Introduction
International relations (IR) is a significant part of the global reality human beings understand, and social constructivism is the most socially-centric approach. Ruggie (1998) attempts to provide a foundation for constructivism by showing its origins in the premises of Max Weber. In this regard, he argues for the importance of theoretical ideation in a field dominated by scientific variables and empirically sourced inferences, before applying this argument to IR.
Thus, Constructivism brings to the forefront the significance of human beings as cultural beings, with respective norms, attitudes, and social facts that are endogenous to artificial institutions. Hopf (1998) observes that the definition of constructivism is in itself contentious, as evidenced by the fact that the mainstream typically misrepresents its actual tenets. However, constructivism principally supports the position that actors and structures are mutually constituted, particularly that social structure is a causal force in global politics vis-à-vis material structure (Copeland, 2000). This essay will delineate the meaning of constructivism by comparing it to other theories and dissecting seven critical scholarly works in the field of IR.
Constructivism: An In-Depth Definition
At the center of social constructivism are two essential elements ubiquitous in IR: agents and structures. Hopf (1998) defines a structure as a set of immutable constraints on a nation’s conduct. The unchangeable constraints are shared norms and values that are the building blocks of a nation’s social identity.
For structure to have meaning, there must be an intersubjective context. Hopf (1998) illustrates this point using the USA’s military intervention in Vietnam. As a Superpower, the USA’s decision cemented its status at the top of the hierarchy while reinforcing the structure that gives it the latitude and wherewithal to send troops to a foreign country.
Agents are the other important dimension of constructivism. Checkel (1998) uses agents synonymously with states and notes that they are the entities that take actions, before noting that human agents also exist in the form of leaders and persons of influence in a state. Hopf uses “actors” rather than “agents” to emphasize that agents are crucial because their decisions ripple and wave globally.
However, Checkel (1998) uses “actors” to denote both “structures and agents”. To connect the two elements, Checkel (1996) explains the logical manner in which agents examine their situation before deciding on a course of action. In such a case, the agent’s decisions will be influenced by social norms or by the broader structure of society. From the earlier illustration of the USA and Vietnam, the norms of the USA, insofar as promoting democracy globally, informed their course of action when confronted by the growing influence of the Viet Cong. Thus, norms become essential components of agents, defining their interests from a constructivist perspective.
Comparison to Other International Relations Theories
Traditional IR theories merited an appraisal following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, which had for decades imposed a dichotomous separation of state interests. In particular, realism and liberalism had propagated the view that states are merely rational, self-serving entities in a global structure where power is up for grabs and its unequal distribution an essential by-product of interstate competition. Firstly, a scholarly critique of realism, liberalism, and their neo-forms queries their over-reliance on materialism as a precept of their understanding of IR.
Checkel (1996) succinctly pinpoints this problem by noting that Great Britain can possess numerous nuclear weapons without concern for the United States. In contrast, a single nuclear warhead in North Korea’s arsenal is likely to cause great anxiety in Washington. Thus, it is not the acquisition of materials that causes perceived shifts in global hegemony, but the social context of those materials. Thus, the constructivist approach is necessary as it adds a further dimension of social texture that assesses and gives the true meaning and implication of the materiality aspect.
A second shortcoming of classical IR theories is that they fail to accord equal importance to structure and agency as essential units of analysis. This limitation is termed “methodological individualism” by Checkel (1996) to denote the manner in which traditional IR theories isolate one element and put it in the foreground to the near exclusion of the others’ significance. Using classical IR approaches, state actors or agents are elevated to the detriment of structures. Crucially, constructivism seeks to map the ever-evolving relationship between structural environments and agents. Notably, social constructivists problematize the identities of agents and the social aspects that shape their interests (Farrell, 2002).
However, constructivism, perhaps because of its opposition to traditional IR theories, suffers the same fate. Checkel (1996) notes that constructivism emphasizes the role of social structures and diminishes the importance of agents. This problem is most pronounced in Wendt’s work on constructivism, which notes that agents, in the form of powerful statespersons and governments, are inherently linked to the social structures that shape them (2012). With this assertion, the agency’s independent influence is significantly diminished.
In many ways, constructivism can be viewed as a middle-ground theory of IR. In particular, Adler (1997) observes that constructivism tempers the excesses of realism on the one hand and postmodernism on the other. In the former, IR is treated as the study of predictable responses by nations to triggers in their environments, akin to how forces act on matter are studied in physics. In the latter scenario, IR is viewed as a nearly strictly theoretical discipline, with the essence of IR discussed, including how to study it.
Discussion of Scholarly Contributions
Anarchy
One of the most profound concepts in IR theory, especially in a global system without a central power, is anarchy. Adler (1997) points out that realists and liberals espouse anarchy as a characteristic of the external environment, in which agents (states) pursue their interests through a conscious, rational exercise. Similarly, Wendt (1992) notes that, for neorealists, anarchy is a “self-help system” in which an individual state’s increase in security is viewed as a threat by other states. It follows that states do not work toward collective security, as there is no universal threat; instead, they view each other as enemies and seek to undermine one another at every turn.
Constructivists hold differing views from their realist counterparts regarding anarchy. To constructivists, anarchy is an “imagined community” as described by Hopf (1998). Wendt (1992) adds that anarchy is a component of structure alongside the distribution of power. He concludes that anarchy is a state construct insofar as nations elect to view each other as threats as part of their structure, and this is whence anarchy arises.
Thus, anarchy lacks a logical framework but arises from the influence of social discourse and norms on agents’ actions. To illustrate this, the case of North Korea having nuclear weapons is a threat to the USA and a source of anarchy only because there is normalized enmity between the two states. Hopf (1998) elaborates that where actors remain nonplussed by other actors’ behaviors, the realist’s view of anarchy is rendered moot. Therefore, anarchy is what states determine it to be, and could cease altogether if international regimes steer clear of particular viewpoints.
Security
At the core of the interstate balance of power and anarchy that influences social structure is security. Specifically, actors are concerned about the military power and capabilities of other actors. Hopf (1998) points out that constructivism has a strong capacity to explain how the global balance of power is enacted and how the security dilemma unfolds.
Constructivism focuses on agents’ norms to indicate how they are likely to interpret and respond to specific security incidents. In the same vein, their response adds to their social structure and identity in the global sphere. For instance, the willingness of the USA to invade Iraq can be explained by its agents (political leadership) and structures (attitudes towards hostile nations in the Middle East).
Farrell (2002) adds that constructivism can account for how and why states create allies and perceive other nations as threats. Copeland (2000) raises the issue of uncertainty as a significant limitation of constructivist approaches to security and anarchy. In particular, he notes that states are often unable to predict the actions of other states that pose a genuine threat to their security.
Constructivism is unable to resolve the issue of uncertainty, including in Wendt’s (1992) work. States can easily go to war because they are uncertain about other states’ security, regardless of any structures in place, as in a preemptive strike to deter an attack from an unpredictable agent. Despite this, constructivist scholars believe their approach can adequately explain why certain countries go to war with each other. In contrast, realists may lack the statistical capacity to design experiments to that end.
Points of Contention Within Constructivist Scholarly Circles
Conventional and Critical Constructivism
A broad way to classify constructivist adherents is into conventional or critical constructivists. This delineation is explained by Hopf (1998), who notes that the critical constructivists are in many ways agents of change. In contrast, conventional constructivists are mainly interested in how today’s identities result from and shape social constructs and attitudes.
The difference between a critical and a conventional constructivist is best highlighted in the context of security. Whereas a conventional constructivist merely seeks to show how norms mediate interstate warfare, the critical constructivist seeks to point out the flaws of the current global hierarchy and its inherent injustices, such as certain interstate wars (Farrell, 2002). Usually, the conventional constructivist approach focuses on a norm, such as the global taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, and how it has regulated the actions of states during times of war.
However, the conventional constructivist should also focus on adverse norms and evaluate their impact to shake off the appearance of a peacenik (Checkel, 1998). Therefore, the conventional scholar is purely a scholar. In contrast, the critical constructivist is a scholar and an activist for a more stable global environment, driven by improvements in the structures that govern actors.
The Need for Empirical Methods in Constructivism
As a foundation block for this discussion, the constructivist must be portrayed as the antithesis of the realist. Hopf (1998) describes the constructivist (both conventional and critical) as on one side of the battleground, facing the realist and liberal IR theorists on the other. Notably, the lack of a sound, stable basis for the examination of the social tenets of constructivism other than observables and subjective inferences causes it to be stymied by what Checkel (1998, p. 325) terms as an “empirical ad hocism”. This limitation has caused a further split in the realm of constructivist thought that is of interest to several scholars.
Wendt (1992) calls for research that draws on both theoretical and empirical inquiry in constructivism. He notes that an experimental assessment would add to the growing body of knowledge on constructivism, particularly regarding why actors act in accordance with norms and why they would seek to denaturalize those norms. Checkel (1998) similarly calls for an improved research design in constructivist studies. While the specifics of an empirical approach to constructivism are debatable, the crux of the question is whether constructivism needs such methods.
The Effectiveness of Constructivism in Explaining the International System
Constructivism is an essential addition to the field of IR theorization. It has added a postmodern tint to IR, which was previously explained primarily by classical theories. Farrell (2002) argues that constructivism offers a more realistic picture of international actors, providing them with greater nuance. They cease to be rational entities that act solely to self-serve and become more complex bodies that respond to and impact the social structure. For instance, countries of significant military might are viewed as having great power within the social structure.
The meaning of “great power” in the social structure is evidenced by practices such as invading smaller states, which they are likely to perpetuate, further informing the structure about itself about “great power”. Notably, constructivism augments existing theorizations of IR and should not be treated as a sole approach, as Checkel (1998) notes. The international system offers an outlook that incorporates social factors that have invariably been left out of other IR theories.
Today, constructivism can be applied effectively to specific conflicts worldwide. A case in point is the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. Realism and neoliberalism would describe Russia as a more powerful state that invades another to protect and promote its national interests. It would only lend credence to the balance of material power in Russia’s favor, as well as other geopolitical considerations, as the grounds for the war.
A constructivist approach would, however, note that social structure gives Russia near carte blanche in dealing with nations that were formerly part of the Soviet bloc. Thus, although countries occupying and invading other countries remains a form of international taboo, specific social structures give Russia the leeway to conduct itself in a way that challenges the global status quo. Culturalism, which is sometimes conflated with constructivism, would focus on Russia’s domestic social structure and the attitudes of Russian leaders toward Ukraine (Farrell, 2002). Thus, a constructivist approach can effectively explain the international system today and offer salient insights into other wars, including the conflict in the Middle East pitting Israel against Hamas.
Conclusion
In conclusion, constructivism is an essential addition to the body of knowledge in IR. It offers a new perspective by highlighting the importance of social factors, alongside material and interest factors, in shaping the current international landscape. Additionally, IR provides essential insights into prominent IR concepts, such as anarchy and security, that differ from existing knowledge.
For instance, it posits that anarchy is subject to individual states’ interpretations of their environments and could easily cease to exist, a position that differs from that of the classical schools of thought. Additionally, constructivism avoids the black-boxing of structures and agency during theorization, but treats them as mutually constituting and evolving. Such novel aspects of constructivism lend it credibility and differentiate it from other IR theories.
Notably, constructivism has limitations discussed herein. Firstly, it has an agency problem, elevating the role of structures in IR at the expense of agency. Secondly, there is scope for IR to increase its use of empirical findings by implementing more research designs that adequately capture social factors. In contemporary society, constructivism can be applied to a variety of interstate scenarios, including conflicts across the globe, alongside existing IR theories.
References
Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.
Copeland, D. C. (2000). The constructivist challenge to structural realism: A review essay. International Security, 25(2), 187–212.
Farrell, T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review, 4(1), 49–72.
Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855–885.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.