Constructivism Flashcards
Constructivism argument
New ideas and identities are fundamental to explaining change in international politics
International politics is not determined by fixed structures independent of human interpretation
Ruggie 1998
“Constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life”
The social construction of politics
- Concerned with the role of ideas in IR
- these ideas are SOCIAL - the meaning and construction of material reality depends on ideas and interpretations
- the balance of power does not objectively exist out there but is determined by how states perceive it
- Collectively held ideas like knowledge, symbols, language etc. shapes our understanding of reality
- Reality is socially constructed
Logic of appropriateness
- Interests of international actors are socially constructed and determined by ideas, norms etc.
- In the “logic of appropriateness”, actors do not primarily weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their actions, but act in ways that is accepted as appropriate within their social reference group
States and sovereignty
- Their sovereignty is subject to constant re-interpretation
- Sovereignty as we know it today is a product of historical forces and human interaction that generated new understandings of political authority
- Security dilemma is a social construct
Power in constructivism
- Power isn’t just material, its also ideational (EG discourse around the legitimacy of international actions)
- The effects of power includes how knowledge, the construction of knowledge, and the fixing of meanings shape rewards and capacities
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Key arguments
- “Anarchy is what states make of it”
- The constructivist rejection of rationalist assumptions
- Identity and interest formation
- The 3 cultures of anarchy
- Institutions and social structures
- Socialisation and mutual constitutions
- How power politics are made
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - The Central Claim: “Anarchy is What States Make of It”
- Wendt’s core argument is a direct challenge to neorealism (and by extension, neoliberalism) in IRT: that anarchy does not inherently lead to self-help and power politics
- These outcomes are not dictated by anarchy but are instead socially constructed institutions that arise from the processes of interaction among states
- Structures such as power, norms, and interests are not objective facts but are intersubjective constructs, created and maintained through social practices
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - The Constructivist Rejection of Rationalist Assumptions
- Wendt critiques the rationalist ontology shared by both neorealists (e.g., Kenneth Waltz) and neoliberals (e.g., Keohane)
Rationalists:
- Treat identities and interests as exogenously given
- Focus only on how those fixed interests lead to strategic behaviour
- Assume the self-help nature of anarchy as a given starting point
Constructivism, by contrast:
- Treats identities and interests as endogenous - created and sustained through interaction
- Sees institutions as cognitive and constitutive rather than merely behavioural constraints
- Constructivism does not reject the existence of anarchy but rejects the idea that its implications naturally lead to competitive, power-maximising behaviour
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - Identity and Interest Formation
Identity:
- Defined as “relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self”
- Identity is socially constructed through interaction - states learn “who they are” based on how they are treated by others
Interest:
- States do not come with pre-loaded interests like survival or power maximisation
- Instead, interests emerge as states define themselves in relation to others
- This undermines neorealist claims that self-help is an inevitable consequence of anarchy
- Instead, Wendt argues that different social relationships (enemy, ally) lead to different types of anarchy
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - The Three Cultures of Anarchy (Security Systems)
- Hobbesian (Competitive)
- States view each other as enemies
- Security is zero-sum: one state’s gain is another’s loss
- Power politics dominate; no trust exists - Lockean (Individualistic)
- States view each other as rivals
- Security is self-regarding but not inherently antagonistic
- Cooperation is possible, though limited to absolute gains - Kantian (Cooperative)
- States view each other as friends.
- Security is collective, identities are bound together.
- War becomes unthinkable; power politics are replaced by shared norms and institutions.
- Each of these “cultures” is a result of social practice and mutual recognition, not dictated by anarchy itself
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - Institutions and Social Structures
- Wendt defines institutions not as external constraints on behaviour, but as social structures made up of shared ideas
- Institutions shape identities, interests and expectations that guide behaviour
- Wendt’s radical claim: self-help is not a natural result of anarchy, but an institution - “one of various structures of identity and interest that may exist under anarchy.”
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - Socialisation and Mutual Constitution
- Wendt introduces the concept of mutual constitution between structure and agents:
- The international system shapes state behaviour through socialisation.
- States also constitute the system through their practices.
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Argument - Constructivist Causal Argument: How Power Politics Are Made
Wendt uses symbolic interactionism to show how power politics emerge
- States mirror the behaviour of others (the “looking-glass self” [Cooley, 1902])
- If one state acts aggressively, others reciprocate, creating a cycle of insecurity
- Repetition institutionalises this into a self-help system.
- This is causal, not a logical necessity. In other words:
= Power politics are made, not born.
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
“Self-help and power politics are…”
“…institutions, not essential features of anarchy. Anarchy is what states make of it”
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
“Identities are…”
“…the basis of interests”
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Strengths
- Constructivism makes identities and interests central variables, not fixed assumptions
- Anarchy does not determine behaviour, social practice does
- Integration of structure and agency through the co-constitution of agents and systems
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Strength - Constructivism makes identities and interests central variables, not fixed assumptions
- Wendt argues that identities and interests are not exogenously given, as assumed by realism and neoliberalism, but are instead socially constructed through interaction
- This reorients the entire foundation of systemic IRT from being materialist and behaviouralist to ideational and intersubjective
- This challenges the rationalist assumption that the international system is populated by states with pre-defined, self-interested goals
- It instead reveals how who states are is formed within the system through norms and interaction
- Realism, neorealism, and neoliberalism treat interests as static - Constructivism redefines the unit of analysis itself
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Strength - Anarchy does not determine behaviour, social practice does
- Wendt dismantles the assumption that anarchy produces self-help and power politics
- He argues instead that anarchy has no single logic, and what it “means” depends on how states act and interpret each other’s actions
- This insight diminishes the deterministic foundations of neorealism
- Instead of treating competition as inevitable outcomes of anarchy, Wendt shows that peaceful or cooperative cultures of anarchy are possible
- This allows for a more flexible understanding of international systems - one where change is explainable
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Strength - Integration of structure and agency through the co-constitution of agents and systems
- Wendt introduces a model where agents (states) and structures (the international system) mutually constitute each other
- This bridges the long-standing agent-structure divide in IR and provides a systemic theory that explains identity-formation and change
- Most IR theories fall on one side of the structure–agency spectrum: realism and neorealism overemphasise structural constraints; liberalism focuses on agents acting within those structures
- Constructivism offers an integrated model, showing how norms, identities, and interests are produced through agency and reproduce structure
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Weaknesses
- Underestimates material power and structural constraints
- Abstracts too far from empirical political realities
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Weakness - Underestimates material power and structural constraints
- Wendt’s focus on the social construction of anarchy and identity leads him to treat material factors - EG military power and economic capacity - as secondary to intersubjective meanings
- He reduces their significance by arguing they only gain meaning through interpretation
- Realists: material power still matters irrespective of meaning: it shapes behaviour and generates fear, especially under conditions of uncertainty
- Overlooks the enduring influence of material anarchy, particularly in hostile or multipolar systems where uncertainty and survival dominate
- By downplaying power, Wendt’s theory may misrepresent the conditions under which identity change is actually feasible.
- States facing existential threats may not have the luxury of redefining social meanings - they act out of necessity, not choice.
“Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics” - Alexander Wendt
Weakness - Abstracts too far from empirical political realities
- Wendt’s arguments rely heavily on hypothetical models
- These abstractions obscure actual historical processes, such as colonialism or capitalism
- Marxist perspective: the role of material exploitation and capitalist structures that shape the global order - realities which persist regardless of intersubjective identity
- English School: the importance of international society, which cannot be captured by overly abstract models of identity construction
- Ignores the embedded hierarchies (race, empire, economy) that are not just socially constructed but also materially entrenched
- Constructivism risks presenting an ahistorical view of international politics
- Its focus doesn’t adequately account for historical structural inequalities that continue to shape state identity and interests
