Constructivism Flashcards
Why is North Korea the number one nuclear threat today?
realism can’t explain: North Korea has little weapons and should thus pose little threat
liberalism: other countries with atomic weapons are democratic or partly democratic -> smaller threat
constructivists: North Korea isn’t a friend, e.g. England (more atomic weapons) is
sept 2021 military alignment between Australia, UK and US (AUKUS), why not France?
realism can’t explain: France, Australia, UK and US have same interest to battle China
liberalism can’t explain: France is also democratic
constructivism: it’s about the Anglosphere
Five eyes: officially the last 15 years, English speaking parties share intelligence between themselves at a high level (so much that it kind of contradicts sovereignty), this can happen because of trust
Debate over the name of Macedonia
multiple countries have interests/opinions about the name/area ‘‘Macedonia’’
Realism and liberalism can’t explain disputes/conflicts about names
Prespa agreement: shaping the name North-Macedonia as compromise
Rename Russia to Muscovy?
Ukraine wants to rename Russia to Muscovy
because an old kingdom, Ukraine claims a common heritage (shared history) -> Zelensky wants historians to look at it
statue of Katherine the Great was taken away from Odesa -> ideas/culture/history matter in ir
historical origins constructivism
- early 1990s
- reaction to the neo-neo debate: didn’t predict/explain the ending of the cold war + disappearance of the USSR
- criticism of foundational assumptions of IR
- eclectic origins: philosophy and sociology (verstehen vs. erklaren)
Three core assumptions
- IR are socially constructed:
objects, concepts, events don’t have fixed or objective meanings - ideas matter:
criticism of the materialist obsession of mainstream theories - co-constitution:
the world is what you believe it is
IR are socially constructed
5
objects, concepts, events do not have fixed or objective meanings
- meanings aren’t completely fixed or straightforward, they are constructed through meaning-making and social interactions
- there is intersubjective, collective, shared meaning of materialistic facts
for IR: state and national interest aren’t fixed and can be interpreted in different ways
e.g. borders, money, flags are socially constructed
but also the weight/meaning of face masks and weapons (e.g. some weapons are seen as threat and some aren’t)
material facts
brute facts
some things aren’t deniable, don’t have implications
social facts
relational facts
some facts/concepts have roots in the common agreement on something, socio-relational facts
ideas matter
criticism of the materialist obsession of mainstream theories
materialist structure doesn’t tell/explain enough of ir
state behavior isn’t only shaped by material, it is also discursive: power of ideas, norms, culture and language
whose ideas?
- elite’s ideas or embedded within institutions (organisational culture explains the behavior of the institutions)
- national identity and constructions of others (what differentiates states from each other -> ideas of what is part of national identity)
Ideas matter examples
Gorbatchev’s ‘new thinking’ at the end of the cold war can explain the end of the cold war
- he established that ideas/perceptions can change
Putin’s worldview explains the war in Ukraine: Russia Imperialism conservatism & eurasianism
soft power: power beyond the material (Nye)
the idea of the democratic peace theory has shaped the behavior of states
co-constituion
structure shapes actors/agents
+
agents/actors shape structures
actors -> practices -> shapes structure
structure -> constraints and options for actions -> actors/agents
constructivists about anarchy
Wendt 1992: anarchy is what states make of it, it is because actors believe that it exists
if actors believed in other structures, there wouldn’t be anarchy
self-fulfilling prophecy
anarchy isn’t structural, it’s the result of practice
constructivists about sovereignty
sovereignty is a myth that is built and enforced, it became an uncontested norm
norms aren’t objectively given, norms can compete with each other
constructivists and the nuclear taboo
- not just a rational cost-benefit calculation that let to deterrence: many close calls
- normative basis of nuclear non-use
- inhibition due to first use on Japan? Use of nuclear weapons can lead to loss of support from the Eastern region
- nuclear taboo principles/incentives are tested today (Russia and North Korea)
Norm life cycle
diffusion and distribution of ideas and internalization of norms
stage 1: norm emergence (norm entrepreneurs introduce the norm)
stage 2: ‘‘norm cascade’’ : socialization, spreading through society
stage 3: ‘‘internalization’’ emulation (new norms become taken for granted, are no longer debatable)
logic of consequences
cost-benefit analysis to make decisions
logic of appropriateness
believe in an appropriate way to behave
constructivists on the war on terror
- war on terror is a social interaction: identity is relational (US: you are either with us or against us)
- meaning of actions is constructed through specific discourses: using ‘the war on terror’ confused two terms that have traditionally been distinct (war and terrorism)
- concept of securitization: naming a threat as a priority justifies a suspension of normal rules of politics -> allows elites to take extraordinary measures
controversies within constructivism
- whether states are the main actors or not
- what topics to study (level of analysis: structure v. agency)
- how to study/theorize: explanatory v. critical
- strategic behavior and norms/ideas: independent role and influence of norms or instrumental role of ideas/norms
constructivism studies
(don’t memoryse)
- How the world is made and remade through action.
- How the structures of world politics do not merely constrain but also constitute the identities,, interests, and practices of the actors of world politics
- How actors unwittingly or purposely reproduce these structures
- How human action is responsible for both stability and change in world affairs
Constructivism in contrast to liberalism and neorealism
liberalism and neorealism are committed to individualism and materialism
neorealism and liberalism recognize that ideas and norms can constrain how states pursue their interests, but they don’t recognize that ideas and norms might define their interests
individualism (liberalism + realism)
view that actors have fixed interests and that the structure contains their behavior
materialism (liberalism + realism)
view that the structure that constrains behavior is defined by the distribution of material power, technology and geography
idealism
demands that we take the role of ideas in world politics seriously
holism / structuralism
the world is irreducibly social and can’t be decomposed into the properties of already existing actors
- does allow agency: agents have some autonomy and their interactions help to construct, reproduce and transform those structures
the role of knowledge
knowledge shapes how individuals construct and interpret their worlds
historically produced and culturally bound knowledge helps individuals construct and interpret their worlds
practice
socially meaningful pattern of action which produce and reproduce background knowledge and discourse
regulative rules
rules that regulate already existing activities
e.g. rules to regulate trade
constitutive rules
create the possibility for activities
e.g. rules of sovereignty make the practice of sovereignty possible
legitimacy
the belief that actors are acting in according to and pursuing the values of the broader community
popular acceptance, the quality of being acceptable/reasonable
power in the eyes of constructivists
ability of one state to compel another state to do what it otherwise wouldn’t
forces of power go beyond the material and also beyond the ability to change behavior (also power to change ideas)
diffusion
how particular models, practices, norms, strategies, or beliefs spread within a population
institutional isomorphism
organizations that share the same environment will over time resemble each other
- some institutions are just better than others (effectiveness)
- coercion (e.g. colonialism -> spread capitalism)
- reform institutions to show they belong with the club with the goal of getting resources
- periods of uncertainty -> adoption of models that seem effective
- symbolic standing of models/institutions
- professional associations and expert communities diffuse organizational models
- strategic competition (keeping up with competition)
norm
a standard of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity
norm life cycle doesn’t mean we are moving to uniformity, why not?
5
- cultural match
some norms don’t match with some cultures - norms can become transmuted and take different meanings as they are adopted in different contexts
- that states look alike doesn’t mean they act alike (that they take on a norm doesn’t mean they act accordingly)
- norms that seem established can become contexted
- power is always present in any normative order (norms that have disappeared can still hold power (e.g. racism) + norms are uneven (humanity: not everyone was seen as human at first))
Concept of securitization
naming a threat as a priority justifies a suspension of normal rules of politics -> allows elites to take extraordinary measures
