CONSTRUCTIVISM - ISSS

Constructivism in International Relations (IR) is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the

importance of social structures, identities, and norms in shaping the behavior of states and other
actors in the international system.

Constructivism posits that the identities of states and other international actors are crucial in
determining their interests and behaviors. Unlike realism, which focuses primarily on material power
and security, constructivism highlights how national identities—shaped by culture, history, and social
practices—influence foreign policy and security decisions.

Constructivists argue that international relations are constructed through social practices and
interactions among states and other actors.

The term "constructivism" in the context of international relations was introduced by American
scholar Nicholas Onuf in his book World of Our Making (1989). Onuf argued that the world is not
merely a given environment but is actively constructed through human interaction.

The end of the Cold War marked a significant turning point for constructivism. The collapse of the
bipolar order and the rise of new security challenges highlighted the limitations of traditional realist
and liberal theories that prioritized material factors. Constructivism gained prominence as scholars
began to analyze how identities, norms, and discourses influenced state behavior in this new context,
particularly in areas such as conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and the role of international
institutions.

The main tenets of constructivism in International Relations (IR) can be summarized as follows:

1. States as Central Actors, Not Rational Actors

• Centrality of States: Constructivists recognize states as the primary actors in the international
system. However, they challenge the notion of states as purely rational entities that act solely based
on material interests and power calculations. Instead, constructivism emphasizes that state behavior
is influenced by social contexts, identities, and norms.

2. The Role of Identities in Shaping Interests

• Influence of Identities: Constructivists argue that the identities of states—shaped by

historical, cultural, and social factors—significantly influence how they perceive their interests. This
perspective highlights those interests are not inherent or fixed but are constructed through social
interactions.

o Amity and Enmity: The nature of a state's identity (whether it views another state as
a friend or enemy) plays a crucial role in shaping its security considerations and foreign policy. For
example, a state that sees another as a partner may prioritize cooperation, while one that perceives
another as a threat may focus on deterrence.

1
• Behavior Based on Interests: Since identities provide actors with their interests, they
ultimately inform how states might behave or react in different situations. This contrasts with the
neo-realist and neo-liberal schools of thought, which emphasize material factors like military power
and resources as primary drivers of state behavior.

3. Anarchy in the International System

• Acceptance of Anarchy: Constructivists accept the realist and liberalist assertion that the
international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority above states. However,
constructivism offers a nuanced understanding of anarchy.

• Anarchy as Socially Constructed: Constructivist theorist Alexander Wendt (1992) posits that
"anarchy is what states make of it." This suggests that the implications of anarchy can vary based on
the meanings and interpretations that states ascribe to it. States can interpret anarchy in different
ways, leading to different behaviors and strategies. For instance:

o A state may view anarchy as a threat, leading to a security dilemma where states
compete for power.

o Alternatively, states may interpret anarchy as an opportunity for cooperation, leading

to collective security arrangements or alliances.

The basic assumptions of constructivism in International Relations (IR) reflect its focus on social
dimensions, the fluidity of state identities and interests, and the interpretative nature of international
interactions.

• Social Structure over Material Structure - Constructivism asserts that the fundamental
structures of international politics are primarily social rather than strictly material. This means that
social relationships, norms, values, and identities play a crucial role in shaping international
interactions. These social structures do not merely influence state behaviour but also shape actors'
identities and interests. For instance, a state’s perception of itself (its identity) and its interests (what
it seeks to achieve) are influenced by its historical relationships, cultural context, and interactions
with other states. Therefore, the constructivist perspective emphasizes that understanding these
social dynamics is essential for analysing international relations.
• Anarchy Drives State Behaviour- While constructivists accept the realist notion of anarchy
(the lack of a central authority in the international system), they argue that the implications of this
anarchy are not fixed. Instead, anarchy influences state behaviour through the meanings and
interpretations that states attach to it. Different states can respond to anarchy in various ways based
on their identities and social contexts. Some may see anarchy as a threat, leading to competition and
conflict, while others may interpret it as a context for cooperation and collaboration. This variability
highlights the importance of social factors in shaping how states navigate the anarchic environment.

2
• Social Practices are Constructed, Not Given - Constructivists argue that social practices are
not predetermined or natural but are socially constructed through human interaction. This means
that the norms, rules, and expectations that govern state behavior are created and sustained through
ongoing social processes. Because social practices are constructed, they have the potential to change
over time. As identities, norms, and relationships evolve, so too can the practices and behaviors
associated with them. This perspective allows constructivism to account for changes in international
relations, such as shifts in alliances, norms regarding human rights, or changes in security practices.

Constructivism in security studies-

Social Construction of Security: The fundamental premise of constructivist approaches to security

is that security itself is a social construction. This means that what is considered “security” is not an
objective fact but rather a concept shaped by social interactions, historical contexts, and collective
identities. For constructivist security studies, understanding security is less about counting weapons
or military power and more about how people and groups perceive their safety and identity. Here’s
a simpler look at the main ideas:

Defining the Group

1. Who is the Group?: To define what "security" means, we first need to know who the group
is. This group could be a country, a cultural community, or a religious group. Each group has its own
unique identity, which shapes what they see as important for their security.

2. Context Matters: Different groups will view themselves differently depending on their
history, culture, and experiences. For example, a nation with a history of invasion may prioritize its
borders, while a religious group may focus on protecting its traditions.

Understanding Core Values

1. What Are the Core Values?: Each group has certain values they care deeply about, like
independence, cultural heritage, or human rights. These values are central to their identity and shape
their view of what needs protecting.

2. Security Based on Values: A group’s idea of security is shaped by these core values. For
example, a group focused on economic stability might prioritize financial security, while a group
valuing freedom might emphasize protecting rights over territory.

Identifying Threats

1. Where Do Threats Come From? - Groups perceive different threats to their core values.
These threats could be external, like other countries, or internal, like divisions within their society.

2. Social Influence on Threats: What a group sees as a threat often depends on their
interactions with others and past experiences. For example, if a country has had conflicts with its
neighbors, it may view them as potential threats.

3
Achieving Preservation or Advancement

1. How Are Values Protected or Strengthened? The ways that groups try to secure their values
(like diplomacy, military action, or alliances) aren’t fixed. They depend on the group’s identity and
the social context they’re in.

2. Adapting to the Situation: The strategies a group uses to stay secure are flexible and can
change over time. A country may focus on peaceful engagement in one period and switch to
defensive measures in another, based on its needs and relationships with others.

In simple terms, constructivist security studies suggest that “security” is all about how groups see
themselves, what they care about, and how they think about potential dangers based on their
identity and experiences. Instead of seeing security as just about power or weapons, constructivism
views it as shaped by social beliefs, values, and relationships.

For constructivists, the answers to the critical questions surrounding security are context-dependent
and arise from social interactions between actors. The meanings assigned to security, the
identification of threats, and the strategies for preservation are constructed through ongoing
dialogue, negotiation, and collective identity formation. This perspective underscores that security is
not merely about military capabilities or material power; it is fundamentally about the shared values
and identities that bind groups together, as well as their capacity to navigate the social landscape of
international relations.

The comparison of different theoretical perspectives in International Relations (IR) can provide
valuable insights into how each framework interprets state behavior and the nature of international
interactions. Here’s a concise overview of the perspectives of realism, liberalism, Marxism, and
constructivism:

1. Realism

• Core Belief: Realism posits that states operate in an anarchic international system where self-
interest and survival are paramount.

• Focus on Security: States are primarily concerned with their own security and power. The
tendency towards conflict and preparation for war is seen as a natural response to the competitive
nature of the international system.

• Self-Help Principle: Realists argue that states must rely on themselves for security, leading
to a focus on military capabilities and deterrence.

2. Liberalism

• Core Belief: Liberalism emphasizes cooperation among states as a means to achieve mutual
benefits and collective security.

4
• Focus on Institutions: Liberals argue that international institutions, trade, and diplomacy can
help mitigate conflicts and promote cooperation. The idea is that states can work together to address
common challenges, leading to positive-sum outcomes.

• Interdependence: Increased economic interdependence and shared values foster

cooperation and reduce the likelihood of conflict among states.

3. Marxism

• Core Belief: Marxism analyzes international relations through the lens of economic structures
and class struggle, arguing that economic interests drive state behavior.

• Focus on Economic Benefit: States are seen as pursuing economic benefits, often reflecting
the interests of the capitalist class. The global system is viewed as exploitative, with wealth and power
concentrated among a few states or classes.

• Imperialism and Global Capitalism: Marxist theory often emphasizes the role of imperialism
and the influence of global capitalism in shaping state interactions and conflicts.

4. Constructivism

• Core Belief: Constructivism focuses on the social construction of reality, arguing that state
behavior is influenced by social interactions, identities, and norms.

• Dynamic Behavior: Unlike the other theories, constructivism emphasizes that the behavior
of states can change over time based on evolving identities, contexts, and relationships. This means
that the same state may act differently in different situations due to the social and political factors
at play.

• Influence of Ideas and Norms: Constructivists contend that ideas, beliefs, and values
significantly shape how states perceive their interests and threats, leading to varied responses to
similar circumstances.

Critical constructivism offers a deeper inquiry into the processes of identity formation and the
underlying structures that contribute to a state's identity in the realm of International Relations (IR).
Unlike conventional constructivists, who may focus on how identities influence state behavior, critical
constructivists prioritize understanding the foundational elements that constitute a state's identity.
These components may include:

• Historical Narratives: The collective memory of a state, including its past conflicts, alliances,
and experiences, contributes to its identity.

• Cultural Values: Shared cultural norms and values play a crucial role in shaping how a state
perceives itself and its place in the international system.

5
• Political Discourse: The language used by political leaders, media, and academics to describe
national interests and security can significantly influence identity construction.

• Social Practices: Everyday interactions and practices among individuals and groups within
the state contribute to the collective understanding of identity.

Critical constructivists emphasize that state identity is created and reinforced through both written
and spoken communication among individuals and groups. This communication can take various
forms, including:

• Political Speeches: Leaders articulate national identity through rhetoric that resonates with
citizens and constructs a collective narrative.

• Media Representation: How a state's identity is portrayed in national and international

media influences public perception and can shape both domestic and foreign policy.

• Academic Discourse: Scholars and intellectuals contribute to identity formation through their
analyses and interpretations of national interests and historical experiences.

The debates between conventional constructivism and critical constructivism highlight important
differences in their approaches to understanding international relations, particularly in terms of state
behaviour and identity formation. Here’s a breakdown of the key distinctions and debates:

CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTIVISM CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

Focus on 'What' Questions: Conventional Focus on 'How' Questions: In contrast, critical

constructivism primarily addresses questions constructivism emphasizes questions like "How
like "What causes a state or actor in the do states come to believe in a certain identity?"
international system to act a certain way?" This
This approach seeks to explore the processes
reflects a more empirical and descriptive and mechanisms that underpin identity
approach to analysing state behaviour. formation. It moves beyond surface-level
observations to examine the dynamics of social
It seeks to identify the causal factors that interactions, discourses, and historical contexts
influence how states respond to different that shape identities.
situations, focusing on the significance of
identity in shaping interests and actions.

Skepticism towards the Centrality of the

State: Critical constructivists are more skeptical
Acceptance of Neo-Realist Framework: of the idea that the state is the only or primary
Conventional constructivists tend to accept key actor in international relations. They consider a
aspects of neo-realist thinking, particularly the wider range of actors, including non-state
centrality of the state as the main actor in actors, transnational networks, and social
international relations. This acceptance means movements. This broadening of focus allows for

6
 that while they incorporate social factors and a more complex understanding of how identity
identities, they still view the state as the primary is formed and how it influences behavior across
unit of analysis, much like realists. different contexts.

Assumption of Identity-Driven Behavior: Dynamic and Fluid Identities: Critical

Conventional constructivism posits that states constructivism views state identities as dynamic
act according to their identities. It assumes that and fluid rather than fixed. It emphasizes that
the identities of states are relatively stable and identities can change over time based on social
influence their interests and behaviours in a interactions, political discourse, and historical
predictable manner. This perspective allows for developments.
the possibility of predicting state actions by
analysing their identities, leading to a more
deterministic view of state behaviour.

ALEXANDER WENDT'S KEY IDEAS

Anarchy as a Constructed Environment: In traditional theories, anarchy is seen as the natural state
of the international system where no single authority governs all states, often leading to competition
and conflict. Wendt, however, argues that anarchy isn’t just a fixed condition. It’s shaped by the rules,
norms, and agreements between states. In other words, states create the “anarchy” we see by how
they interact. If states choose to cooperate, they shape a friendlier version of anarchy. If they are
hostile, anarchy becomes more threatening.

State Agency in Shaping Anarchy: Traditional theories treat anarchy as something states must
simply accept, but Wendt believes states can shape it. How states interact—whether they act as
friends (amity) or rivals (enmity)—influences the nature of the international environment. So, anarchy
can be either cooperative or competitive, depending on how states choose to interact.

Dynamic State Behavior: Wendt’s constructivism views state behavior as flexible and changeable.
States don’t have to act the same way all the time; their actions can evolve based on changing social
contexts and identities. This is different from theories that assume states always act according to
rigid rules or self-interest based on power alone.

Influence of Ideas, Norms, and Values: Wendt highlights that a state’s actions aren’t only driven
by power or resources; they are also shaped by ideas, values, traditions, and norms. For example, a
state might support human rights not because of power but because it values those principles. These
social factors can impact how a state behaves, sometimes even more than military strength or
economic interests.

Security as a Social Construction: Wendt also argues that security isn’t just about military defense
or survival; it’s shaped by the meaning’s states assign to it. What counts as a security threat depends
on how states define their identities and relationships. For example, a country might see another
country as a threat due to historical conflicts or alliances, not necessarily because of a current military
buildup.