POSC 2200 – Theoretical
Approaches
Russell Alan Williams
Department of Political Science
Unit Two:
Theoretical Approaches
“Alternative Approaches - Constructivism,
Poststructuralism and Feminism:”
Required Reading:

Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 10, 11, 12 and 17.

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it: The social
construction of power politics,” International Organization, Vol.
46(2), (Spring 1992), Pp. 391-425. (Available as an excerpt available
from the instructor.)
Outline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction
Constructivism
Poststructuralism
Feminism
Conclusions
For Next Time
1) Introduction:
Remaining “theories” are:
1) Newer – “work in progress” . . .
2) Mainly focused on the role of “ideas” in international
politics

Re-opens old debates in IR:
Are there rules or values that affect behavior separate from
“national interests”?
 Critics: These approaches = return to “idealism” =Similar
insistence that we should pursue a moral or ethical IR . . . .


Introduces concerns omitted/silenced by other theories:


Role of culture and role of gender
However, unclear status as “theories”

More critical scholars reject variables and hypothesis
Key Thinkers:

Liberal or mainstream constructivism:
 M. Finnemore
 A. Wendt

Critical poststructuralism:
 R. B. J. Walker

Feminism:
 C. Enloe
2) Constructivism:

Key claim: Ideas or “norms” structure international
politics
“Norms” are produced by state interaction over time and
non-state actors committed to certain ideas



E.g. the global anti slavery movement (19th century)
Key problem: Both “realism” and modern liberalism
(E.g. “Neoliberal institutionalism”) are committed to
“materialism”
= Actors have fixed and predictable interests based on what is available in
the material world
 E.g. All states and individuals want the same things regardless of
culture, values or even norms . . . .

Constructivists argue that values define those interests
– based on what people believe


Similar challenge to study of domestic politics – we need to
know what actors believe
 E.g. Survey people about their beliefs?
Requires more attention to cultural discourses and
ideological commitments of elites
 E.g. Examine cultural attitudes in media and art
Types:
1) “Epistemic Communities”: Expert groups dealing with
complex and technical problems that shape how states “see”
certain problems.

“National interest” cannot exist outside this advice
 E.g. Climate Change
2) Focus on “Norms” and “Diffusion”/“Institutionalization”

“Norms” = inter-subjective values about what is “normal” and not
normal
E.g. “Sovereignty”
Treated as a “fact” by other approaches – exists when states have “power”
 But really based on “recognition” by other states (?) and has only existed
since the ideas were “created” by the “Peace of Westphalia”
Has spread (“diffused”) throughout world and is now taken for granted
(“Institutionalized”) - there wouldn’t be 192 states in world without this norm . . . .


“Logic of Consequences” = Norms about IR shape how decision
makers calculate costs and benefits of action
“Logic of Appropriateness” = States have social “identities” which
make them want to act appropriate to that identity

Unless you are a “rogue state” you will want your actions to appear
justified and legitimate
Example: Intervention in another state in violation of “sovereignty”
must be justified by reference to some other norm
E.g. Afghanistan (2001) vs. Iraq (2003)
3) Post-structuralism:
Similar to “Constructivism” in focus on ideas, but
more critical . . . .


Constructivism remains committed to social science –
shame on them(!)
Post-structuralism rejects “foundationalist” “ontology”
=No outside world of independently knowable facts – we
“create/construct” that world through our beliefs

IR is seen as a “discourse” = the creation of ideas that order
the world into categories independent of any foundational
reality
IR “discourse” = “Power”

Scholarship is about creating meanings that privilege
some concerns and suppress others
E.g. R.B.J. Walker on “sovereignty” . . . .
= Not just a “norm”!

“Sovereignty” constructs the political universe separating
politics and values (inside sovereign states) from
international relations.

Has big political implications for normative political philosophy =
ethical “duties” end at borders!



E.g. Killing of civilians during war . . . .
Creates “identities” that divide people; and are in some way, “risky”,
because they are not based on some separate reality
Real problem with IR is social science, which masks our
actions in pseudo scientific validity . . . .
However, both “Constructivism” & “Poststructuralism”
share a fundamental rejection of realism
=Distribution of power, “balance of power” etc. understood
in material terms means nothing outside of “norms”, values,
or “discourse”

“Power” is relational – it only means something in a
cultural context
E.g. Some states do not see each other’s power as
threatening
 E.g. Canada and the United States

History, and culture “frame” who is a friend and who is a
foe . . .
Example: Alexander Wendt “Aliens and the
security dilemma”
“Security Dilemma”: Power is relative – anything that
makes one state secure is inherently threatening to
other states

Closely related to “neorealism” and “offensive
realism” – no role for interpretation
Wendt: Imagine aliens arrive on earth . . .


“Neorealism” = Attack them, before it is too late!
“Constructivism” = We don’t know whether we
should see them as threatening or not

It will depend on how our interactions unfold

It may also depend on our/their culture (?)

Poststructuralism: How do we construct “aliens”?
4) Feminism:
Not really “new”, but its influence is growing in international
politics


“Feminism”: A broader social program aimed at
understanding women’s position and addressing
inequality and oppression
International politics is both based on, and contributes
to “Gender Relations”
=how “masculinity” and “femininity” are constructed
is part of the theory and practices of international
politics
Concerns have evolved:
 Liberal feminism    Poststructural feminism
“Gender relations” in practice:
“Patriarchy” creates separate
gender roles in which women are
often in a subservient position


E.g. “breadwinner” myth
E.g. The “Double Burden”
Contributes to a global “Gendered
Division of Labour” in which
women do not receive the same
benefits and opportunities as
men
Poststructural feminists also
emphasize the broader
commodification of women in
global capitalism
“Gender relations” in the study of
international politics:
Female scholarship has been
marginalized
IR has been seen as “nongendered”, though many of its
ideas seem to sneak in gender
constructions (?)





E.g. Hobbes’ state of nature
E.g. Security language is sexualized
E.g. The “Protection Myth” and the
construction of international
security
Does IR glorify men’s role in
conflict and make women passive
victims of insecurity?
The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides
and the Peloponnesian War:



“Constructivism”: Athens acted “inappropriately” - outside of
norms =Rogue state
“Poststructuralism”: Thucydides is just an ancient George
Lucas - what lessons can we learn from his “story” outside of
the messages he was trying to convince us of? =Danger of
basing today’s policy on “tall tales”
“Feminism”: Ah . . . we are basing our ideas about IR on
fairytales about men with spears . . . . Really? =This is exactly
how IR gets “gendered” – we should talk about the world we
live in . . . .
5) Conclusions:
Key Actors/Units of Analysis:
A) Individuals
B) Cultures

Potentially dangerous implications???
C) States – states are agents

May follow norms, but may not . . .
View of individual: Not rational - at least not in ways
other theories assume

Individuals socialized into pre-existing world views

Can these views be changed for the better?
View of the state: Agent influenced by identities/values

Less important as an actor then “Realism”, but still
important
View of international system:

Distribution of power and material capabilities less
important
 Norms provide considerable structure
 Change is entirely possible and should be sought
 Anarchy bad?
 Soverignty bad?
5) Strengths & Weakness of Newer
Approaches:
Strengths:

There are probably norms in IR . . .

Interpretation, based on values, matters . . .
Weaknesses:
Although it argues for a normative IR, it is
possible that critical ideas undermine this . . . .


Cultural relativism – there is no universal standard of
right or wrong
6) For Next Time . . .
Unit Three: Nationalism, Nations States and Foreign Policy
“Nationalism and States in the International System”
Required Reading:

Globalization of World Politics, Chapter 25.

Strobe Talbott, “Self-Determination in an
Interdependent World,” Foreign Policy, No. 118 (Spring,
2000), pp. 152-163. (Available from the instructor.)