“FINAL PROJECT”

TOPIC: “CONSTRUCTIVISM_ A CASE STUDY: WAR ON TERROR”

SUBMITTED TO: MISS SHIREEN MUSHTAQ

SUBMITTED BY:

o SAMEEN TARIQ (Group 1), WAJIHA SALEEM (Group 2)

o AIMEN YOUSAF (Group 3) , FATIMA KHALID (Group 4)

SEMESTER: 3

COURSE TITLE: “THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS”

DATE: 20-11-2019

KINNAIRD COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, LAHORE

GROUP # 2 (WAJIHA SALEEM)

INTRODUCTION:

There are various international relations theories and constructivism is one of them the core
purpose of international relations theories is to study IR from theoretical perspective.
Constructivist school of thought widely emerged after the cold war era. Some theorists are
immensely regarded for it. It is different from other rational theories of IR; constructivism or
social constructivism is a challenge to (Neo-Neo debate). This theory gives a big credit to an
individual’s ideas and identities. Precisely as how agents (actors) shape their social context
which in turn shapes their behaviors, interests and identities. It is a social theory of
international politics, not a substantive theory.

o Constructivism theory recognizes the significance of nonmaterial power (culture, ideas,

language, knowledge, and ideology) as well as material power because the two powers
connect and interact to build the world order.

 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

EARLY HISTORY:

It is often highlighted that constructivism is a new approach in international relations

but the fact is not as it is highlighted. Its roots can be traced back to the 18th century in the
writings of Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico, Who argued that social and world history
were shaped by human beings states were also created by human beings , and relations among
states didn't develop naturally : they were built by men and women living in states.

20TH CENTURY:

However, constructivism has been presented in a new way after the end of Cold War as
some western thinkers like Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, Peter Katzenstein and
Freidrich Kratochwill. Contemporary thought of constructivism argues in the same fashion
as has been propelled by Vico in 18th century, but with sophistication and sometimes difficult
terminologies.

THE NEO’S ERA_LATE NINETIES:

 1980s can be categorized as the era dominated by Neo’s (Neo-Realsim and Neo-
liberalism). They share two fundamental assumptions together about the world order. In
response to this constructivist approach by Alexander Wendt 1980s emerged which challenged
this neo-neo debate.

POST-COLD WAR ERA_NEO’S FAILED:

In 1990’s the collapse of USSR and the fall of berlin wall (1989); changed the scenario.
This shift not only the world order but also the debates on IRT. Initially it received a cold
reception but gained credibility and popularity in 1990’s. It states, how the world is made and
remade through human action and intervention.

In this era both realism and liberalism failed to predict the event and happenings so thus
constructivism emerged and has its boom in legitimizing the theories explanations.
Constructivist at that time had explanations based on ideas, norms etc. the best quoted here is
Mikhail Gorbachev; leader of USSR also put forward, the idea of “Common security”.

“AN ANALYSIS”

 THE DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATION THEORIES:

The theories of IR can be divided into two:

 "Positivist/Rationalist" theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis.

 "Post-positivist/Reflectivist" ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security,
ranging from class, to gender, to postcolonial security.

In IR many conflicting ways of thinking do exits as well like,

constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo-Gramscianism, and others. However,
two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: realism and liberalism.

1. THEORISTS_ AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS:

Established as recently as the late 1980s and early 1990s by such thinkers (as Nicholas Onuf,
Alexander Wendt, Emanuel Adler, Friedrich Kratochwil, John Gerard Ruggie and Peter
Katzenstein,) constructivism is a “social theory of international politics” that emphasizes the
“social construction of world affairs”
 Constructivism doesn't accept the social world as something given or as a ‘natural
identity’. But it is of the view that it was created by human beings with their ideas, concepts
and thoughts. Constructivism beliefs that our social world is not made essentially by material
forces which are external to human ideas and control, rather our world is made of human
thoughts, beliefs an innovative ideas.

 Nicholas Onuf one of the founder of the constructivist approach and the earliest theorist
of constructivism (1989), insist that the structures and agents (actors) of international
relations affect each other and constantly redefine and reconstitute one another. He
writes in his book, the “world that we create ourselves” whose (title could become a
summarized program of constructivism). That social relations are built by people
through their interactions with one another and nature.
 Alexander Windt is of the view that social structures are created through human
ideas. There can be different sometimes opposing, social structures in IR, but they are
all dependent on human ideas. For example a security community like the NATO is a
social structure created by men; as also the security dilemma of state’s where one
country view the other as its opponent or enemy.
 In his seminal “Social Theory of International Politics (1999)” Wendt enunciates the
central views of constructivism and illustration on the philosophical views of Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke and Immanuel Kant theorizes.

The focus of constructivism is on Inter-subjective beliefs such as ideas, assumptions or views

that are widely shared by people. These inter-subjective beliefs shape ways in which people
built relations with others and conceive of themselves in society. For instance 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&B here the example of enmity between Pakistan and
India can be studied through the lens of constructive agenda. Constructive is also tried to
explore how these relations are formed and expressed.

Representatives of this thought focused primarily on the cognitive sphere, i.e thinking.
Thus, Martha finnemore states that world politics is primarily determined not by the objective
structure of the relations of material forces, but by the cognitive structure consisting of ideas,
beliefs, values norms, and institutions that are mutually accepted as actors. IR, according to
her, is the sum not of the balance of powers but of significance and social values.
 Constructivists like finnemore and sickking have referred to state sovereignty as an
expression of inter-subjective belief. According to them, “states sovereignty has no definite
material reality, but it exists only because people collectively believe in its existence, and act
accordingly”.

2. A NEO PARADIGM_ DIFFER B/W (NEO REALSIM ,LIBERALISM) AND

CONSTRUCTIVISM:
(CORE DIVERSIONS FROM NEO-PARADIGM)

“Identity” is the core concern of contemporary constructivists. Contrary to both realist and
liberals, constructivists argue that the kind of goals held by a state or other actor in world
politics emerged from the actor's identity. And that identity is inter-subjective; it doesn't exist
“out there” in the physical world and it doesn't just exist “in here” inside our heads, but instead
exist between us, in the “social transactions that people have with each other”.

DIFFERENCE: Constructivism is interested in how actors define their national interest,

threats to those interests and their relationship to one another. While the realists and neo-
liberals tend to make state interest as given, the constructivist putt IR in the context of broader
social relations.

This theory contradict the material, i.e scientific theories of the world which are
commonly known as the positivist approach in international relations, and prefer to give an
ideational view of our world.

CONSCIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF HUMANS: Every material manifestation in

international affairs_ Cooperation, conflict, allies, enemies, interests, power_ bears meaning
given to it by humans. Nothing in international relations is naturally, created without human
agency; everything is a product of conscious construction by human beings.

Human relations based on inter-subjective beliefs can be both corporative and conflicting.
There can be agreements or disagreements among people that may lead to cooperation and
conflict. Constructivism tries to find out the causes behind such cooperation and conflict. But
in its research the Constructivists approach the first from the positivist is ‘scientific approach’
the emphasis of constructivism in this case would be more on human being human being ideas
and beliefs, rather than on the so-called material causes and events, normally advanced by
positivist. For a constructivist Corporation happens because people want to achieve it. In other
words, a constructivist may see Corporation as arguments or adjustments of two minds or
mindset. For a positivist on the contrary, Corporation may take place due to material
advantages, such as economic benefits. For a constructivist, ideas precedes matter; for the
positive, such as neo-realist, matter proceeds ideas.

A neo realist, therefore would establish anarchy as a reality in international politics; a

constructivist, on the other hand would search the rules of anarchy in human minds.

Constructivist’s research agenda has many strands. One prominent line examines how states
interests and identities are intertwined, as well as how these identities are shaped by interactions
with other states.

o For instance why is the United States concerned with Iran or North Korea build nuclear
weapons but not with France or United Kingdom does? Realist would immediately
answer that N Korea or Iran poses a bigger threat, yet from a pure military power
perspective, Great Britain is a far superior military power to North Korea.

(Yet no one would argue that Great Britain is a threat to the United States no matter how many
nuclear weapons it builds and no matter how deep disagreements about foreign policy become.
Constructivist’s scholars would identify the shared history shared alliances, and shared norms
that tell Americans and the British they are not the threat to one another although they are
military very powerful).

DIFFERENCE: The identity of the potential adverse city matters, not just its military
capabilities and interests according to the constructivists. Here constructivists clearly reject the
realist assumptions that states always want more rather than less power and wealth as well as
the assumptions that states Interest exists independently of a context of interactions among
state.

3. THE STATUS OF ANARCHY IN CONSTRUCTIVISM:

Constructivists are of the view that these state identities are complex and changing and arise
from state the interactions with other states. Some constructivists contend that overtime, states
can conceptualize one another in such a way that there is no danger security dilemma, arms
race or the other effects of anarchy. They cite the example of European a continent.
For constructivist’s power politics. Anarchy, military force cannot explain this change.
Institutions, regime, norms and changing identity are better explanations. States may also come
to value and covet something like status and reputations, which are social and not material
concepts.

o For example Switzerland value its role as a neutral, nonaligned state as it belongs to
neither NATO nor the European Union and joined the UNO only in 2002. The status as a
neutral gives Switzerland power and prestige not a material power like guns and money
but a normative power to intervene diplomatically in important international affairs.

 CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEWS ON INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY BALANCE

OF POWER AND WAR:

Anarchy as conceived by constructivists is a different kind of anarchy, because in the social

space between states you have international law, state identities and many other self- other
relationships- it is a very complex, busy space.

Alexander Wendt’s assertion that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ is one of the most
influential formulations of the constructivism. This means that the state behavior is not
determined, as neo-realists asserts, by the structure of the international system but how
particular states view anarchy. While some states may view anarchy as dangerous and
threatening, others may see it as the basis for freedom and opportunity. An “anarchy of friends”
is thus very different from “an anarchy of enemies”. Constructivist’s anarchy is therefore, thick
already it is not thin anarchy as in realism, where the absence of a superior Government requires
states to take care of their own security and balance against each other by building up forces,
which can inadvertently lead to conflict spirals, into arms race, and so on.

It is not even the liberal notion of anarchy, in which states have the opportunity to strike
mutually beneficial deals with each other, busily comparing their utility functions. In his later
work Wendt elaborated three different logics or cultures of anarchy which he named

 HOBBESIAN: the other as an enemy

 LOCKEAN: the other as a competitor
 KANTIAN: the other as a friend.
Each produces a different worldview and different conception of self-other relations.

CONSTRUCTIVIST THICKER ANARCHY: The constructivist notion of anarchy is a lot

thicker; floating around out there in that inter-subjective space. There are rules and norms and
other things, which states must internalize in order to make their identity claims stick. Some of
these rules and norms are so well established that concept called them international
institution, by which they do not necessarily mean formal organizations. Instead,
constructivists used the word, ‘institution’ in a more sociological sense approximately the same
way that one might speak of the ‘institution’ of marriage _ a set of socially established
expectations for how a particular relationship ought to work.

BALANCE OF POWER: Constructivists claim that one can see such institutions operating
at the level of International Society as well. One of the prime institutions that constructivist
like to point is the institution of the balance of power, which for a constructive is a
management strategy, or a mechanism by which great powers manage the international
system. It is something for which States and their representatives consciously and deliberately
strive. In realism the balance of power is not necessarily a deliberately intended product, it is
more of an inevitable consequences of states looking to take care of their own security needs.
In constructivism, by contrast, the balance of power is a means or procedure for dealing with
various shifts of capabilities: overtime, countries get rich, countries get poor, countries develop
bigger armies, and countries develop smaller armies, so the capacities of states are often in
flux. The balance of power is one important way of dealing with this flux.

o European states have long engaged in this kind of balance of power politics among
themselves, and during the 18th and 19th century one of the main things that happened
was that various great powers would partition states annexed territories as compensation
for events elsewhere in the world, particularly to offset great powers expansion through
colonization.

WAR: Another international institution in which constructivists are particularly interested is

war. Realist and liberals are also interested in what of course, but constructivist is approach
the topic rather differently. WAR if you are a constructivist, is not just the use of deadly force;
it is a social institution and, as such comprises rules law’s and norms constructivists would first
point to the fact that we have laws that govern war for example the (Geneva Conventions; we
have protocols and the codes about how war is supposed to be prosecuted. (Embodied in
national military code). We also have norms: binding sets of expectations such as, (don’t
deliberately target or kill civilians).

CONCLUSION:

So thus it is concluded that the constructivist theory emerged after the collapse of
USSR, the fall of berlin wall in 1990’s. Precisely the post-cold war era holds significance for
the evolution of this theory. According to the theory its sees world through different lens. It
gives ample importance to ideas which resultantly form our interests and identities. So, this all
is socially constructed and the impact of these interests and identities are quite apparent on
world affairs. This theory differentiate itself from the neo realism and neo liberalism. And it
presents its perceptions and the code of conduct in an anarchical state of nature. Constructivism
has left its substantial and wide ranging influence in the past years. Its talks about three things
(humans, interactions, politics).

REFERENCES:

B, Maysam. (Feb 03, 2011). Constructivism: An introduction. E-INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS .Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/

H, Barbara. (Nov 19, 2016). Constructivist Theories of IR. Retrieved from

https://slideplayer.com/

C, Jonathan. (July 10, 2017). Constructivism. Oxford bibliographies. Retrieved from

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/

G, Alpharetta. (Jun 13, 2017). The three Major International Relations Paradigms: Realism,

Liberalism and Constructivism. Retrieved from https://www.theodysseyonline.com/

_______________________________