Constructivism loudly declared itself in the 90s of the last century and became the main methodological framework for studying international relations for the entire decade. This happened when the prevailing rationalist theories of neorealism and neoliberalism failed to predict and explain the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the advent of the XXI century, began to undergo a significant crisis. One of constructivism’s most important methodological features is its significant attention to the theory of knowledge. Constructivism should be defined as one of the post-positivist theories along with feminism, postcolonialism, and others, primarily developed from a dispute with neoliberalism and neorealism.
The basis of Auguste Comte’s positivism was empiricism – reliance on experience-tested judgments. However, representatives of constructivism believe that social phenomena and the relationships of actors in the international arena are too complex to explain them solely with the help of empirical constructions. However, it is worth noting that it is incorrect to attribute to the modern science of international relations the weaknesses of the positivism of Comte’s time due to the significant development of social sciences for more than a century and a half. The analyzed articles belong to modern authors who mainly rethink the current position of constructivism. However, attention was also paid to Alexander Wendt, who is one of the key theorists of this approach. Thus, a certain contrast is created, which is necessary to understand what changes this theory has undergone.
One of the most famous constructivists, Alexander Wendt, understands by it not a meaningful theory but the philosophy of social sciences. Its subject is the ontology of international life, and the main goal is to illuminate the ontological reality of intersubjective knowledge. Moreover, Wendt even specifically stipulates that constructivism is not a theory since it has neither a predictive nor an explanatory function; it is only an analysis tool (Wendt, 1999). The political scientist believed that ideas shared by society, more than material factors and objective reality, affect human associations, identity, and interests, including national ones.
However, in constructivism, the subjective perception of reality affects the individual, and they construct reality around themselves. This view of constructivists on the theory of knowledge created the so-called reflexive turn in the study of international relations. In the constructivist approach, the object and the subject of cognition are inseparable, making the search for truth virtually impossible (Wendt, 1999). The impossibility of revealing the absolute truth poses a challenge to the science of international relations in establishing a dialogue between different points of view. Subsequently, this will become one of the reasons for the crisis in using the approach to study international relations.
The application of discourse analysis methodology is harmoniously combined with a completely positivist but reinterpreted by Alexander Wendt, structural approach. In the paradigm of neorealism and neoliberalism, the structure is a material phenomenon, in Wendt becomes a social structure based on the interaction between identities (Wendt, 1999). The change of identities and the change of discourse is the basis for the development of world politics and the history of the theory of international relations.
It is necessary to move from Alexander Wendt’s description of the methodology of constructivism to the most problematic aspects of the application of this approach in the science of international relations and in political practice. One of them is relativism – the absence of the possibility of absolute truth and, consequently, the need to strive for it. This feature gives the science of international relations in the paradigm of constructivist methodology an understanding rather than an explanatory character. Constructivism denies the possibility of cognition and explanation of the processes that the science of international relations explores, reserving only the right to explain the meaning of these processes for actors (Wendt, 1999). Thus, Wendt’s constructivism as a postpositivist approach denies the possibility of scientific growth and accumulation of knowledge, which leads to the absence of some additional and independent value of constructivist research.
Criticism of constructivism also concerns the problem of insufficient certainty of the basic concepts, the key of which is “identity”. In the article under consideration, identity determines the actions and interests of actors, but the theorists of constructivism could not give an exact definition of the term, which came from the field of social psychology rather than political sciences (Cahan, 2018). In the article by Cahan (2018) the thesis that there is no need for a precise formulation of the mechanisms of the emergence and development of collective identity is also questioned. According to the author, in a situation of ambiguity of the basic concepts of constructivism, this approach becomes a losing one compared to traditional ones. For example, the expert and political community will rather operate with a realistic concept of national interest rather than accept a constructivist understanding of the interest that arises from the interaction of collective identities.
This article touches upon another problem related to the application of constructivism in political practice and the science of international relations. Briefly, it can be described as a problem of building a communicative act (Cahan, 2018). The conceptual developments of the constructivists of the 90s, although they were a bright breath in the theory of international relations, turned out to be too difficult to understand not only among professional politicians but also in the academic environment. At the same time, unlike constructivism, realism offers a set of terms that are understandable and accessible to a wide range of people, designed to describe political realities, including national sovereignty, national state, sovereignty (Cahan, 2018). In addition, contrary to the ideas rooted among political elites, constructivism denies the state as a given. It points out the fundamental importance of social norms, the content of which can be interpreted in different ways. It also denies the progressive nature of historical development, adopted in a liberal approach and often touched upon in the speeches of prominent politicians.
This article rejects the conclusions of neorealism about the determining influence of anarchy on the behavior of international actors and move away from the underlying materialism of neorealism. They create the necessary space for the identities and interests of international actors to occupy a central place in the theorizing of international relations (Laurence & Rhoads, 2020). Now that the imperatives of the self-help system do not just guide the actors, their personality and interests become important when analyzing their behavior. Like the nature of the international system, constructivists believe that such identities and interests are not objectively based on material forces (such as the dictates of human nature underlying classical realism). In other words, the meanings of ideas, objects, and actors are determined by social interaction. People give objects their meanings and can give different meanings to different things.
The authors define an essential role in the study of how international organizations participate in these processes of the social construction of subjects’ ideas about their interests. Laurence and Rhoades (2020) demonstrate a systematic approach to understanding state interests and state behavior, exploring the international structure not of power but of meaning and social value. The interests of various actors in international relations are constructed through social interactions (Laurence & Rhoads, 2020). The author cites various case studies of such a design, reflected in the creation of major international actors.
A common factor from the articles considered is a critical concept in constructivism – general and private (individual) ideas. General ideas, being part of a social structure, form a culture, so the social role of an agent is also significant here. The structure and trends in the anarchic system of international relations ultimately depend on the dominant roles. Accordingly, they rely on the three most important traditions in the history of political thought — Hobbesian, Lockeian, and Kantian. However, the ideas that influence world politics and international relations are more than just individual views and beliefs. This is manifested in intersubjective (shared by many people) and institutionalized ideas (Cahan, 2018). They manifest themselves in the form of practices or identities embodied not only by the worldview but also in the collective memory, procedures, education and upbringing system, and politicians’ rhetoric (Laurence & Rhoads, 2020). The representation of reality in these articles generally includes the world’s material, subjective and intersubjective dimensions. At the same time, two variables are of particular importance – ideas and social norms.
The main similarities of these articles of constructivism can be deduced from two axioms. The first suggests that the behavior of States is determined by the meaning they attach to the objects of interest to them (actors and structures). These objects can be assessed by the State as friendly, hostile, or neutral (Cahan, 2018). The second axiom states that the international system operates on the basis of rules and institutions that the actors themselves jointly constructed. Such rules and norms are called intersubjective since most actors share them in the international arena and, therefore, are perceived as universally valid.
References
Cahan, J. A. (2018). National identity and the limits of constructivism in international relations theory: A case study of the Suez Canal. Nations and Nationalism, 25(2), 478–498. Web.
Laurence, M., & Rhoads, E. P. (2020). ” Constructivism”. In United Nations peace operations and International Relations theory. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. Web.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.