Constructivism 36
4
Constructivism
S AR IN A T H E YS
Constructivism’s arrival in IR is often associated with the end of the Cold War,
an event that the traditional theories such as realism and liberalism failed to
account for. This failure can be linked to some of their core tenets, such as
the conviction that states are self-interested actors who compete for power
and the unequal power distribution among states which defines the balance of
power between them. By having a dominant focus on the state, traditional
theories have not opened much space to observe the agency of individuals.
After all, it was the actions of ordinary people that ensured the end of the
Cold War, not those of states or international organisations. Constructivism
accounts for this issue by arguing that the social world is of our making (Onuf
1989). Actors (usually powerful ones, like leaders and influential citizens)
continually shape – and sometimes reshape – the very nature of international
relations through their actions and interactions.
The basics of constructivism
Constructivism sees the world, and what we can know about the world, as
socially constructed. This view refers to the nature of reality and the nature of
knowledge that are also called ontology and epistemology in research
language. 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 (or intersubjectivity) forms the basis of their
interactions. The example also shows that nuclear weapons by themselves
do not have any meaning unless we understand the social context. It further
37 International Relations Theory
demonstrates that constructivists go beyond the material reality by including
the effect of ideas and beliefs on world politics. This also entails that reality is
always under construction, which opens the prospect for change. In other
words, meanings are not fixed but can change over time depending on the
ideas and beliefs that actors hold.
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. 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. This change or reinforcem-
ent 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. 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. Construc-
tivists argue that states can have multiple identities that are socially
constructed through interaction with other actors. Identities are repres-
entations 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 38
Social norms are also central to constructivism. These are generally defined
as ‘a standard of appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity’
(Katzenstein 1996, 5). States that conform to a certain identity are expected
to comply with the norms that are associated with that identity. This idea
comes with an expectation that some kinds of behaviour and action are more
acceptable than others. This process is also known as ‘the logic of app-
ropriateness’, where actors behave in certain ways because they believe that
this behaviour is appropriate (March and Olsen 1998, 951–952). To better
understand norms, we can identify three types: regulative norms, constitutive
norms and prescriptive norms. Regulative norms order and constrain
behaviour; constitutive norms create new actors, interests or categories of
action; and prescriptive norms prescribe certain norms, meaning there are no
bad norms from the perspective of those who promote them (Finnemore and
Sikkink 1998). It is also important to note that norms go through a ‘lifecycle of
norms’ before they can get accepted. A norm only becomes an expected
behaviour when a critical mass of relevant state actors adopt it and internalise
it in their own practices. For example, constructivists would argue that the
bulk of states have come together to develop climate change mitigation
policies because it is the right thing to do for the survival of humanity. This
has, over decades of diplomacy and advocacy, become an appropriate
behaviour that the bulk of citizens expect their leaders to adhere to. Liberals,
on the other hand, might reject the notion of climate change politics in favour
of continued economic growth and pursuing innovative scientific solutions,
while realists might reject it due to the damage that climate policies may do to
shorter-term national interests.
Although all constructivists share the above-mentioned views and concepts,
there is considerable variety within constructivism. Conventional constru-
ctivists ask ‘what’-type questions – such as what causes an actor to act. They
believe that it is possible to explain the world in causal terms and are
interested in discovering the relationships between actors, social norms,
interests and identities. Conventional constructivists assume, for instance,
that actors act according to their identity and that it is possible to predict when
this identity becomes visible or not. When an identity is seen to be under-
going changes, conventional constructivists investigate what factors caused
which aspects of a state’s identity to change. Critical constructivists, on the
other hand, ask ‘how’-type questions such as how do actors come to believe
in a certain identity. Contrary to conventional constructivists, they are not
interested in the effect that this identity has. Instead, critical constructivists
want to reconstruct an identity – that is, find out what are its component parts
– which they believe are created through written or spoken communication
among and between peoples. Language plays a key role for critical cons-
tructivists because it constructs, and has the ability to change, social reality.
39 International Relations Theory
Most constructivists, however, position themselves between these two more
extreme ends of the spectrum.
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.
From a realist perspective, one would argue that Bhutan is in an unfavourable
position as it is hindered by its geographical location and cannot compete for
power with its neighbours. The preservation of its national sovereignty would
likely depend on the outcome of the greater competition between China and
India. 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
Constructivism 40
their object of enquiry focuses on the social relationships between states.
Bhutan has also developed a distinctive national identity that differentiates it
from its larger neighbours. This identity projects Bhutan as ‘the last surviving
independent Mahayana Buddhist Kingdom in the world’ (Bhutan Vision 2020,
24–25). The usage of the word ‘independent’ refers directly to Bhutan’s
national interest – the preservation of its national sovereignty. Bhutan’s
national identity is socially constructed through a Bhutanisation process that
started in the 1980s, when the fourth king of Bhutan introduced the ‘One
Nation, One People’ policy. This policy demanded the observance of a code
of conduct known as Driglam Namzhag. This code of conduct is built upon
strict observance of vows – such as strong kinship loyalty, respect for one’s
parents, elders and superiors, and mutual cooperation between rulers and
ruled. It also reinforced the rules for wearing a national dress – the gho for
men and the kira for women. In addition to this, Dzongkha was selected as
the national language of Bhutan. The Driglam Namzhag can be thought of as
a regulative norm because the aim of the policy is to direct and constrain
behaviour. For example, although Bhutan’s national identity suggests that the
Bhutanese comprise one homogeneous group, Bhutan is actually a multi-
ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual country. There are three main ethnic
groups: the Ngalongs, the Sharchhops and the Lhotshampas, who are of
Nepali descent. Of these, the Ngalongs and the Sharchhops are Buddhists,
while the Lhotshampas are mostly Hindus who speak the Nepali language.
The policy had severe consequences for the Lhotshampas as Nepali was no
longer taught in schools and people who could not prove residence in Bhutan
prior to 1958 were classified as non-nationals. Consequently, thousands of
Lhotshampas were expelled from Bhutan in the 1990s. Thus, the code of
conduct is used by the Bhutanese authorities to create cultural unity and to
stimulate citizens to reflect upon their cultural distinctiveness, which is
paramount in creating a national identity.
As mentioned earlier in the chapter, a norm needs to go through a lifecycle
before it becomes established. In the case of Bhutan, we can witness the first
phase, norm emergence, in the creation of the Driglam Namzhag by the
Bhutanese authorities. The second phase, norm acceptance, required
Bhutanese citizens to accept the Driglam Namzhag, including the national
dress and Dzongkha as the national language. Once this acceptance
occurred, norm internalisation occurs. The completion of this process entails
that the behaviour of the Bhutanese citizens is circumscribed by these norms
and practices. This circumscription also shows the constitutive nature of the
Driglam Namzhag, which created new actors – that is, Bhutanese citizens
who act and behave according to specific rules. We can see, for instance,
that these norms and practices are regulated to date. For example,
Bhutanese citizens are obliged to wear the national dress during national
41 International Relations Theory
events and when they attend school or work. This regulation is, as explained
earlier, important as the behaviour of a state and its citizens should comply
with the norms that are associated with Bhutan’s national identity. The
regulation also signifies that these norms are perceived as something good
by the Bhutanese authorities, which underlines the prescriptive nature of
norms.
Members of the Bhutanese elite have also created a second identity, which
projects Bhutan as a leader in advancing a holistic and sustainable
development paradigm. This identity is based on Bhutan’s development
philosophy, Gross National Happiness (GNH), which criticises the well-known
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approach for being solely focused on the
economy of a state. Instead, GNH promotes a balance between material
wellbeing and the spiritual needs of the mind. It is implemented and
embedded in Bhutan’s political and educational systems. Members of the
Bhutanese elite have predominantly used the United Nations as a platform to
promote the idea internationally. Subsequently, the United Nations adopted
Resolution 65/309, which states that the pursuit of happiness is a
fundamental goal and that the gross domestic product indicator was not
designed to, and does not adequately reflect, the wellbeing of people.
Projecting their country as the last surviving independent Mahayana Buddhist
kingdom in the world and as a leader in advancing a holistic and sustainable
development paradigm enables Bhutanese authorities to signal their country’s
status as an independent sovereign state. It also allows Bhutan to increase its
international visibility, which is advantageous when tensions run high with and
among its neighbours.
Conclusion
Constructivism is often said to simply state the obvious – that actions,
interactions and perceptions shape reality. Indeed, that idea is the source of
the name of this theory family. Our thoughts and actions literally construct
international relations. Yet, this seemingly simple idea, when applied
theoretically, has significant implications for how we can understand the
world. The discipline of International Relations benefits from constructivism as
it addresses issues and concepts that are neglected by mainstream theories
– especially realism. Doing so, constructivists offer alternative explanations
and insights for events occurring in the social world. They show, for instance,
that it is not only the distribution of material power, wealth and geographical
conditions that can explain state behaviour but also ideas, identities and
norms. Furthermore, their focus on ideational factors shows that reality is not
fixed, but rather subject to change.