International Relations: Constructivism

constructivism

driven by norms

criticisms against rationalism: we should not be committed to assuming that all behaviour is rational

states are social actors

social structure (self-help sytem) → state identities (positional) → state interests (competitive) →(rational calculations)→ state (inter)actions(power politics)

facts

brute facts vs social facts: everything is social construction

GDP, states = not objective, product of social constructions

truly understand the way states behave in the way they do

brute facts: exist regardless of shared ideas

• ex. a rock being thrown at your head: it’ll hurt even if you think it won’t

social facts: only exist in shared knowledge

• ex. paper is just a piece of paper, but can become a 20$ bill only if we all see it as money (shared understanding)

behaviour vs action:

• behaviour: brute fact

• action: behaviour + meaning

  • action = behaviour + meaning

  • ex. taking clothes off at strip club vs classroom

  • ex. eye movement: behaviour

    • wink: action

    • behaviour is the same, meaning changes

rules

regulative: don’t drive on the side of the road → can still drive there, even if not allowed

• ex. rules of war: came after war, still in war despite rules

constitutive: must act in accord of the rules to do the thing

• ex. playing chess: must follow rules or else its not chess

• ex. UNSC

• become constitutive: used to simply regulate the activity

  • ex. rules of war determine what war is

    • ex. genocide was misbehaviour → now its own category

cooperation under anarchy

changing strategic setting = more cooperation

states take into account of other state’s welfare = more cooperation

structure of international system

material vs social structures

• nerolism: material capabilities

• constructivism: social relations

nature of social structures

• practices (ideas and material resources) → shared understandings/expectations → material resources

  • some radicals will deny material resources

• need shared understanding of slavery to be seen as masters or slaves (mutually constitutive)

• institution: marriage (need husband for wife and vice versa)

  • new kind of marriage: gays

  • slavery dismantled: ideas around it changed, ex. morality

• contestation of meanings

• in the practice we observe: ex. trying to buy something with your dollar bill, figure out if its a shared idea

  • only partially observable: can only see the behaviour part, not the ideological part

social construction

inter-subjective relations

• collective, social

vs subjective constructions

State Identity and Interests: The lecture uses the institution of slavery to demonstrate how social constructions shape identities and interests. The concept of slavery creates the social roles of "master" and "slave," defining their respective identities and interests. The same logic applies to states. A state's identity (e.g., as a democracy, a rogue state) and its interests are not predetermined but are shaped by the social structures and shared understandings within the international system.

Power Relations: While realists view power primarily in terms of material capabilities, constructivists argue that power relations are also shaped by social relationships of subordination. The lecture gives the example of the abolition of slavery, arguing that it wasn't achieved because slaves gained more material power but because of changing social norms and ideas about the morality of slavery. This perspective suggests that power dynamics in international relations can be transformed not just through military or economic strength but also by altering shared understandings and social norms.

Security Dilemma and Security Community:.

• Security Dilemma: Characterized by distrust and fear among states. States make worst-case assumptions about each other's intentions, leading to a spiral of arms buildups and increased insecurity. This structure is a product of shared expectations of distrust, not an inevitable consequence of anarchy.

• Security Community: Exists where states share a sense of trust and common identity. They view each other as partners rather than threats and cooperate to resolve disputes peacefully. This social structure fosters stability and cooperation even in the absence of a central authority.

Intersubjectivity and Social Practices

• Intersubjectivity: Social constructions are not merely subjective beliefs held by individuals. They are intersubjective, meaning they are shared understandings that emerge from interactions among individuals. They are collective phenomena, not individual whims.

• Social Practices: Shared understandings are manifested and reinforced through social practices. The lecture notes that "practices can be observed," making them a crucial element in studying social constructions. These practices, in turn, shape future interactions and reinforce the underlying social structures. For example, states acting based on distrust and self-help will perpetuate the security dilemma, while states engaging in cooperation and trust-building can contribute to the formation of a security community.

The Power of Social Construction

• While social constructions are not fixed and can change over time, they exert significant influence on individuals and states:

• Objective Reality for Individuals: Social constructions, though ultimately products of shared beliefs, confront individuals as objective realities. The lecture compares this to a "brick wall," something individuals cannot simply wish away. You cannot unilaterally change the value of a $20 bill, just as you cannot single-handedly change the rules of soccer. These social constructs set the parameters within which individuals operate.

• Possibility of Change: Despite their power, social structures are not immutable. The sources highlight that "deviant behavior" can challenge and gradually transform existing social constructs. States can choose to act in ways that contradict the prevailing norms, potentially leading to the emergence of new norms and different social structures over time. This potential for change is a key aspect of constructivist thought, suggesting that the international system is not static but constantly evolving based on the interactions and practices of states.

self-help system: only you can save yourself

• security dilemma

• states are forced to adopt this identity

• how i feel = relative position to you

stable social orders

power politics: states focus on relative power, constant competition

• i’m the only one who can protect myself

• reproduce: state (inter)actions → social structures of the self-help system

  • behave as if they are in a self-help system = reinforce idea of that system in the IS

interpreting situation: identity and interest

• ex. neighbour acquiring more weapons: interpreted differently than another actor who shares a collective identity with neighbour

  • seen as a friend vs a rival

this is why social orders are stable: behaviours are constrained by structures, then reinforce them

change in social orders

undermining the structures → little deviance → overall effect is that those social structures are changed (especially is many states engaged in deviant behaviour)

change: through state (inter)actions → social structures

• security community (=self-help system)→ collective identity (=positional) → common interest (=competitive) → ____ (=power politics)

social systems: interplay with socially constructed agents and social structures

• change through deviance

anarchy

Hobbesian anarchy: realism, competitive interests

• forces safe to behave according to power politics

• → lockean anarchy: neoliberal institutionalism, individualistic interests

  • not competitive, less concerned about relative gains and more concerned with absolute gains, more cooperation, still selfish states

  • → kantian anarchy: collective interest

transformation of power politics

socially constructed perhaps, but changeable? very difficult

• external cost of deviance

  • every system has mechanisms of punishment

  • may deter → harsh punishments

• internal cost of cognitive dissonance and vested interest

  • admitting that may create a psychological cost that plays against the possibility of change

  • hard for actor to decide to deviate norm the norm

  • vested interests: deviating from norms hurt those interested

    • ex. bureaucracies

• sovereignty as mitigator of self-help system: key to change

  • agents are sovereign: creates room for deviation, no higher authority to you

from collectively attainable gains to collective identity

• my interest are not clashing with yours, but compatible → increasing both our interests (makes cooperation easier)

• incremental, slow, usually unintended process

  • states are not strategic for changing self-help system into security community

• path-dependent process: where they go through deviation depends on where they’re coming from

  • historical aspect of change

Hurd, constructivism

This chapter explores constructivism as a distinct theoretical approach to international relations, contrasting it with materialist perspectives like realism and neoliberalism. It examines the key features of constructivism, its internal debates, and its contributions to the study of international politics.

Key Features of Constructivism

1. The Role of Social Construction
   Constructivism emphasizes that material objects and practices derive their meaning from social interactions rather than inherent properties. For example, the threat posed by North Korean nuclear weapons is perceived differently than that of British nuclear weapons due to the social context surrounding these states. This stands in contrast to materialist theories, which prioritize material power as the determinant of international outcomes. [1-4]

2. State Interests as Social Constructs
   Constructivists argue that state interests are shaped by social norms, interactions with other actors, and the international environment. While materialist and rationalist approaches acknowledge the role of ideas, constructivism centers on how interests emerge through social processes rather than being fixed or individually determined. [5-11]

3. Mutual Constitution of Agents and Structures
   Constructivism highlights the reciprocal relationship between states (agents) and international norms and institutions (structures). Unlike materialist theories that treat the international system as static, constructivists emphasize how states shape, and are shaped by, shared meanings and norms. [12-16]

4. Multiple Interpretations of Anarchy
   Constructivists argue that anarchy—the absence of a central authority—does not inherently lead to conflict or cooperation. Its implications depend on the social relationships among states, which can range from hostility to friendship. This view challenges the deterministic assumptions of traditional theories about anarchy's consequences. [17-19]

Debates Within Constructivism

1. State-Centrism and Levels of Analysis
   Constructivism allows for analysis at multiple levels, including state identities, international norms, and the broader system. However, debates persist over what should be treated as a "given." For instance, studying norms while assuming the state as a fixed entity risks overlooking the social construction of sovereignty itself. [20-24]

2. Science and Positivism
   Constructivism encompasses both positivist and post-positivist approaches.

   • Positivists seek to identify cause-and-effect patterns within the international system, applying scientific methods to generalize behaviors. [25-27]

   • Post-positivists, however, challenge the notion of objectivity, emphasizing the role of interpretation, power dynamics, and ethical considerations in shaping knowledge. [27-33]

3. Beyond Anarchy to Authority
   Some constructivists argue that social relations can transform the international system from one of anarchy to authority. Authority emerges when states recognize an institution or actor's legitimate decision-making power. This perspective highlights how hierarchical relationships can coexist within an ostensibly anarchic system, as seen in international organizations and legal regimes. [34-41]

Ongoing Challenges and Contributions

1. Strategic Behavior and Norms
   Constructivism explores how norms shape state interests and strategies. It bridges the "logic of consequences" (rational action) with the "logic of appropriateness" (norm-driven behavior). This dual approach underscores the interplay between material interests and social norms in shaping actions. [42-44]

2. Constructivism vs. Rationalism
   The relationship between constructivism and rationalism remains debated.

   • Critics view them as competing paradigms due to ontological differences. [45-46]

   • Others see them as complementary, offering distinct but valuable insights into the same phenomena. Hurd advocates for evaluating their contributions through empirical research rather than engaging in abstract theoretical disputes. [47-54]

Conclusion
Constructivism underscores the importance of beliefs, identities, and shared understandings in shaping international relations. Its insights have influenced other approaches by demonstrating the socially constructed nature of key concepts like power and sovereignty. While the boundaries between realism, rationalism, and constructivism are often blurred, constructivism's emphasis on the social dimensions of international politics offers a distinctive and valuable perspective. [55-58]