CONSTRUCTIVISM IN IR

Dr Nanda Kishor M S
 The Content
• Introduction
• Constructivism in International Relations Theory
• Core Assumptions of Constructivism
• The Agent-Structure Relationship
• Examples
• Conclusion
 Introduction

• Constructivism emerged as a response to the perceived limitations of dominant

theories in International Relations (IR), particularly realism and neorealism, during the
latter half of the 20th century.
• The rise of constructivism can be understood in the context of the intellectual,
political, and historical developments that shaped IR theory in the post-Cold War era.
• It grew out of dissatisfaction with the materialist and deterministic explanations of
state behavior that failed to account for the role of ideas, norms, and identities in
shaping international relations.
• Several factors contributed to the rise of constructivism as a distinct theoretical
approach.
• Constructivism is a significant theoretical framework in International Relations (IR)
that challenges the materialist perspectives of realism and liberalism.
• While the latter theories emphasize the importance of power, institutions, and
economic interdependence, constructivism underscores the role of ideas, identities,
norms, and social interactions in shaping state behavior and international outcomes.
 Constructivism in International Relations Theory

• It posits that international politics is not only about material forces but is also deeply
influenced by social constructs and collective meanings.
• The reasons for the Emergence of Constructivism
1. Reaction to Realism and Neorealism
• At the core of constructivism’s emergence was a critique of realism and neorealism,
the dominant IR paradigms for much of the 20th century.
• These theories are rooted in materialism and rationalism, emphasizing that state
behavior is primarily driven by material power (such as military and economic
capabilities) and survival in an anarchic international system.
• Realism focuses on states as rational, self-interested actors seeking to maximize their
power to ensure survival.
• It assumes that international politics is defined by the perpetual struggle for power
in a competitive, anarchic world.
 Constructivism in International Relations Theory

• Neorealism, or structural realism, advanced by Kenneth Waltz, shifted the focus from
individual state behavior to the structure of the international system itself.
• Neorealism argues that the distribution of power (polarity) in the system determines
the behavior of states, regardless of their domestic characteristics or individual
motives.
• Constructivists challenged both theories for their over-reliance on material
explanations, arguing that they neglected the role of ideas, norms, and identities in
shaping the international system.
• Constructivists did not deny the importance of power and anarchy but argued that
power structures and state interests are socially constructed through interactions and
shared understandings.
• They critiqued realism and neorealism for treating anarchy and power competition
as immutable facts of international politics, rather than as socially contingent
processes shaped by human agency.
 Constructivism in International Relations Theory

2. Inability of Realism and Neorealism to Explain Change

• One of the major reasons for the rise of constructivism was the inability of realism
and neorealism to explain significant changes in international relations, particularly
the end of the Cold War.
• End of the Cold War: The peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union and the
subsequent end of the Cold War in the early 1990s presented a major puzzle for
realists and neorealists.
• These theories, focused on material capabilities and power struggles, could not
adequately explain why a superpower like the Soviet Union would voluntarily
abandon its status and dissolve without a significant military confrontation.
• Constructivists argued that it was not just the material power that mattered but also
the changing ideas and identities within the Soviet leadership, particularly under
Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of “new thinking,” which promoted cooperation,
disarmament, and openness to the West.
 Constructivism in International Relations Theory
• These ideational shifts helped explain the peaceful end of the Cold War, which could
not be fully understood through a purely materialist lens
• This highlighted a broader weakness in traditional IR theories: their inability to
explain systemic transformation and the role of ideas in driving change.
• Constructivism emerged as a response to these shortcomings, emphasizing that
norms, identities, and beliefs could lead to significant changes in the international
order.
3. The Social Turn in the Social Sciences
• Constructivism’s rise was also influenced by broader intellectual trends in the social
sciences, particularly the “social turn” that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s.
• The social turn placed greater emphasis on the role of social structures, language,
and meaning in shaping human behavior.
• Scholars in sociology, anthropology, and political science began to question
rationalist and positivist approaches that viewed social phenomena as objective and
fixed.
 Constructivism in International Relations Theory
• The intellectual climate of this period was marked by the influence of philosophers
like Michel Foucault, who examined the relationship between power and
knowledge, and Anthony Giddens, whose structuration theory emphasized the dual
role of agency and structure in shaping social outcomes.
• These ideas resonated with constructivists, who argued that international politics is
not just about material capabilities but also about the social meanings that states
attach to their actions and interactions.
• Constructivists drew from these developments to argue that the international system
is a socially constructed reality, where ideas and norms shape states’ identities,
interests, and behaviors.
• This focus on the role of ideas was a direct challenge to the materialism of realism
and neorealism.
4. The Rise of Norms and Identity in Global Politics
• Constructivism also gained traction due to the increasing prominence of norms and
identity in global politics.
 Constructivism in International Relations Theory

• In the post-Cold War era, scholars and policymakers began paying more attention to
issues like human rights, environmental protection, and global governance, which
could not be easily explained by traditional materialist theories.
• For example, the international human rights regime and environmental norms such
as those governing climate change did not arise from power politics alone but from
the collective beliefs and values shared by the global community.
• International organizations, such as the United Nations, began playing a more active
role in promoting these norms, shaping the behavior of states in ways that were not
solely driven by material interests.
• Constructivism provided a theoretical framework for understanding how
international norms, such as the nuclear taboo, the norm against genocide, or the
norm of sovereignty, influence state behavior and global governance.
• It argued that these norms, while not materially enforced, shape the conduct of
states by establishing standards of appropriate behavior in the international system.
 The Social
Construction of Identity and
Reality Interests

Core Assumptions CA 2

CA 1 CA 3

The Role of
Norms and Ideas
 Key Elements of the Core Assumption
1. The Social Construction of Reality
• Constructivists argue that the international system is not a given, immutable
structure, but one that is socially constructed through interactions and shared
meanings.
• States do not exist in a vacuum; they operate in a world of ideas, values, and social
structures that define what actions are acceptable and legitimate.
• This means that international relations are shaped by the collective beliefs that states
hold about each other, the world, and themselves.
• For instance, the concept of anarchy, a central idea in realism, is viewed differently in
constructivism.
• Realists argue that anarchy, or the lack of a central authority, forces states into self-
help and competition.
• Constructivists, however, maintain that anarchy is what states make of it.
• Whether anarchy leads to conflict or cooperation depends on how states perceive
and interpret the absence of central authority.
 Key Elements of the Core Assumption
As Alexander Wendt famously stated, “Anarchy is what states make of it,” emphasizing
that it is the social context and shared ideas that define the behavior of states under
anarchy.
2. The Role of Norms and Ideas
• A second key element of constructivism’s core assumption is the emphasis on norms
and ideas as drivers of state behavior.
• Norms are shared expectations about appropriate behavior, and they shape the
conduct of states, international organizations, and other actors.
• Unlike material forces, norms exist in the realm of ideas and influence state behavior
by defining what is considered legitimate or illegitimate in the international system.
• For example, the norm of sovereignty is a social construct that underpins the
modern state system.
• While sovereignty is not a tangible, material force, it shapes the way states interact,
providing a foundational principle that states should not interfere in the domestic
affairs of other states.
 Key Elements of the Core Assumption
• Another example is the norm against the use of chemical weapons, which has
evolved over time, leading to international agreements like the Chemical Weapons
Convention.
• Even powerful states with significant military capabilities often refrain from using
such weapons because the global norm against their use is strong.
3. Identity and Interests
• Constructivism asserts that the identities of states—and by extension, their interests—
are not pre-given but socially constructed.
• A state’s identity is formed through its interactions with other states and the
international community.
• This identity, in turn, shapes its interests and how it defines its goals in the
international arena.
• For example, the United States views itself as a promoter of democracy and human
rights, and this identity influences its foreign policy decisions, such as its
interventions in other countries on humanitarian grounds.
 Key Elements of the Core Assumption
• Conversely, states like North Korea construct their identity around the narrative of
resistance to imperialism and Western influence, which leads to a different set of
interests and foreign policy behaviors.
• Constructivism argues that these identities and interests are fluid and can change
over time as the social context changes.
• The core assumption of constructivism is that international relations are shaped by
social factors—such as ideas, norms, and identities—rather than solely by material
forces.
• This perspective allows constructivism to offer a nuanced understanding of how
states interact, highlighting the fluid and evolving nature of the international system.
• By focusing on the social construction of reality, constructivism provides insights into
how states’ identities, interests, and actions are influenced by the ideas they share
and the norms they create.
 Commonality between Realism, Neorealism and Constructivism
Realism Neorealism Constructivism
Anarchic System Anarchic System Anarchic System (What states make of it)
No overarching authority above No overarching authority above States operate within a system that they
states states shape through their ideas, identities, and
norms
State-Centric Approach State-Centric Approach State-Centric Approach
(Power) (Interest) (Identities, norms, and interactions)

Power in material terms, particularly Distribution of power in the Recognize the influence of ideational
military capabilities international system (i.e., polarity: power. power can be exercised through
unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar) norms, identities, and shared beliefs

Survival & Security- primary goal of Survival & Security- states are Survival & Security- propose that states’
states is survival in an anarchic driven by security concerns due to understanding of what constitutes
world the structural conditions of anarchy security or survival depends on their
social identities and norms
Recognition of Change Over Time- Same as realists-rise and fall of Views change as driven by ideas, norms,
primarily view change through the great powers or changes in the and social interactions. For example,
lens of power shifts distribution of military and changes in international norm- Climate
economic capabilities change, Nuclear Weapons etc
 Agency and Structure Debate
• Another factor that contributed to the rise of constructivism was the agency-structure
debate in IR theory.
• Traditional theories like realism and neorealism emphasized structure—the
distribution of power in the international system—as the primary determinant of state
behavior, often downplaying the role of human agency.
• Constructivism, however, argued that agents (states, international organizations, non-
state actors) and structure (norms, identities, ideas) are mutually constitutive.
• In other words, while the structure of the international system influences state
behavior, states themselves also shape the system through their actions and
interactions.
• The European Union (EU) is a clear example of how states can shape the system
through their actions and interactions.
• The EU started as an economic cooperation project between a small group of states
(such as France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries) but evolved into a
powerful political entity with its own institutions, policies, and influence on the global
stage.
 Limitations and Criticism of Constructivism

• 1. Lack of Predictive Power

• Constructivism focuses on the role of norms, ideas, and identities in shaping
international relations, but it is often criticized for being more effective at explaining
past events rather than predicting future outcomes.
• Realists and neorealists argue that their theories can better predict state behavior by
focusing on material interests, power distribution, and structural constraints.
• In contrast, constructivism’s focus on ideational factors—such as how norms and
identities evolve—makes it difficult to generate clear, consistent predictions about
state actions.
• Critics argue that constructivists often post hoc explain international events by
referring to evolving norms or identities but offer little insight into how or when
these shifts might occur in the future.
• For instance, while constructivists provide robust explanations for the rise of
international norms (e.g., human rights or nuclear non-proliferation), predicting how
and when a new norm will emerge or how states will internalize it is less certain.
 Limitations and Criticism of Constructivism

• 2. Ambiguity Regarding Causality

• Constructivism faces criticism for its ambiguity regarding causality—specifically, how
to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships between ideas, norms, identities,
and state behavior
• Critics argue that constructivism often struggles to provide precise mechanisms that
link norms and identities to specific actions.
• For example, how do changing norms concretely lead to shifts in policy or state
behavior? What specific process leads to one set of ideas replacing another?
Constructivists acknowledge that ideas and norms matter but sometimes fail to
specify the exact pathways through which these ideational factors drive action.
• This criticism is particularly relevant when constructivists discuss the mutually
constitutive relationship between agents (states) and structure (norms).
• Critics contend that it becomes difficult to disentangle whether norms shape state
actions or whether state actions shape norms, leading to a chicken-and-egg
problem in identifying the primary driver of international outcomes.
 Limitations and Criticism of Constructivism

3. Subjectivity and Lack of Objectivity

• Constructivism is sometimes criticized for its subjectivity in analyzing international
relations.
• Since constructivists emphasize the role of ideas, beliefs, and norms—often
intangible and socially constructed—they are sometimes seen as prioritizing
interpretation over objectivity.
• Realists and positivist scholars argue that constructivism lacks the rigorous empirical
foundation that is present in more materialist or quantitative approaches.
• Instead of testing hypotheses with objective, measurable data (such as military
capabilities or economic resources), constructivists rely on the interpretation of social
and cultural factors, which can vary across scholars and contexts.
• This subjectivity makes constructivist analyses harder to verify or falsify, leading some
critics to argue that it is more suited for qualitative description than for producing
generalized, objective knowledge about international relations.
 Limitations and Criticism of Constructivism
• 4. Difficulty in Explaining Material Factors
• A major criticism of constructivism is that it downplays the significance of material
factors—such as military power, economic capabilities, and geopolitical realities—in
shaping international relations.
• While constructivists focus on the social construction of the international system,
critics argue that they often underestimate the enduring importance of material
interests.
• Realists and neorealists argue that power, security, and economic resources are
tangible drivers of state behavior and that any theory ignoring these factors risks
becoming detached from real-world politics.
• For example, while norms around humanitarian intervention may influence
decisions, realists would argue that states ultimately prioritize their material security
and strategic interests when engaging in such interventions.
• Therefore, while constructivism provides useful insights into the role of ideas, critics
argue that it cannot fully account for the material realities that often determine
international outcomes.
 Limitations and Criticism of Constructivism

• 5. Overemphasis on Norms and Ideas

• Constructivism’s focus on norms and ideas can also be seen as a limitation,
especially when it overstates their importance relative to other factors.
• Critics argue that while ideas and norms matter, they often play a secondary role to
material forces in shaping state behavior.
• • Realists would contend that power politics and the pursuit of national interest still
dominate international relations, and while norms may influence diplomatic
behavior, they rarely override material interests when survival and security are at
stake.
• For example, although there are strong international norms against nuclear weapons
proliferation, states like North Korea have pursued nuclear capabilities despite
international pressure and norms.
• In such cases, security concerns and power dynamics outweigh the normative
environment, which constructivism does not fully account for.
Thank You