of
constructivis
More
Less
