Exploring Social Constructivism in International Relations

Introduction

The concept of social constructivism is based on an idea that development of knowledge and learning within a given group of people is a result of interaction of different individuals’ backgrounds and experiences that include culture and use of language. The era of globalisation has heighten interaction of people from diverse backgrounds such as different culture, socioeconomic, religious belief, and political ideology resulting in alternative insights, perspective, challenging world orders, and concept of identity. In global view, the theory has been instrumental in institutionalization and internationalization of norms leading into shared domestic and international culture and perspectives of life. Within this essay, a critical review of constructivism theory as ascribed within international relations capturing fundamental thinking, perspectives, prominence, and arguments countering its adoption as guiding principle to IR are discussed in deeper taking view from both views.

Summary of the reading (constructivism)

The original of the constructivism theory dates back to the neoliberal and neorealism era where they presumed that states were driven by individualism trumping norms, ideas, ethics, and patience. Scholars challenged this individualistic and materialistic view of state by arguing in line to influence of human activities, norms, beliefs, and cultures to shaping behaviour of state within the concept of national interest and identity (Owens, 2001; Fosnot, 2013). Under the scope of international relations (IR), arguments have be forwarded outlining that states are driven by enduring forces and wealth forged around power distribution, geography, and technological advancement. Nevertheless, countering the argument, constructivist argue that social forces such as knowledge, culture, and ideas as well as institutions at centre of development of such forces play a critical role in state’s identity as well as its place at the world politics (Owens, 2001). Proponents hold that the state’s interest and belief system such as social, cultural, and historical moulds its foreign policies and system but not the pursuit of power and influence.

Fundamentally, the constructivism has grown into influential and important actor in promoting human rights through structures such as Non-governmental organization, learning institution, and social groups. These structures have been lauded for their influence in thinking, perspective change, and behaviour of the population through teaching, knowledge development, persuasion, and lobbying (Owens, 2001; Hopf, 1998). The standards set by these structures such as Greenpeace, Children Rights Information Network, Amnesty International, and World Organization against Torture have become norms in which states are expected to follow. Unlike substantive theory construed to identify similarities and differences in patterns and structures, the rational choice subscribed by constructivists holds that the principles of understanding working of social actors as well as minimizing the sets constraints has no claim about structures of the world politics (Wendt, 1991).

Principally, the theory observes ‘social construction of reality’. As pointed by Amineh & Asl (2015), the observation holds that social actors and their respective interests are created and nurtured by norms and cultural environments rather than occurring naturally. This purports a contrary ideology posted by the realist and anarchist stating that international world is founded on only the practices and institutions established by the state (Wendt, 1992). According to Mingst & Snyder (2004), the principles followed by a state depend on identity it presumes such that conforming with self-identify gives birth to anarchic otherwise not. As such, one can argue that the military capabilities that include possession of sophisticated weaponry and nuclear warheads of two sovereign states does not define security dilemma but rather their shared view towards each other. From this perspective, one can perceive power as ability for an actor to restrain from doing something they perceive predisposed to and creating interests limiting control of their respective behaviour and activities. Importantly, it is worth noting that the notion that norms and cultures shapes the activities and behaviours of the actors is not always fixed but rather essential aspects of politics an relations.

On the other hand, the theory has received a number of criticism. First, the proponents of the theory emphasise on the concept of knowledge and ideas especially their subjective aspect of influencing world politics but, as pointed out by Mersheimer (1995), the material structure in a society cannot be ignored due to its ‘objective’ reality nature. Secondly, the theory has largely advocated for a radical change in both social views and behaviour but critics criticize it for not describing ways in which change came to be. For instances, it fails to highlight and elaborate why certain ideologies are popular, factors pushing its prominence in addition to giving reasons why others fails to interest people.

Although some proponents have attempted arguing in favour of reasons to changes in discourse, most often points to materialistic and individualistic elements as drivers. Therefore, one can argue that development of knowledge and ideas through interaction especially people from different cultural, social, and political setting. Such resultant change can be viewed as a reflection of shift in objective world and not determinative. Additionally, at the international levels, there is no consensus on the norms, cultures, or behaviour to be adopted but, in the event majority of the states agree on, they are occasionally ignored in favour of the individualistic interest of states particularly, those with economic and military might. Recent disregards of human right violation evident by killing of journalists (murder of Jamal Khashogi in Saudi Arabia consulate), arrest and torture of persons accused of terror activities at Guantanamo bay, mistreatment of refugees and asylum seekers, and mishandling of protesters in South America and China negates significantly the idea that states activities are society-driven and not individuals self-interest.

Conclusion

The founding the concept of constructivism has led to more debates particularly in the purview of realities towards such factors as human rights, discrimination, and mistreatment and state collaboration to tackling the issues at international stage. In addition to shaping interests and identities through advancement of knowledge and ideas, the established structures and institutions constraint the actors. As such, the constructivist conceptualization of international politics as more than a system but rather a society built around development of ideas and knowledge as well as ability to recognise the importance and influence of such norms has set the theory aside from other international relations (IR) theories such English school, Liberalism, Marxism, and Feminism. Nevertheless, critics purport the idea is less practically because states tend to favour national interests or side with friend while relating with others internationally. Across the global, cultures have different rules of engagement and interaction logics boosting a concept of self-help system and survival depends solemnly on military power challenging the principles of constructivism of ideas and knowledge in dealing with other states.

Reference

Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International security, 23(1), 171-200.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). A realist reply. International Security, 20(1), 82-93.

Mingst, K. A., & Snyder, J. L. (Eds.). (2004). Essential readings in world politics. Norton.

Owens, P. (2001). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations (pp. 1-11). S. Smith, & J. Baylis (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford university press.

Wendt, A. (1991). Bridging the theory/meta-theory gap in international relations. Review of International Studies, 17(4), 383-392.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization, 46(2), 391-425.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to An Overview of Major World Civilisation.

Dig deeper into Exploring Qualitative Research in Sociology with our selection of articles.