Constructivism
1990s Katzenstein, Kratochwill, Onuf, Wendt
5 issues
1) Structure and agency
Neo-realist structure unchangeable constrain on the state behaviour (anarchical
structure) single relation btw structure and agency (according to Wendt, neo-realism
neglects the agency)
Constructive the role of agency
Mutual relationship btw structure and agency structuration developed by Giddens
both actors (agency) and structure are created by culture, norms and practises of
agency.
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Anarchy is intersubjective there is no reality out of human understanding
Wendt try to the role of the man (agency) in history
Social structure are composed of 3 elements
1) Shared knowledge If all states shared knowledge that survival is the main thing, all
states act in certain way. Eg.
2) Material resources military capabilities eg.
3) Practise
“Once it is constructed, it is real”
2) Impact of anarchy
Different meanings different impacts
Self-help not an inevitable consequence of anarchy because it is an understanding no
single impact of anarchy
anarchy is a result of collective human relation(action)
3) State interest
Relationship btw identity and state interest
İdentity tells you who you are and also tells you who others are create interest and
preferences
Identity of state determine its policy
Unlike realism self interested state is a single, eternal, not changing identity.
According to constructivism if you are using “self” word you need to know who you
are, you have an identity in your mind.
Different identities in IR there are different state interests
4) Nature of Power
According to N/realism power is central distiribution of military material
power
Constructivism discursive power ideas also form a power the power to
reproduce discipline and police knowledge Foucault.
5) Change
Neorealism only military capabilities can change.
Constructivists IR can change because anarchy is not inevitable because these are all
constructed.
If anarchy is what states make of it. States can make different things. Anarchy can
change.
Critical vs Conventional Constructivism
Critical constructivism is mostly post positivist.
Common points
1) Both try to denaturalize social world. not God given, product of human agency. Its
not natural phenomena.
2) İntersubjective no single reality meanings are changing from agency to agency.
3) Context is important history and social context.
Meaning is socially and historically constructed. Time and place is important
4) Relationship btw power and knowledge practises are create meanings
5) Agency agency is not the state but it is the human individuals.
6) Both accept that structure and agency are mutually constitutive.
Differences
1) Epistemologies&methodology
Conventional is neo positivist anarchy is intersubjective (post- positivist) once it
is constructed it is real (positivist) casual mechanisms
Critical construcitivism is post-positivist. no casual relational
2) Identity understanding
Conventinionals do not problematize identity
They take identity as a fact and try to understand how it affects state behaviour.
Critical constructivism concentrete on identity itself (not on its effects) because they
are post positivist . How people believe in a a single reality. How identity is formed.
Because they want to denaturalize it. First of all you need an “other” to onstruct
your identity.
Power is central in identity.
Constructivist Research Agenda
Balance of threat: It is related with how you understand the threat. States do not
balance the power. They balance the threats.
Security dilemma: It is not always emerge. Because it is related with
identity&meaning.
Cooperation: It is possible because it is related with how states perceive tehir interest.
It is related with identity. It is related with democratic peace. Because the democratic
countries have similar identities’
Social practise&norms create identity and interest. It is related with having the
common identity(same interest)