Constructivism

Constructivism sees the world, and what we can know about the world, as socially

constructed. Constructivism focuses on intersubjective beliefs – such as ideas, assumptions or

views – that are widely shared by people. These inter-subjective beliefs shape ways in which

people build relations with others and conceive of themselves in society. For example, the

collective assumption of people of country A that country B is not friendly towards them may

lead to an adverse relationship between states A and B. Human relations based on inter-

subjective beliefs can be cooperative and conflicting. There can be agreements and

disagreements among people that may lead to cooperation and conflict. Alexander Wendt (1995)

offers an excellent example that illustrates the social construction of reality when he explains that

500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than five North Korean

nuclear weapons. These identifications are not caused by the nuclear weapons (the material

structure) but rather by the meaning given to the material structure (the ideational structure). It is

important to understand that the social relationship between the United States and Britain and the

United States and North Korea is perceived in a similar way by these states, as this shared

understanding forms the basis of their interactions.

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. Returning to Wendt’s

example discussed above, this means that 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 (opposition). 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 behavior of states. Constructivists, on the

other hand, argue that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992). This means that anarchy

can be interpreted in different ways depending on the meaning that actors assign to it.

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. States act according to their identities. If they act differently, it can

make their identity seem fake. Example: Germany, after World War II, changed its identity from

a military power to a peaceful nation because of its history. This is why it didn’t become a

military power again despite its strong economy.

Social norms are rules about what behavior is appropriate for states with certain

identities. Example: A state that identifies as a peaceful nation is expected to act peacefully.

This idea is called the “logic of appropriateness”—states act in ways they believe are suitable for

their identity. There are three types of norms; regulative norms, constitutive norms and

prescriptive norms. A regulative norms, control or regulate behavior by setting rules or

standards that must be followed. For example; International laws against using chemical

weapons. These laws regulate state behavior by prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in

warfare, ensuring that states adhere to certain standards of conduct. A constitutive norms, create

new roles, identities, or categories of action. They define what actions are possible and legitimate

within a given context. For example; the creation of the United Nations (UN). The UN was

established to promote international cooperation and peace. Its creation constituted a new actor

in international relations, providing a platform for states to engage in diplomacy and conflict

resolution. A prescriptive norms, suggest what should be done, prescribing certain behaviors or

actions as appropriate or desirable. For example; promoting human rights. This norm prescribes

that states should protect and promote human rights, suggesting that this is the right and proper

course of action for governments and societies.

Norms go through a process before they become widely accepted and internalized by

states. This process is often referred to as the “lifecycle of norms.” A new norm is proposed or

advocated by norm entrepreneurs (individuals or groups promoting the norm). The norm gains

acceptance as more states and actors adopt it, creating a tipping point where it becomes widely

recognized. The norm becomes taken for granted and is integrated into the practices and policies

of states.

For example; Climate change policies. Over decades, many states have come together to

develop and adopt policies aimed at mitigating climate change. This norm emerged from

scientific and environmental advocacy, cascaded as more states recognized the importance of

addressing climate change, and has now become internalized as an expected behavior for states,

driven by the belief that it is necessary for the survival of humanity.

 Constructivism has different approaches. Conventional constructivists ask “what”

questions, like what makes a state act a certain way. They believe the world can be explained by

cause and effect. They look at how actors, social norms, interests, and identities are connected.

For example, they think states act based on their identity and try to predict when this identity will

show. If a state’s identity changes, they investigate what caused the change such as if a country

sees itself as a peacekeeper, it will act to promote peace. If this identity changes, like if the

country starts acting aggressively, conventional constructivists will investigate what caused this

change.

Critical constructivists ask “how” questions, like how states come to believe in a certain

identity. They are more interested in understanding the parts that make up an identity, which they

believe are created through communication. They focus on how language shapes and can change

social reality. For example; if a country starts to see itself as a leader in human rights, critical

constructivists will look at how speeches, media, and education promoted this new identity.

Combined Approach: Most constructivists fall somewhere in between these two

approaches, combining elements of both. For example; A country like Germany after World War

II. Conventional constructivists would look at what caused Germany to shift from a militaristic

identity to a peaceful one. Critical constructivists would examine how German leaders and

society communicated this new identity through speeches, education, and media, shaping a new

social reality of pacifism.

Constructivism and Bhutan’s national interests

 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 kilometers, 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 or neutral 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 (to take land) 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 sometime sends soldiers 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.’ By being a

buffer state, Bhutan can play a diplomatic role, helping to mediate and reduce tensions between

China and India. Its position allows it to act as a peaceful intermediary. For example; imagine

two people who don’t get along very well. If they have a mutual friend who stays neutral and

keeps them apart, it helps to prevent fights. Bhutan is like that neutral friend, helping to keep

China and India from direct conflict by being in between them and staying neutral.

From a realist perspective, one would argue that Bhutan is in an unfavorable position as it

is hindered by its geographical location and cannot compete for power with its neighbors. The

preservation of its national sovereignty would likely depend on the outcome of the greater

competition between China and India. For example; when China took over Tibet, Bhutan felt

threatened and closed its northern border, turning to India for support. This made Bhutan see

China as a threat and India as a friend. These perceptions shape Bhutan’s actions and
relationships. Bhutan and India see each other as friends, while Bhutan has no official relations

with China. These relationships are based on how Bhutan interprets its situation. For example;

Bhutan’s friendship with India and its cautious stance towards China are based on its experiences

and perceptions, not just its geographical position. Social relationships can change based on new

ideas, beliefs, and actions. For instance, if Bhutan and China resolve their border dispute, they

might start seeing each other as friends instead of enemies. - Realists see Bhutan as weak due to

its location between powerful neighbors, relying on the outcome of China-India rivalry for its

survival.

A constructivist view, on the other hand, focuses on understanding these social

relationships and how they change over time. A constructivist would study how Bhutan’s

perceptions of China and India influence its foreign policy and how these perceptions might

change in the future. This change might lead to the establishment of an official relationship, the

nature of which is friendship rather than enmity. - Constructivists believe Bhutan’s perceptions

and relationships also matter.