Transcript January 16
Constructivism and foreign policy
January 16, 2014
Overview
Rational vs Reflective theories
Why ‘Constructivism’?
Applied constructivism
The key aspects of constructivism
Constructivism meets foreign policy
Rational theories
Liberalism and realism
The two dominate theories
Much of the debate in traditional international
politics has been between these two groups
Both sides make much of the differences
between the two
Critical scholars argue that actually there isn’t
much differences between them - really a very
narrow debate
The “neo-neo” debate
Neorealism
Neoliberalism
Primary
actor
State
State (NGOs,
MNCs)
Global
system
Role of
institutions
anarchy
anarchy
Skeptical - can’t
mitigate anarchy
Can help foster
cooperation
Cooperation Skeptical - relative Possible gains
absolute gains
Key focus
Security
Economy
Rational theories
These theories all share some key points:
Problem-solving - take the world as it is
and try to explain it and make run as best
as possible
Positivist - use “scientific” approach, to
discover the “truth”, make strong
distinction between facts and values
Reflective theories
Diverse collection of theoretical
approaches, which include:
Normative theory
Critical theory
Post-modernism
Feminist theory
United more by what they reject of rational
approaches than what they have in
common
Reflective theories
Constitutive - the way we think about and
approach the world helps create the world,
so can’t just observe the world in a neutral
way
E.g. the belief that states are naturally
aggressive helps create that reality - become
self-confirming (constitutive)
Reflective theories
Challenge distinction rational approaches
make between facts and values
Limits the study of politics - only how things
work, but not asking why they are that way
Naturalizes the current system - no alternative
All theories reflect certain values, none are
value neutral, by trying to make a distinction
between facts and values, rational theories are
putting the values embedded in them beyond
discussion - hidden
Constructivism
Constructivism as an attempt to bridge the
two camps
Attempt to take some of ideas of reflective
approaches and apply them to more
rational theories
So get Wendt making the argument that
anarchy is what states make of it
Why constructivism?
Failure of mainstream theories to predict end
of Cold War and changing nature of global
system creates space for new approaches to
become more mainstream
Constructivism appealing because not that far
from mainstream approaches
Constructivism does not directly challenge
either realism or liberalism,
Instead offer alternative understanding to
some of the most central themes in
international relations.
Can see the idea of trying to bridge between
rational and reflective
Three cultures of anarchy
Wendt - not just one way of looking at
anarchy
Conflictual - based on self-help of realists
Competitive - based on rivalry of some
liberal perspectives
Friendly - based on cooperation
See Box 4.1 p.82, Ego & Alter on a desert
island, as illustration
Key point - both anarchy and culture can
change
Changing culture isn’t easy because the
system is self-reinforcing
E.g. if many see anarchy as a conflictual they
will act in a way that makes it hard to see
alternatives
Using constructivism
Can help shed light on how old
practices of rivalry and war-making may
be changed through the
institutionalization, of new identities,
interests and practices, e.g. (European
security).
According to constructivists, the only reason
why we might be in a self-help system is
because practice made it that way.
So this means that practice could also ‘unmake’ a ‘conflictual’ culture.
NATO and the EU could play important roles
in these ‘un-makings’.
Need to understand how agents’ shared
knowledge, identities and interests are interlinked and may contribute to changing deeply
embedded practices and structural
conditions.
But, to do this we need a fundamental break
with some of the realist and liberal
assumptions about how the world works.
The essence of constructivism
The four key constructivist propositions :
a belief in the social construction of reality
and the importance of social facts
a focus on ideational as well as material
structures and the importance of norms and
rules
The essence of constructivism
a focus on the role of identity in shaping
political action and the importance of ‘logics
of action’
a belief in the mutual ‘constitutiveness’ of
agents and structure, and a focus on practice
and action
Social construction of reality
Facts can have different shared meanings
E.g. French nuclear warhead vs North Korean
nuclear warhead
Some facts aren’t really facts at all,
instead are social facts - only appear as
facts through common agreement,
reinforced through social practice
E.g. money
Social construction of reality
Argue that many of the most important
concepts and understandings of
international relations are social facts
Over time social facts become reified
through practice and routine, so appear
objective and independent from those that
constructed them.
Thus, change is difficult
Ideational and material structures
Ideas matter
Ideas language, rules, symbols etc all
shape how we interpret the material world
and the actions of others
Structures are codified in rules and norms
Structural change is possible by changing
norms
Identity, interests and ‘logics of
action’
Identity is important because it is tied to
particular interests and preferences.
This means the social, cultural, historical and
political contexts in which agents operate
becomes important
Logics of action
Logic of consequence and logic of
appropriateness
Agents, structure and practice
Agents and structures are mutually
constituted
Agents are influenced by structures (e.g. states
influenced by anarchy)
But agents also influence the structure through
their practices
So…
Change is possible but difficult
Constructivism meets foreign policy
NATO’s post-Cold War roles could be defined
as:
still keeping member states safe from threats
Shift from protecting territory to security
still maintaining a common identity, shared
knowledge and shared understandings
among all NATO’s members
Socialization of new members
still engaging in transforming relationships
and practices between NATO members and
former adversaries
Conclusion
Constructivism can be seen as an attempt
bridge between rational and reflective
theories
Looks at the role of things like identity,
interests, norms and how they shape
actions and understanding of the world
Provide important alternative perspectives
for analyzing foreign policy