CONSTRUCTIVISM
CONTEMPORARY DEBATES IN IR
SUBMITTED TO: MA’AM KINZA CHUDARY
SUBMITTED BY: MANAHIL KHALID
KANZ-UL-EMAN
AMNA NASIR
THEORY IN BRIEF
CONSTRUCTIVISM
KEY ACTORS
People, elites, cultures
VIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL
Key components in creation of meaning; bound by education,
socialization, and culture
VIEW OF THE STATE
An artifact whose significance is socially constructed through
discourse
VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL SYSYTEM
An artifact whose significance is socially constructed through
discourse
BELIEFS ABOUT CHNAGE
Possible by means of discourse: “[anarchy] [war] [peace] is
what we make of it”
MAJOR THEORISTS
Foucault, Derrida, Kratochwil, Hoph, Wendt
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Introduction
Constructivism is an IR theory basically the role of identities and social practices in International
system. The term “constructivism” is coined by Prof. Nicholas Onuf in 1989 in his writings of “the
World of our Making” at the end of the cold war. Because at that time, the dominant theory was
realism and liberalism, especially neorealism is materialist; it focuses on how the distribution of
material power, such as military forces and economic capabilities, defines balance of power
between states and explains the behavior of states. Constructivists reject such a one-sided material
focus. So that’s why constructivism tries to fill this gap.
The focus of constructivism is on human awareness or consciousness and its place in world affairs.
They argue that the most important aspects of international relations are 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, is not a physical entity
or material object that is outside human consciousness. Constructivism sees the world, and what
we can know about the world, as socially constructed. This view refers to the nature of reality and
the nature of knowledge that are also called ontology and epistemology in research language.
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 behavior: the meaning given to these structural conditions also
matters. The behavior of humans is determined by its identity, which itself is shaped by society’s
values, history, practices and institutions. Constructivist’s hold that all institutions, including the
state are socially constructed. The definition of the constructivism in International relation is: “The
social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational
factors (which are historically and socially constructed), not simply material factors.”
History:
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 indicated the end of the Cold
War. The surprising end of the Cold War shifted not only the world order but also debates in
international relations theories. It was unexpected by current international relations theories.
Without any large conflict and war exploded furthermore without any transformation in the world
system(anarchical), for instance, neorealists predicted that the world’s bipolar order would persist.
Neorealists also claimed that international institutions did not have any effect to make war away
because International institutions is a matter of material to make war away because International
institutions is a matter of material power challenge between states which are not only worried
about the unlimited gain, but also relative gain in cooperation and integration.
After the Cold War, international relations discourse provided more diverse approaches to
understand and analyze world politics. Constructivism theory is one of the models of the
progressing emergence of international relations theory. Rather than diminishing other major
theories, according to its holders and proponents, constructivism theory provides wider
illumination a larger explanation for determining the dynamic and the function of world politics.
Assumptions
The constructivism is based on some assumptions that are following:
•
According to Constructivism theory, the material world does not completely define how
people, or states, behave. It only limits the chance of interpretation and the intersubjective
world that people can build. Moreover, material body enforcing is restricted to social
structure. constructivists do not mean the unlimited possibilities of social structure.
•
Constructivism theory discusses the issue of anarchy in the international system, at a simple
conceptual level, Alexander Wendt claimed that the realist conception of anarchy does not
explain why conflict occurs between states enough. The main thing is how anarchy is
understood, and Wendt argues that “Anarchy is what states make of it.”
•
Constructivism theory recognizes the significance of nonmaterial power (culture, ideas,
language, knowledge, and ideology) as well as material power because the two powers
connect and interact to build the world order.
•
Constructivism defied the theory of power politics, especially dominant perception of the
threat and conflict in global politics and picked a fully different approach in studying the
construction of the threat through their fundamental focus on the social dimensions of
international politics.
•
Constructivism, on the other hand, represents much more complex approach. It views the
priority of ideas and human consciousness, hence the core assumptions: holism and
idealism.
Constructivism as a Social Theory
We can distinguish between theories at different levels of abstraction. Social theory is the more
general theory about the social world, about social action, and about the relationship between
structures and actors. Substantive IR theory is theory about some aspect of international relations.
Constructivism is both a social theory and a number of different substantive theories of IR; this
section is about constructivism as a social theory. In social theory, constructivism emphasizes 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 constructivist philosophy, the social world is not a given, it is not something out there
that exists independent of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it. It is not an external
reality whose laws can be discovered by scientific research and explained by scientific theory as
positivists and behavioralists argue.
The social world is in part constructed of physical entities. But it is the ideas and beliefs concerning
those entities which are most important. The physical element is there, but it is secondary to the
intellectual element which infuses it with meaning, plans it, organizes it and guides it.
It emphasizes the contrast between a materialist view held by neorealist and ideational view held
by constructivists. According to the materialists’ view, power and national interest are the driving
forces in international politics. Power is ultimately military capability, supported by economic and
other resources.
Constructivism is an empirical approach to the study of the international relations, empirical in
that it focuses on the intersubjective ideas that define international relations. The theory displays
some distinctive research interests and approaches. If the social and political world consist, at base,
of shared beliefs. Constructivists generally agree with Max Weber that they need to employ
interpretive understanding in order to analyze social actions.
What is Social Constructivism?
Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what
occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding. This perspective is
closely associated with many contemporary theories; one of them is “social cognitive theory” of
Lev Vygotsky
Assumptions of Social Constructivism
Social constructivism is based on specific assumptions about reality, knowledge, and learning. To
understand and apply models of instruction that are rooted in the perspectives of social
constructivists, it is important to know the premises that underlie them.
•
Reality: Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity.
Members of a society together invent the properties of the world. For the social
constructivist, reality cannot be discovered: it does not exist prior to its social invention.
•
Knowledge: To social constructivists, knowledge is also a human product, and is socially
and culturally constructed. Individuals create meaning through their interactions with each
other and with the environment they live in.
•
Learning: Social constructivists view learning as a social process. It does not take place
only within an individual, nor is it a passive development of behaviors that are shaped by
external forces. Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social
activities.
Key points of Social Constructivism
The main key points of social constructivism are as follows:
•
There is no meaning in the world until we construct it.
•
We do not find meaning, we make it.
•
The meaning we make is affected by our social interpretation of the thing.
•
The meaning we derive for objects arises in and out of the interactive human community.
Main stages of SC development
We can distinguish three main stages of SC development:
•
1980s/1990s — SC appears in IR as a result of an anti-positivist breakthrough.
•
1990s — SC slowly takes place among other mainstream theories in IR. Attempts are made
to reconcile constructivism with the rationalist paradigm (vide Wendt).
•
21st century — a clear tendency to “deconstruct a convention”, meaning that conventional
and structural constructivism are too far away from the foundations of the constructionist
paradigm
Rise of constructivism in IR
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 indicated the end of the Cold
War. The surprising end of the Cold War shifted not only the world order but also debates in
international relations theories. It was unexpected by current international relations theories.
Without any large conflict and war exploded furthermore without any transformation in the world
system(anarchical), for instance, neorealists predicted that the world’s bipolar order would persist.
Neorealists also claimed that international institutions did not have any effect to make war away
because International institutions is a matter of material power challenge between states which are
not only worried about the unlimited gain, but also relative gain in cooperation and integration.
After the Cold War, international relations discourse provided more diverse approaches to
understand and analyze world politics. Constructivism theory is one of the models of the
progressing emergence of international relations theory. Rather than diminishing other major
theories, according to its holders and proponents, constructivism theory provides wider
illumination a larger explanation for determining the dynamic and the function of world politics.
By having a dominant focus on the state, traditional theories have not opened much space to
observe the agency of individuals. After all, it was the actions of ordinary people that ensured the
end of the Cold War, not those of states or international organizations. Constructivism accounts
for this issue by arguing that the social world is of our making (Onuf 1989). Actors (usually
powerful ones, like leaders and influential citizens) continually shape – and sometimes reshape –
the very nature of international relations through their actions and interactions.
Examples of Constructivism
Constructivism emphasizes on human awareness and consciousness. Constructivism says that the
world or say international system is made up of ideas and intersubjective understanding and
material factors are secondary to it. Constructivists argue that the knowledge or the reality is not
objective but it is a result of shared understanding between people.
We can take the example of relations between USA and UK and USA and North Korea to
understand constructivism. UK has definitely more nuclear weapons than North Korea. But we all
know USA and UK are good friends while USA and North Korea do not enjoy the similar
friendship as UK does. Now notice that the relations between them are nor defined by some preexisting laws. But the relations are defined by the shared understanding. Here USA and UK have
some kind of understanding that make them good friends while the idea and understanding
between USA and N Korea is not the way USA and UK have. This shows that the things are not
predefined but are defined by human beings and it is entirely possible to change the structure of
international system since they are not pre-given.
Another example can be of cold war. Cold war existed because USA and USSR did not trust each
other, but cold war could have ended the moment USA and USSR would have thought that they
are not rivals.
Human rights are a good modern example, both in terms of ‘why do some states promote them’
(identity) and ‘what effects do break human rights have on your international relationships.’
(norms) So with constructivism you can look at how changes in state identity over time affected
states propensity to promote international human rights, and look at the costs paid by states who
are non-compliant (or not, if you want to show that there isn’t a strong norm here).
A more powerful example might be slavery. At one point there was no international problem with
the slave trade. But domestic battles over ‘who we are’ changed attitudes in key states, leading not
only to the abolition of slavery but the active international promotion of abolition. Now the antislavery norm is so entrenched that it would be difficult for any state to officially institute slavery
(things can happen informally/secretly, but even here you pay costs).
An obvious example would be North Korea whose world-view suits its own ruling elite but not
the mass of its people. However, US paranoia about socialism/communism, especially in South
America, also led to a blinkered, official viewpoint that only benefitted selected politicians and the
industrial/military complex.
In fact, the entire history of international relations is one of either natural or deliberate
constructivism hiding the truth. The current Middle East conflict is a sad case in point.
Criticism
The most common criticism on constructivism concerns its explanation of change. It changes in
idea through discussions and discourses lead to behavioral changes within the global system. What
accounts for the rise and fall of different ideas and discourses over time? How, when and why do
changes in shared knowledge emerge? "Constructivist are good at describing change". Writes Jack
Snyder, " but they are weak on material and institutional circumstances necessary to support the
emergence of consensus about value and ideas". Moreover, critics charge that constructivists
remain unclear about what factors cause particular ideas to become dominant whereas others fall
by wayside. "what is crucial". Asserts Robert Jervis "is not peoples thinking, but the favors that
drive it." Constructivists he continues, have excessive faith in the ability of ideas that seem selfevident today to replicate and sustain themselves; however, future generations who live under
different circumstances and who may think differently could easily reject these ideas. For
constructivists socially accepted ideas, norms and values are linked to collective identities stable
role-specific understandings and expectations about the self. Although constructivist recognize
that shared identities are not predetermined and can change over time, critics submit that
constructivists cannot explain why and when they dissolve. Critics also charge that constructivism
does not adequately deal with the issue of uncertainly, and that the assumption that "State typically
know a lot about others motives is an unsupported empirical statement".
And though the constructivist approach is increasingly viewed as a vital perspective for
understanding world politics, it is still criticized for its limited attention to methodological issues.
According to Amir Lupovici," Scholars have tended to neglect the methodological dimension,
providing little guidance on how to conduct a constructivist study." In an effort to address thus
deficiency, scholars have begun to call for more systematic and unified framework that combines
a number of existing methods so as to enable us to "examine the mutual influences of constitutive
efforts upon casual effects and vice versa". In other words, such pluralistic methodology would
help us consider both the material and ideational factors that shape the world politics.
John Mersheimer argue that constructivists put too much emphasize on subjective idea and
knowledge Realists believe that the state behavior is largely shaped by the material structure of
their international system. The distribution of material capabilities among states is the key factors
for understanding world politics this means that everything is not uncertain or in flux. Mersheimer
says because the material structure is an objective reality and is not merely, Intersubjective.
Although constructivist is deeply concerned with radically changing state behavior it says little
about how changes come out. When constructivism try's point out particular factors that lead to
changes in discourse often argues that material changes drive changes in discourse so discourse is
not determinative, but a reflective of departments in objective world.
In addition to it constructivism does not specify the existence, let done precise nature its main
casual, constitutive elements like identities, norms, values, social structure. According to
Finnemore and Sikkink 1998 one of the consistent complaints about constructivism mad by
competitor theorists has been its exclusive focus on good and like norms such as human rights,
environment, protection, climate change, women rights and may others even after constructivism
was acknowledge as a legitimate research approach in International relations in other words this
bias towards admirable norms has caused less attention to be paid towards Xenophobic nationalism,
Racism, and so forth which have should become an important research theme of the time. Mathews
a sophisticated critique of constructivism, he argues that constructivist subscribe to view that see's
all knowledge as grounded in sense impressions or experience. Meanwhile Mathews argues that
scientific ideas are abstractions of reality where the phenomena are idealized. Methews essential
critic then is that what constitutes science is a set of Ideas or theoretical propositions. There are
not lying around to be discovered. Central basic critique of those who see constructivism as form
of discovery learning is a questioning of constructivist belief that all knowledge has to be
personally constructed. Critics is that constructivist believe that knowledge constructed by student
himself is more valuable than knowledge which is modelled, told or explained by them.
Constructivists believe that knowledge than those who receive direct instruction, furthermore there
are some notable students that provides evidences that learning by direct instruction is more
efficient than discovery. Meanwhile social constructivism leads to "group think" critics says that
collaborative aspects of constructivist class rooms tend to provide a "tyranny of the majority" in
which a few student voice majority" in which a few student voice or interpretations dominates the
groups, learner need to connect their knowledge to tangible objects in order to ensure that they
have acquire the knowledge. The belief that constructivism promotes a teaching styles with
unguided or minimally guided instructions for students.
Conclusion
In a nutshell Despite these criticisms, constructivism is a very popular theoretical approach in
world politics. By highlighting the influence that socially constructed images of world have on
your interpretations of international events, and by making you aware of their inherent subjectively,
constructivism can remind you of the contingent nature of all knowledge and the liability of any
theory of world politics to fully capture global complexities. Constructivism is not a theory but
rather an ontology. It is group of assumptions and hypothesis about three main spheres human, the
world and agency. It succeeded in challenging and defying the rationalist's theories and approaches
like realism and liberalism moreover constructivism theory provides constructivists alternative
which explain and understood world politics through the material and non-material factors. It also
adopts different level of analysis including the international, regional and internal level. The rice
of Constructivism has had several important impacts on development of international theory and
analysis the social, historical, and normative have returned to the center stage od debate, especially
the American core of the discipline. Constructivism core assumptions have shaped its empirical
research program in several important ways. Constructivism is often said to simply state the
obvious that actions, interactions and perceptions shape reality. The discipline of International
Relations benefits from constructivism as it addresses issues and concepts that are neglected by
mainstream theories. As we say constructivists offers alternative explanations and insights for
events occurring in social world, they show for instance that it is not only distribution of material
power, wealth and geographical conditions that can explain state behavior but also ideas, identities
and norms. Furthermore, their focus on ideational factors shows that reality is not fixed but rather
subject to change.
References
Introducing Constructivism in International Relations Theory. (2018, February 23). Retrieved
February 28, 2022, from E-International Relations website: https://www.eir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory//
What Is Constructivism? (n.d.). Retrieved from Western Governors University website:
https://www.wgu.edu/blog/what-constructivism2005.html#openSubscriberModal
Jung, H. (2019). The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to
Present. SAGE Open, 9(1), 215824401983270.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832703
UKEssays. (November 2018). A Critical Analysis of The Constructivism Method Politics Essay.
Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/a-critical-analysis-of-theconstructivism-method-politics-essay.php?vref=1
Social Constructivism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Retrieved from
www.sciencedirect.com website:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/socialconstructivism#:~:text=Social%20constructivism%2C%20a%20social%20learning
What is Social Constructivism | IGI Global. (2019). Retrieved from Igi-global.com website:
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/social-constructivism-as-a-theoretical-foundationof-cross-cultural-mentoring-for-foreign-born-faculty/27309
Social Constructivism. (2006). Retrieved from https://eedu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/147644/mod_resource/content/0/jackson_sorensen_Intro_in_I
R_chap06.pdf