LEC 7: constructivism and the end of the cold war Flashcards
how does john searle in his book ‘construction of social reality’ make a distinction between facts
brute facts: require no human institution for their existence (ex. mountains exist no matter what)
institutional facts: require human institutions for their existence (ex a bank not is just a piece of paper until an institution puts a value on it)
what is social reality
the result of human create. we may xist as animals but we only exist as humans when we interact in a social group
everything around us only has meaning through social interactions and the conext
(ex the difference between a signature and autograph) they are the same thing but one permits the authentication of a legal document and one and one is on a peice of paper) the meanings are different due to social reality
what is the consequence of social reality
we have moved from acting based on the logic of consequences to the logic of appropriateness
- logic of c: behaving based on knowing the consequences which is a rational decisions (behaving in class or you get kicked out)
- logic of a: behaving in a war you perceive to be appropriate based on the context in which you are in (way you speak to your boss v friends)
constuctivism beleives that in most cases sattes, and individual actors use the logic of apropritness
what are the three initial lessons from constivism
1) (no predetermined outcomes in social life). the TINA doctrine from thatcher is therfore wrong as there re always many alternative outcomes produced by indivdual choices
2) we have agency (including that of political nature) we can shape thee reality we livee in which demands a level of political repsonsibility (citizens have an obligation to engage in political life and vote)
3) our existance is shaped and meditated by socical interactions (norms and rules) rather than strucutres
meaning politicals are not super-heros and despite having agency they are also limited by these interactions
what are the origins of constructivism?
- gained popularity at the end of the cold war due to existing dominant theories being unable to explain how/why the cold war ended and what was going to happen next
therefore constructivism emerged because
1) need to explain the change in international relations which other approaches struggled to do
2) explain the social nature of IR how hsitory,context and idendity do thee shaping rather than abstract theories and structures
what does nicholas Onuf argue?
constructivism can be seen as a social theory: as a social construction the world is not preset but constructed by actors
what does alexander Wendt argue?
constructivism can be seen as an IR theory: arguing that anrach is what states make of it. the idea of anarchy is another socially constucited narrative and states have the agency to use that however they wish
what are wendt’s main points?
1) states dont behave in the same way towards enemies as they do towards allies even if they are doing the same thing ( ex britian increasing battle tanks is okay but for russia to do that is a red flag for the USA)
2) anarchy is insufficient to help us understand decisions of power in international politics. not about who has the most materially as material condtions only have meaning through social definition and constuction
what are the key concepts of constructivism in IR:
1) global politics is guided by intersubjectivity (subjects, societies and individuals) in which shared ideas, norms and values are held by actors
2) these ideational structures shape the say actos define themselves through socialisation
3) ideational structures and actros co-constitute and co-determine each other (anarchy only occurs if a state makes it occur)
what are the main features of constructivism in IR
1) actos and structures are mutually constituted through norms and practices
2) anarchy has no material existence: it is an imagined community. identities and interests are interrelated
3) practices are fundamental to understand IR as they reproduce meaning
4) change in the world politics is both possible and difficult
what does wendt argue about identity
‘identity is realise stable role specific understanding and expectation about self’
- identity informs interests and is a result from patterns or regular interaction (socialisation)
- the looking glass self implying that oneself is a reflection of an actors socialisation
- if repeated for long enough these reciprocal typifications will create a realtivley stable concept of self with a possibilty of change fron enmity to amity
what is an example of changing relationships in IR
gaddafi was an regarded as an ally in international relations the US and UK and then they killed him as they had a change of relationship
what are the three steps which lead to a change of relationship
1) end of consensus: the consensus that exists between the parties must end
2) denaturalisation of identity and the identification of new possibilities: when a crisis happens and that person is no longer an ally of yours you rationalise this and now change how you act with them which is the identification of new possibilities
3) altercasting: when you interact with the other person as if their identity as already changes
according to wendt what are the 3 cultures of anarchy
1) hobbesian order: logic of enmity: states tend to be enemies of each other and norms are followed because they are guaranteed by a credible enforcer
2) lockean order: norms are internalised and states believe it is their interests to behave this way (logic of rivalry)
3) caution order: deepest level of internalisation: live the eu states dont decide to follow rules based onn the logic of friendship
what does the three cultures of anarchy help to explain
theses three cultures can co-exsit in international relations which helps to frame how states interact in a given mment
