Essay Plans

Differences between realism and constructivism

often pitched as opposing theories — as Micheal C Williams outlined, they are often seen as contradictory alternatives. However, they actually have a dual-edged relationship. Understanding this compatibility can help us outline and understand the actual differences between the two theories. Often better to see constructivism as a social theory rather than just an alternative theory of the same form.

C focuses on state identity, norms and does contrast with R which focuses on power, structure and practical realities. main differences are: causes of state behaviour, motivations and processes behind the security dilemma and cooperation and its purposes

Anarchic system of IR is accepted by both theories, but is a point of contention because of the different impact they respectively believe it has

  • R focuses on external environment: state of nature is a state of war, this and the lack of overarching power causes states to behave a certain way i.e. a self-interested way

  • C doesn’t deny the anarchic quality of the international system but they criticise the idea that states don’t actively engage with surrounding material power structure

  • deterministic (R) vs constitutive (C) assumption about the dynamic between states in a system of anarchy

  • also, it depends what kind of realist you are: neorealism sees anarchy as driving interaction, most opposed to C, whereas classical realism adopts a Hobbesian idea of human nature, therefore see anarchy as a secondary cause to state behaviour (like C) even if they assume state character is self-interested and power seeking

  • C does not entirely dispute anarchy as a conditioning factor, but also draws attention to how things like ideology and societal pressures e.g. historical tensions shape action — examples of ethnoconflict

Differ in what they see as the cause of conflict

  • R focus on state’s strategic interests: examples of explaining Russia’s behaviour in invading Ukraine as a response to expansion of EU member states, Israel-Palestine as explained by an increasing need for territorial security

  • C often explain based more on intersubjective identities — not necessarily always about rational interest — for example, importance of history and culture in ethnic conflicts like Bosnia-Serb-Croat war (Wendt) or tensions between Israel and Palestine historically

Differences in their views of state behaviour is not the starkest point of difference. Their approaches to the security dilemma is arguable a bigger difference between the two theories

  • security dilemma = everyone seeking security in turn challenges other states security, causes a race in arms, leads to even less security, all based on the ides that you cannot know other state’s intentions

  • R see the security dilemma as focused on physical security - they pursue the protection of borders, territory, try and increase their security by physically expanding or shifting the balance of power in their favour

  • for C, a purely physical understanding of the security dilemma is limited. They stress the importance of ontological security

  • ontological security = security of the self in a psychological sense (Jennifer Mitzen)

  • when an actor has no idea what to expect, they cannot systematically relate ends to means, and they have no idea how to pursue their ends. since ends are cosntitutive of identity, security dilemma renders actor’s identity deeply uncertain

  • ontological security can even conflict with real security

  • they see it as instinctive to states, the desire to protect the “body” but this doesn’t mean territory or borders or citizen’s bodies but something more symbolic and tied to identity

  • this is achieved by routinized relationships with other states - different from R because its not just about improving one’s balance e.g. through bigger weapon arsenals or military expansion

differ in their beliefs in the likelihood of cooperation

  • defensive R has very low belief in the likelihood of cooperation — see it as a risk in and of itself, when it does happen it is seen as a means of self-help e.g. China Russia 2023 trade deal

  • C challenge the idea that cooperation is always based on conclict

  • power of norms

  • example of tarriffs on SA and the efficacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee

Wendt aptly describes the debate between C and R as concerned with the extent to which state behaviour is concerned with structure (R) or process (C). Should not understand either as entirely antagonistic. There is overlap in some explorations of sttae behaviour. The main difference regarding state behaviour is the extent to which they see state behaviour as flexible. They take different stances on security dilemma and dynamics of conflict and cooperation. contradiction between the two is often overstated