CONSTRUCTIVISM

Nicholas Greenwood Onuf was the first theorist who introduced the term
“constructivism” in International Relations theory in 1989, contending that
states much the same as individuals are living in a “world of our making,” it has
become fairly common to introduce constructivism as yet another substantive
theory of international relations, such as realism, liberalism, or institutionalism.
“Social constructivism” is a truism that social reality does not fall from heaven,
but that human agents construct and reproduce it through their daily practices –
“the social construction of reality” (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Therefore, it is
probably more useful to describe constructivism as based on a social ontology
which insists that human agents do not exist independently from their social
environment and its collectively shared systems of meanings .The social
environment in which we find ourselves, defines (“constitutes”) who we are, our
identities as social beings. “We” are social beings, embedded in various relevant
social communities. At the same time, human agency creates, reproduces, and
changes culture through our daily practices. . Constructivists hold the view
that all institutions, including the state, are socially constructed, in the
sense that they reflect an “intersubjective consensus” of shared beliefs
about political practice, acceptable social behaviour, and values.
Constructivism is a “social theory of international politics” that emphasizes the
social construction of world affairs as opposed to the claim of (neo)realists that
international politics is shaped by the rational-choice behaviour/decisions of
egoist actors who pursue their interests by making utilitarian calculations to
maximize their benefits and minimize their losses, hence the materiality of
international structures. It says that learners construct knowledge rather
than just passively take in information. As people experience the world
and reflect upon those experiences, they build their own representations
and incorporate new information into their preexisting knowledge. The
notion that international relations are not only affected by power politics,
but also by ideas, is shared by writers who describe themselves as
constructivist theorists. According to this view, the fundamental
structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material.
This leads to social constructivists to argue that changes in the nature of
social interaction between states can bring a fundamental shift towards
greater international security The major thesis of
constructivism is that the international system is “socially constructed,” that is,
it “consists of,” explains Chernoff, “the ways in which human beings think and
interact with one another.”

Globalisation has arisen because of the way that people have mentally
constructed the social world with particular symbols, language, images and
interpretation. From a social constructivist viewpoint, there is very little
“given” about economic globalization.

1. One would emphasize that the globalization discourse constitutes itself a

social construction in the sense that making economic globalization
inevitable serves particular purposes and interests. Depriving anonymous
market forces of human agency overlooks, e.g., that the liberalization of
capital markets occurred at certain points in time by concrete political
decisions, i.e., human agency was involved here.
2. at a deeper level, social constructivists would probably insist that the concept
of “globalization” itself constitutes a particular interpretation of a social
reality which is itself being interpreted and re-interpreted by social agents. If
we construct the world as globalized, we focus on inter-connectedness,
networks, and complex interdependence (Keohane and Nye 1977). At the
same time, we de-emphasize those forces in the current world order that
contribute to fragmentation and (cultural) difference. Furthermore, one does
not have to be a realist to notice that globalization and inter-connectedness of
the world cannot be reconciled easily with a worldview of unipolarity
 emphasizing American hegemony. The norm of sovereignty, e.g., not only
regulates the interactions of states in international affairs, it also defines what
a state is in the first place. Constructivists concentrate on the social identities
of actors in order to account for their interests. Constructivism maintains that
collective norms and understandings define the basic “rules of the game” in
which they find themselves in their interactions. This does not mean that
constitutive norms cannot be violated or never change. But the argument
implies that we cannot even describe the properties of social agents without
reference to the social structure in which they are embedded.

If we treat globalization as a global social structure, social constructivists would

focus on the constitutive effects of the various globalization processes.
Economic globalization, for example, constitutes social actors in reference to
their position in the global economy which shapes their interests and even
identities. Notions such as “global players,” for example, imply particular
understandings and selfunderstandings of the companies in question as
incorporating a global outlook and, as a result, global interests. There is an
interesting twist to these notions in recent years. Transnational corporations who
want to become “global players” these days, not only have to recognize their
global corporate interests, but also responsbilities for the global public good.
The globalization of culture and norms re-constitutes political and other social
actors in the sense that they have to accept these norms in order to be recognized
as “good global citizens,” and the like.

DISADVANTAGE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
Some neo-realist scholars are highly critical about constructivist approach, and
their critiques are:
(1) first of all, neo-realists are skeptical about the importance that
constructivists attach to norms – such norms surely exist, but they are routinely
disregarded if that is in the interest of powerful states;
(2) the major problem that states face in anarchy is a problem that is not
sufficiently analyzed by constructivists; it is the problem of uncertainty and the
problem of uncertainty is significantly increased by the fact of
deception(Copeland, 2000);

(3) another critique concerns the constructivist view of change. : According

to Mearsheimer (1995), constructivists do not offer a well-defined argument
why discourse rise and fall, and Jervis (1998) contends constructivists fail to
explain how norms are formed, how identities are shaped, and how interests are
defined as they do.

ARGUMENT OF CONSTRUCTIVISTS
Constructivists argue that agency and structure are mutually constituted, which
implies that structures influence agency and that agency influences structures.
Agency can be understood as the ability of someone to act, whereas structure
refers to the international system that consists of material and ideational
elements. For example, the social relation of enmity between the United States
and North Korea represents the intersubjective structure (that is, the shared ideas
and beliefs among both states), whereas the United States and North Korea are
the actors who have the capacity (that is, agency) to change or reinforce the
existing structure or social relationship of enmity. This change or reinforcement
ultimately depends on the beliefs and ideas held by both states. If these beliefs
and ideas change, the social relationship can change to one of friendship. This
stance differs considerably from that of realists, who argue that the anarchic
structure of the international system determines the behaviour of states.

Another central issue to constructivism is identities and interests.

Constructivists argue that states can have multiple identities that are socially
constructed through interaction with other actors. Identities are representations
of an actor’s understanding of who they are, which in turn signals their interests.
They are important to constructivists as they argue that identities constitute
interests and actions. For example, the identity of a small state implies a set of
interests that are different from those implied by the identity of a large state. The
small state is arguably more focused on its survival, whereas the large state is
concerned with dominating global political, economic and military affairs. It
should be noted, though, that the actions of a state should be aligned with its
identity. A state can thus not act contrary to its identity because this will call
into question the validity of the identity, including its preferences. This issue
might explain why Germany, despite being a great power with a leading global
economy, did not become a military power in the second half of the twentieth
century. Following the atrocities of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime during the
Second World War, German political identity shifted from one of militarism to
pacifism due to unique historical circumstances.

Constructivism and Bhutan’s national interests

Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom located in the Himalayas. The material structural
conditions are reflected in its population of approximately 745,000, a territory
that amounts to 38,394 square kilometres, a weak economy and a very small
military. On top of this, Bhutan shares a national border with the two major
powers in Asia: China in the north and India in the south. Bhutan’s location is
geographically sensitive as the country serves as a buffer state between these
major powers, which perceive each other as rivals rather than friends. In
addition to this, the Chinese leadership claimed, after it annexed Tibet in the
1950s, that Bhutan’s territory was also part of its mainland. To date there
remains an ongoing border dispute between Bhutan and China and there have
been reports that the Chinese army has made several incursions into Bhutan.
Likewise, India has had a hand in Bhutan’s foreign policy. Article 2 of the
India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty (1949) notes that ‘Bhutan agrees to be guided
by the advice of India in regard to its external relations.’ Although this Article
was revised in 2007, commentators have reported that India still holds a degree
of influence over Bhutan.

A constructivist view, on the other hand, would argue that these structural
conditions do not necessarily constrain Bhutan’s ability to pursue its national
interests since they are not the only conditions that influence state behaviour:
the meaning given to these structural conditions also matters. For example,
when Tibet was annexed by China, Bhutan felt threatened. As a result, it closed
its border in the north and turned to India, its neighbour in the south. From that
moment onward, Bhutan perceived China as a potential threat and India as a
friend. To date, Bhutan and India perceive each other as friends whereas Bhutan
has no official relations with China. These social relationships represent the
ideational structure that originated from the meaning given to the material
structure. It is important to note, however, that the social relationships are
subject to change depending on the ideas, beliefs and actions of Bhutan, India
and China. For example, an agreement on the border dispute between China and
Bhutan could change how both countries perceive each other. This change
might lead to the establishment of an official relationship, the nature of which is
friendship rather than enmity. A constructivist is well placed to detect and
understand these changes since their object of enquiry focuses on the social
relationships between states.
Recent developments In Constructivism
A significant group of scholars who study processes of social construction
selfconsciously give up the label "Constructivist". They argue that "mainstream"
constructivism has abandoned many of the most important insights from
linguistic turn and social-constructionist theory in the pursuit of respectability as
a "scientific" approach to international relations. Even some assumed
"mainstream" constructivists, such as Jeffrey Checkel, have expressed concern
that constructivists have gone too far in their efforts to build bridges with non-
constructivist schools of thought.

A growing number of constructivists contend that current theories pay

inadequate attention to the role of habitual and unreflective behavior in world
politics., the centrality of relations and processes in constructing world politics,
or both.

CONCLUSION
In a shorter explanation Constructivism’s substantial and wide-ranging
influence, which was the case particularly in the late 1990s and early 2000s,
perhaps derives from the fact that “what is says seems to be just common
sense.” Its insights apply to our individual experiences in life; as individuals our
identities change over time and so do our interests. For it, it is states that make
the international environment conflictual or cooperative. Constructivism’s
emphasis on the agential capacity of states in making the international system and
determining its course enables it to steer clear of the trap of determinism into which
some of the conventional IR theories fall.

Prepared By: -
Kangkana, Prerna, Vaibhavi
Globalisation in Brazil
Brazil was one of the most closed economies in the world until it underwent a period of
trade and financial liberalization between 1988 and 1994, exposing it to the full extent of
globalization. It is one of the fastest growing economies and superpower of South America. In
the recent decade Globalisation has allowed Brazil’s economy to sustain stable economic
growth. This was proven when Brazil experienced a very mild recession during the Global
Financial Crisis of 2008.

Its failure to embrace Globalisation in the 1960’s 1970’s and 1980’s caused Brazil to be
unable to fund its foreign debt and ultimately experience a currency crisis in the early 1980’s.
From 1980 due to Brazil’s inability to repay debt, the Brazilian economy experienced
many exchange rate crises. This caused extreme inflation of over 1000%. Inflation was
due to the rising cost of imports as currency value fell sharply

Brazil has established a currency reserve to buy back currency and increase its price if
financial speculation causes to fall to low. After embracing globalisation, Economically
Brazil has greatly benefited from it as foreign direct investment (FDI) flows have
allowed it to become competitive in the world market. It receives the highest level of FDI
inflows in Latin American and the 5th highest in the world; this has led to sustained
economic growth and greater economic stability.

Conversely, it is still neglecting the significant problems that globalisation has caused to
its natural environment. As Brazil is still, as a majority, a low-income country, it is
desperate to obtain as much foreign investment as possible in order to earn higher
export revenue; because of this it engages in economic behaviours that harm the
environment. For Brazil this environmental destruction occurs in the form of large scale
deforestation that it undertakes mainly for paper and wood chips but as well as
government income received through selling rainforest/forest land.

Globalisation in Venezuela
Since 2nd February 1999, Venezuela saw sweeping and radical shifts in social policy, moving
away from the government, officially embracing a free-market economy and neoliberal
reform principles.

The globalization years ago had a positive effect in Venezuela. Over 70% of the world’s oil
was exported from here. According to experts, Venezuela in the last decade was one of the
richest country in South America. Globalization allowed to many countries, and companies to
take benefits from the country. Moreover, the development of globalization permitted the
local traditions, such as food, music, and history, to travel around the world.

At the present time, Venezuela is falling down with no end in sight. It is going through one of
the worst political and economic crises in modern history. The country has the highest
inflation in the world. There is political instability and food crisis. Oil prices, and currency
exchange rate are in bad condition. Because of this situation, many companies from around
the world are taking hits on profits and cutting back business with the country. Furthermore,
one of the consequences of those actions are the food and medicine crisis in the country.
Citizens have to wait in line for hours to buy goods at local supermarkets. They have to
bargain, and in other cases import medicines. Brain drain has also become a big problem
there, emigration has become very popular for Venezuela’s citizens which affects
development adversely. Once a stable democracy and economic powerhouse, Venezuela is
now on the brink of collapse and the country is effectively insolvent.

Prepared By: -
Vidushi