constructivism theory and its strengths and weaknesses in relation to international relations

For many years, International Relations had two predominant classical theories. These are realism and liberalism. After the Cold War, however, these classical theories failed to explain the cause of the rapid changes in the world systems. Therefore, Alexander Wendt, a theorist, came up with the theory of constructionism. According to this theory, the material world shapes itself through actions such as human interactions, which depend on dynamic epistemic and normative interpretation of nations. Wendt’s theory provided answers to questions that classical theories failed to explain. However, the theory faces significant skepticism from neo-realisms and liberalists or pluralists. This essay examines the constructivism theory and outlines its strengths and weaknesses in relation to international relations.

One has to analyze how the constructivism theory’s history, to gain knowledge on how it came to be. Before the Cold War, realism and liberalism governed not only internal but also international politics. Behravesh (2011), states that realism holds human beings captive due to the cyclical and repetitive behavioral patterns. According to realists, human beings are naturally selfish, and thus, need power over others. Such assumptions explain the causes of wars among nations (states), as they battle to gain authority over each other. The liberal theory, on the other hand, asserts that countries need mutual interactions to survive. Therefore, the theory believes in peaceful relations among nations, which is often spurred by democracy. Although the theory of liberalism or pluralism explains an almost utopic world where peace prevails, it does not give a clear account of the reasons behind the end of the Cold War.

The Constructivism theory tries to draw people’s attention realism and liberalism, since the former only believes in human self-interests, while the latter only offers ideas of peace. Both these theories only incorporate state activities and politics as the main drivers of international relations. Constructivism provides a different approach, as does not overlook the agency of individual actions in global constructs. After all, it is the effort of ordinary citizens that brought the Cold War to an end. Therefore, this theory avers that the world is socially constructed.

Strengths of the Theory of Constructivism

Wendt’s theory assumes that the world society lives in is a product of human ideas, beliefs, and norms. Anarchy is what the state makes of it is a 1992 article by Wendt that aims to explain his theory of constructivism further. The manuscript means that anarchy can be interpreted differently depending on the various constructs of the social system. For instance, Wendt gives an example of the United States, North Korea, and Britain (Wendt, 1992). He states that five hundred nuclear weapons from Britain are less threatening to America than five ammunitions from North Korea. Using this example, Wendt tries to show that, idealistic rather than materialistic convictions control international relations (Wendt, 1992).

Moreover, Wendt’s theory critiques neo-liberalists and neo-realists as they assert that international relations are a product of the rationalization of human interests. These theories focus on the rational choice idealist, which states that human beings mainly rationalize using material things. Therefore, Wendt’s theory provides another possible cause of social and international relations.

Another strength present in the constructivism theory is that it is much more dynamic, as compared to liberalism and realism. Constructivists believe that reality is under constant construction. Human interactions are therefore; open to the prospect of change depending on the core constructivism factors (Ideas, beliefs, and norms). Classical theories are static and work on the assumption that international relations never change. However, international relations undergo gradual and unpredictable transitions. Therefore, constructivists diversify the scope of international relations to fields that other rationalist theories failed to explore.

Since the constructivism theory focuses more on non-material aspects of social interactions, it is necessary for one to gain insight into these factors. Only then can one understand the urgency of Wendt’s theory in international relations. For instance, constructivists argue that states have diverse identities and interests (Hoyoon, 2019). These identities represent these states understanding of who they are. When these actors identify themselves, they can understand their interests. Constructivists contend that a state’s identify informs its interests, and therefore, a nation cannot act contrary to their interests. If a country identifies as a democracy, its actions will not parallel those of anarchy. Moreover, small states would have missions or laws that contrast entirely with bigger states. Therefore, Wendt’s new, but a viable explanation of national identities, prove neo-liberalists and neo-realists wrong in their assumption that political constructs are always similar and constant.

Additionally, social norms significantly help in explaining constructivism. According to Wendt, social norms are the set standard of appropriate behaviors given to actors of different identities (Hoyoon, 2019). Every state has its laws and codes of conduct that its actors ought to conform to. With these laws come specific behaviors that citizens inadvertently learn. However, constructivists assert that these behaviors (norms) only become necessary when the more significant number of actors deem them acceptable. For instance, diversity and acceptance of factors such as bisexuality or transgender sexual identities only became normal in society after gaining the approval of the majority of societal actors. Consequently, racial and ethical integration occurs only due to social acceptance and human norms. Liberalism and realism fail to explain the significant role that norms play in human relations, which, in turn, lead to international economics and politics.

Additionally, Wendt’s theory significantly places culture as a core foundation of human relations. Culture impacts society’s view and interpretation of security threats (Behravesh, 2011). Different cultural interpretations lead to different strategies, insights, and mitigation mechanisms. Classical theories of international relations seldom use non-material factors in explaining the causes of war or peace. For example, both realists and liberalists limit themselves to using politics and economics to explain international relation constructs. Therefore, constructivists provide alternative insights into the inter-subjective bases of international relations.

Since the theory offers a different approach to understanding international relations, it incorporates significant factors that are more effective. The International Affairs Forum (2020), states that constructivists use both material and non-material explanations of social constructs. Although the theory lies more on non-material factors that govern states, it explains that politics also plays a role in international relations. Nonetheless, the theory uses a sociological, political perspective as it contends that ordinary people’s interactions cause the most impacts in state affairs.

Weaknesses of Constructivism

Regardless of the many positive attributes, the constructivism theory brings to international relations; it also invites criticism as it does not provide a full account of social interactions. For instance, Wendt asserts that norms, beliefs, and ideologies are the primary cause of international relations. However, a rational person would have questions on the origin of these norms or beliefs and their validity. Skeptics contend that just like liberalism, constructivism only provides the positive aspects of human nature. When states form norms or laws, they only intend to inform citizens on the right and moral way to act. Constructivists overlook the negative side of human nature, or the idea that the majority of human beings break laws. People also often ignore social norms. Critics also argue that Wendt’s theory is biased towards the commendable norms such as human rights, women rights, climatic change and environmental protection (Hoyoon, 2019). However, there are other human norms such as xenophobia and racism in some nations, which Wendt tends to avoid in his theory. Realism, however, considers all the selfish human behaviors, thus provides a realistic account of international relations.

Secondly, neo-realists worry about the significance constructivists place on norms. These theories contend that any state or governing body can simply overlook these norms while making decisions. Moreover, these realists aver that when an activity is in the best interest of state leaders, they would do whatever it takes to acquire it. Therefore, the negative, power-hungry side of human nature would always overpower norms or cultural beliefs. For instance, many ‘democracies’ suffer under the leadership of anarchical politicians who ignore norms or codes of conduct to maintain authority. Israel is a democratic state, with democratic norms. However, its current prime minister, Netanyahu, refuses to let go of his seat, regardless of his many crimes associated to corruption (Halbfinger, 2020). Regardless of constructivist or liberal theories of international relations, anarchy still prevails.

Furthermore, the primary goal for all states or human beings is to survive. People can do whatever it takes to survive uncomfortable or unsafe situations (Hoyoon, 2019). Skeptics of Wendt’s theory assert that, if social norms, survival, security, and success are all arranged in a hierarchy, norms would be insubordinate to other human wants. Further, critics argue that constructivism offers muddled and incomplete accounts of international relations. They contend that as Wendt tries to incorporate non-material and material human factors in one theory, he moves further from finding a viable explanation.

Although constructivism faces numerous contentions, it provides a new explanation on social interactions. The theory also places significance on the actions of ordinary human beings in the prevention of international conflicts. Placing an emphasis on the social construct, Wendt opens doors to a better theoretical understanding of international relations. Nonetheless, the theory, just like any other, leaves room for criticism, as it only focuses on the utopic aspects of human interactions.

References

Behravesh, M. (2011). The thrust of Wendtian constructivism. E-International Relations Students, https://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/09/the-thrust-of-wendtian-constructivism/

Halbfinger, David. Israeli parliament speaker quits, but political deadlock no closer to an end.2020. //www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/world/middleeast/israel-parliament-speaker-yuli-edelstein.html. Accessed April 3, 2020

Hoyoon, J. (2019). The Evolution of social constructivism in political science: Past to present. Sage Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244019832703

International Affairs Forum. (2020). Constructivism in International Relations. https://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternal_Document.cfm?contenttype_id=0&ContentID=8773

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46 (2): 410.