Chapter 2: Constructivist Theories

Introduction

Constructivism is a fairly new approach in International Relations IR. Constructivists are especially critical of neorealism’s static materialist view on international politics and emphasized the social dimensions of international relations and the possibility of change.

Even though some scholars define constructivism as an approach, understanding or a perspective not a theory of International Relations, it has become established within IR theories. Among all constructivist IR theorists, however, Alexander Wendt stands out as one of the most important figures in Constructivist IR theory.

Since its first appearance in IR in the late 1980s, constructivism has evolved significantly and different versions of constructivism have emerged. Despite variations in constructivist theory, all of them share the basic assumptions on structure and the agent-structure problem as well as the formation of state identities, interests and preferences.

Neorealism

Classical realism emphasises that the desire for more power is part of human nature. Inspired by the works of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Carr, Hans Morgenthau developed a realist theory of international politics in which he argued that international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. He argued that the basic feature of the international system is anarchy, and in this anarchic world, states can only rely on their own resources since under anarchy states cannot trust each other. Therefore, the system is a self-help system and states as rational actors look out for their selfish interest and constantly seek to maximize their power to guarantee their survival. Summarizing the six principles of realism, he suggested that political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.

Classical realism was attacked by other theoretical approaches like neoliberalism, feminism and critical theory. However, the most influential critique came from other realists. Kenneth Waltz became the leading proponent of a new version of realism labelled neorealism (also called structural or systemic realism). According to Waltz, a scientific IR theory must focus on the international system, not on the internal characteristics or leaders of states. Waltz developed a systemic theory in which he diverged from classical realism on the causes of state behaviour in the system.

For neorealism, why states continuously seek power has little to do with human nature. Neorealism explains why states want more power with reference to the structure of the international system. While classical realism mainly focuses on state leaders and their decisions, neorealism, by contrast, emphasizes the structure of the international system that is external to the actors, in particular the relative distribution of power.

Waltz argues that a system is composed of a structure and interacting units, and he defines political structure on three dimensions:

• ordering principles
• the character of the units
• the distribution of capabilities.

Ordering principle implies the organization of authority. Unlike in domestic political systems, authority in international systems is organized horizontally; and hence, the international system is decentralized and anarchic. Therefore, anarchy becomes the ordering principle of the system. The assumption that follows is that the desire of the units is to survive. As a result, self-help becomes the ordering principle of action in an anarchic order.

In terms of the character of the units, Waltz says that states in the system are functionally similar. The functional similarity is the natural result of anarchy because anarchy entails coordination among a system’s units, which implies their sameness. Under anarchy, the most important concern of states is to survive. For Waltz, the assumption of anarchy means that states will be unwilling to risk functional differentiation. Anarchy compels each state to focus on maintaining its sovereignty, i.e. its own survival without relying on external help. According to neorealism, anarchy and the functional similarity of units are constant.

The only element that can change is the distribution of capabilities. States are similar in the tasks they face, not in their abilities to perform them. States are distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks. Therefore, the distribution of capabilities becomes the only determining factor of structure. International change occurs when the distribution of capabilities changes and when balance of power shifts dramatically. Since material capabilities are the essential part of structure, structure is considered as a material concept.

To sum up, neorealism argues that material structure shapes state behaviour and state identities and interests are the products of structure. State identities and interests are given and exogenous to interaction. That means, states, theoretically, come to the system with already defined identities and interests. Constructivists target exactly these two points: structure and identity/interest formation.

Constructivism

Constructivism entails a wide range of perspectives. While all constructivist approaches agree on the definition of structure and the role of identity in international politics, they mainly diverge on these two fields:

• epistemology and methodology
• the levels of analysis.

In terms of epistemology and methodology, constructivism can be divided into three main categories: neoclassical, postmodern and naturalistic constructivism.

• Neoclassical constructivists: They incorporate values, norms, and other ideational factors into their theorizing, but they do not reject the principles of science, standards, and methodologies for testing hypotheses or propositions.
• Postmodern constructivists: They reject the conventional epistemology of social science. They emphasize the linguistic construction of subjects, resulting in ‘discursive practices’ constituting the ontological or foundational units of reality and analysis.
• Naturalistic constructivism: Mainly associated with Wendt, it defines IR as part of the social sciences, and puts more emphasis on the intersubjective aspects or structures of social life.

In terms of the levels of analysis, constructivism can be categorized under three headings: systemic, unit level and holistic constructivism, which are summarized below.

All variants of constructivism hold that social structures are as important as material structures that social structures have not only regulative effect but also constitutive effect on actor identities and interests, and that agents and structures are mutually constitutive.

Alexander Wendt and Systemic Constructivism

Alexander Wendt agrees with other constructivists that the structure of international system is social and that identity is the basis of interests. However, he adopted a systemic approach to show that states’ identities and interests are formed at the system level; and they are endogenous to state interaction.

Social Structure

Below are some comparisons between neorealism and constructivism:

• Neorealism: The structure of the international system is material; moreover, it is a force above states that shape their behaviour.
• Constructivism: Systems of shared ideas, beliefs and values also have structural characteristics; they exert a powerful influence on social and political action. While recognizing the importance of material factors, constructivism suggests that structure also consists of social elements such as ideas, norms, shared understandings and expectations.

According to Wendt, the neorealist definition of political structure based on ordering principles (anarchy) and the distribution of capabilities, by itself, predicts little about state behaviour. He says that it does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other’s sovereignty.

Wendt makes another important assumption about structure, which distinguishes his theory from rationalist theories:

• Neorealism and other rationalist theories posit that political structure is a force above states that can shape actor identities and interests. States do not have much to change it, but succumb to the requirements of structure. Neorealism assumes that only the behaviour of states is affected by system structure, not their identities and interests.
• Constructivists emphasize a process of interaction between agents and structures, arguing that agents and structures are mutually constructed and continuously shape each other. States, through behavioural or discursive processes, constitute norms, rules and principles. Once these norms are generally accepted, they become the culture of the international system.

There are also differences in terms of the logic of anarchy.

• Neorealism: It is anarchy that leads to self-help because under the condition in which there is no supreme authority, states do not have any choice but to be selfish.
• Constructivists: The above statement by neorealism reflects only one logic of anarchy. However, anarchy can have different cultures depending on the nature of prevalent norms, rules, principles, shared knowledge and expectations. Whether the system will be conflictual or cooperative then will depend on what type of culture is prevalent in the system.

Wendt distinguishes three separate cultures:

• Hobbesian culture : There is a constant enmity between states that see each other as enemies. It is a world of all-against-all in which states prioritize power and interests.
• Lockean culture : Although states view each other as rivals, they nevertheless recognize each other’s sovereignty, and therefore submit to a minimum standard of common norms.
• Kantian culture : States no longer see each other as enemies or rivals, but friends and the scope of shared norms is much more extensive.

Wendt argues that this culture is the closest one to a collective security system where states identify with each other and define their interests collectively and thus form a community. This argument has two implications:

1. Material power and interests are not completely excluded from Wendt’s analysis. They are part of social structures, but their meaning and effects depend upon the social structure of the system, and specifically on which of the three ‘cultures’ of anarchy is dominant.
2. For Neorealism, systemic change occurs only when the balance of power changes. Waltz argues that system changes through great wars since they can alter the distribution of power; thus, this leaves leaving little room for change. Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that systemic change is more possible and it occurs when the prevailing norms that make up the culture of the system change.

Wendt incorporates material factors into his conception of structure. The character of international life is determined by the beliefs and expectations that states have about each other and these are constituted largely by social rather than material structures.

In constructivism, social structures include three interrelated essential elements:

• Shared knowledge: These constitute the actors in a situation and the nature of their relationships whether cooperative or conflictual. For instance, an anarchical society is a social structure composed of intersubjective understandings in which states do not trust each other; and thus, they define their interests in self-help terms.
• Material resources: Constructivists argue that material sources only acquire meaning for human action through the structure of shared knowledge in which they are embedded. States will act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends.
• Practices: Social practices produce and reproduce the intersubjective meanings, which, in turn, constitute social structures and actors. Practices create and sustain social structures.

Identity and Interest Formation

Below are some comparisons between constructivism and neorealism in terms of state identity and interests:

• Constructivism: States acquire identities through social interaction, and as a result, state identity becomes endogenous to interaction among states. State interests are not determined independently from state identities. Identity is the basis of interests; states first acquire their identities through social interaction, and then determine what their interests are.
• Neorealism: State identities and interests are givens. In the anarchical international system, states must acquire egoistic identities and interests. States start interaction with already acquired egoistic identities.

According to constructivists, identities define interests of states, and they have a powerful explanatory power in foreign policy analysis. About how states form those identities, Wendt makes a distinction between corporate and social identities of states. Since Wendt’s constructivist approach excludes corporate identities of states from his analysis and tries to show how states form their social identities, and consequently interests, through systemic interaction.

• Corporate identity: The intrinsic, self-organizing qualities that constitute actor individuality. This type of identity generates four basic interests: 1) physical security 2) predictability in relationships to the world 3) recognition as an actor by others 4) economic development.
• Social identity: A set of meanings that an actor attributes to itself as a social object while taking the perspective of others, that is, as a social object.

While actors have one corporate identity, they usually have multiple social identities. States may have multiple social identities, and these identities are mutually constituted. Thus, social identities need an ‘other’ and an appropriate interaction context.

According to Wendt’s systemic constructivism, systemic interaction through which states socialize with each other has a decisive impact on identity and interest construction. For Wendt, states do not have any social identity, and consequently, any interest before interaction. Since social identity formation is an intersubjective process of meaning creation, states before interaction have no conception of the self and the other. Only through interaction they come to define themselves and others, and only after they know ‘who they are’ they define their interests.

Wendt believes that since states do not have any social identity and interests, if, for example, states identify negatively with each other, then, as realists suggest, the system will be a competitive security system. In addition, identities that states construct during interaction are not static and can change.

According to Wendt, three factors at the systemic level can play a causal role for the emergence of collective identity formation which are:

• Structural contexts: These refer to social structures with a particular culture. Which culture dominates the system (e.g. Hobbesian) will either facilitate or inhibit collective identity formation.
• Systemic processes: This process includes rising interdependence among states through either increasing trade and capital flows or the emergence of a common external threat, and the transnational convergence of domestic values.
• Strategic practice: Strategic practices can be both behavioural (what actors do) and discursive (what actors say).

Since Wendt is committed to system-level analysis in his theory, he leaves out corporate sources of state identity. This form of constructivism has one major deficiency in that it confines the processes that shape international societies within an unnecessarily and unproductively narrow realm and is unable to explain fundamental changes in the nature of international society or in the nature of state identity.

Critique of Systemic Constructivism

Systemic constructivism was criticized by the other theories and constructivists leading to the emergence of different variants of constructivism. Constructivist critiques mainly focused on the following:

• Wendt’s systemic approach is unable to explain the change at both domestic and international levels.
• The notion of interest as the product of intersubjective processes of meaning creation does not provide an adequate account of interest and preference formation since it views states as unitary actors with a single identity and a single set of interests.
• According to Wendt, the meanings that objects have for states and the identities and interests of states are created only through and restricted to systemic interaction. Before states socialize with each other, Wendt assumes, they do not have any conception of self and other.

Critics suggest that actors usually construct themselves and others long before the actual contact most often through discursive practices. These critiques’ emphasis on domestic roots of identity led to the emergence of two alternative constructivist research programs: unit-level and holistic constructivism.

Unit-Level Constructivism

Unit-level constructivism contends that systemic constructivism’s focus on the role of the international environment and norms in constructing state identities and interest leaves out the important role that domestic factors play in the formation of state identity and interests.

Arguing that international norms did not have similar effects on different states, unit-level constructivists turned their attention to domestic factors responsible for such variation. Their argument is that systemic theorizing is inadequate because it ignores the internal makeup of states and domestic norms in guiding state behaviour in the international system.

Unit-level constructivism argues that what happens within unitary state actors, consequently impacts positively or negatively, what happens between them.

Holistic Constructivism

Holistic constructivism aims at removing the traditional dichotomy between system and unit levels of analysis and tries to bridge the two domains. Holistic constructivists criticized systemic constructivism for not adequately explaining the change. Holistic constructivism also argues that states’ corporate and social identities continuously interact with each other and states’ foreign policies are the product of this interaction. Interactions between corporate (domestic level) and social identities (international level) will result in the production and reproduction of self and other.

This constructivism suggests that states start systemic interaction with an already defined corporate identity. The corporate identity of the state, depending on its definition, informs states with whom to interact and with what intention, i.e. the foreign policy of the state.

Conclusion

Because holistic constructivism integrates the corporate and social identities of states into a unified approach and it can easily demonstrate the causes and consequences, this type of constructivism provides more useful tools to explain international change.