Basic Explanation of Constructivism in IR

Introduction to Constructivism

Constructivism is a theoretical perspective in international relations that emphasizes the central role of human consciousness, ideas, norms, knowledge, language, symbols, and rules in shaping international politics. It contends that structures in world politics are not predetermined by nature, but are socially constructed through collective meaning and understanding. Various theories that predated constructivism made similar claims, including Marxism, the English School, and feminist approaches. But constructivists spoke more directly to the issues that mattered to neorealists and neoliberal institutionalist about how identity, norms, and culture shape patterns of war and peace.

Some key tenets and assumptions of constructivism include:

• Reality is socially constructed - our understanding of the world stems from shared beliefs, values, and ideas rather than objective, mind-independent facts.
• Agents and structures are mutually constituted - agents (states, individuals) shape social structures, which in turn shape agents through an iterative process. Neither has primacy.
• Ideas, norms, knowledge, culture, and language matter - these shared concepts provide meaning and shape how states understand and interpret events and actions in global politics.
• Identities and interests are not fixed - actors’ identities and interests are socially constructed, not given by nature. They can be redefined through social interaction and interpretation.
• The emphasis is on shared understandings and intersubjective meanings - how states comprehend each other’s intentions and motives matters more than strictly material factors.
• Change is possible - international structures are not immutable and can be reconstructed through new discourse and the emergence and contestation of new norms and collective meanings.

So in essence, constructivism views world politics as a socially constructed and interpreted process, contrasting with rationalist approaches that emphasize material factors and self-interest. Ideas and social reality have real power in shaping global relations.

Human Consciousness and Social Realities

Constructivism places human consciousness at the center in understanding world politics. This perspective emphasizes how the ideas, knowledge, symbols, language, and other notions that make up our mental maps are socially constructed through collective meaning making. Although aspects of the world may seem objective, constructivists contend that they actually represent “social facts” - shared concepts, categories, and rules that are created and reified through social interaction.

While the world has an irreducible social nature, constructivism argues that it is through human consciousness that meaning is assigned to objects and activities. Rather than taking social realities as eternal givens, constructivists examine how certain beliefs come to be widely accepted, and how the intersubjective Web of shared meanings shapes international relations. Actors do not behave based on objective laws that exist separate from consciousness. Instead, the interpretation of the world is mediated through collectively constructed symbols, rules, and notions that make up what actors perceive as knowledge. This socially derived “knowledge” informs action, even though it encapsulates shared meanings rather than eternal truths.

Agency and Structure

While acknowledging the irreducible social nature of the world, constructivism posits that actors can actively shape, reify, and transform structures, highlighting the dynamic relationship between individuals and their cultural environment.

Constructivism contends that structures like social institutions and shared knowledge are constructed and maintained by the actions of agents. At the same time, an agent’s actions are enabled and constrained by the structures that surround them. This points to a dynamic relationship where agents and structures continually interact with and influence each other.

The key insight is that structures do not deterministically define an agent’s actions. Agents have the capacity for reflexivity - they can reflect on their situation and environment and then choose to either reproduce or challenge and change existing structures. So actors are not just passive products of structures, but have agency in shaping the structures that then shape them.

This two-way interaction means that agents and structures exist in a co-constitutive relationship. Agents constitute structures by creating, upholding and changing them through their actions. At the same time, structures constitute agents by enabling and limiting their capacity for agency and room for maneuver. The implication is that agents and structures continuously evolve through their interactions. Neither has permanent primacy over the other.

By emphasizing this ongoing interplay between agents and structures, constructivism provides a framework for understanding how global politics and social realities are actively produced and transformed by human consciousness, rather than existing as static objective facts. The cultural environment and social institutions influence agents, but agents can also challenge and reshape their cultural context.

Rules and Norms

Constructivism distinguishes between two types of rules that govern and shape social realities - regulative rules and constitutive rules. Regulative rules regulate existing activities and prescribe appropriate behavior within a given system. In contrast, constitutive rules not only regulate activities but also create the possibility for certain activities to exist in the first place. For example, the rules of chess regulate the game, while also constituting the game of chess itself.

Norms vary in their degree of institutionalization within a given system. Highly institutionalized norms are robust and stable, while weakly institutionalized norms remain malleable. The institutionalization of norms depends on the community’s socialization processes and the norm’s degree of internalization by actors within the system. Even highly institutionalized norms are open to contestation and potential change when promoted by actors with specific political agendas. Through framing and persuasion, these norm entrepreneurs can redefine norms over time if their new conceptualization becomes widely accepted and internalized. Overall, constructivism views norms as socially constructed standards of behavior that remain dynamic due to the agendas and evolving interpretations of actors within the system.

Logic of Consequences and Appropriateness

Constructivism introduces two logics—consequences and appropriateness—exploring how actors attribute action to anticipated costs and benefits, while also emphasizing rule-following and the legitimacy of actions.

The logic of consequences posits that actors make decisions and take actions based on a calculation of costs versus benefits. From this perspective, behavior is driven by the consequences an actor anticipates will result from a given course of action. Actors are assumed to act rationally, weighing the costs and benefits of various options and selecting the one that maximizes benefits while minimizing costs. This instrumental rationality emphasizes strategic behavior aimed at furthering one’s interests.

In contrast, the logic of appropriateness contends that actors are motivated by internalized identities, rules, and norms. Rather than behaving strategically, actors aim to match their actions to what is deemed socially acceptable and legitimate within a given cultural context. The focus is on rule-following and meeting social expectations, not calculating costs and benefits. From this viewpoint, behavior is shaped by context-specific standards of appropriate behavior. Actors seek cognitive and social conformity, complying with internalized prescriptions about what is proper and meaningful.

By incorporating both logics, constructivism provides a nuanced explanation of how interests and norms jointly motivate action. Material incentives matter, but so do collective understandings of legitimate behavior. This dual emphasis allows for a richer analysis of why states and other global actors make certain choices in international affairs.

Culture and Meaning

Culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the meanings that actors assign to their activities and to the structures around them. The process of meaning fixation is intertwined with power dynamics, representing a political accomplishment. Constructivism posits that commonly accepted meanings are not inherent or obvious but rather emerge out of complicated power-laden social processes.

Cultural environments provide the lens through which individuals come to interpret and understand the world around them. The symbols, concepts, norms, narratives, and rules prevalent in a given culture fundamentally shape how actors construct meaning. Power manifests in determining which cultural elements become widely accepted versus marginalized. Dominant cultures succeed in fixing particular meanings as legitimate while subjugated groups may interpret the same structures and events very differently based on their diverse cultural toolkit.

As such, constructivism emphasizes that there is no natural or inevitable meaning to the social world apart from what is constructed through convoluted sociopolitical interactions, negotiations, and contests over legitimacy. The cues provided by culture offer shortcuts for interpretation but can also blind actors to alternative understandings that may better reflect diverse interests. Unpacking taken-for-granted cultural assumptions and denaturalizing accepted meanings is therefore viewed as an essential task by constructivists seeking greater perspective on why global structures exist as they do.

Power and Knowledge

Constructivism posits that power itself contains an inherent ideational component, rejecting the notion that natural sciences’ methods are apt for understanding the social world due to the absence of timeless laws in the ever-evolving context interpreted by actors.

This perspective emphasizes that power dynamics are intertwined with the fixation of meaning, which involves a political process. Therefore, power cannot be separated from ideas and knowledge. The meanings and social facts that shape the world are themselves embedded within existing power structures.

Additionally, constructivism contends that the methods of natural sciences are insufficient for making sense of the realm of human affairs. The social world lacks predictable laws and patterns akin to the natural sciences. Instead, the contexts created by social actors are continuously interpreted and reinterpreted, evolving across time and space. Constructivism focuses on elucidating this complex and dynamic process of social construction that is ongoing.

Given the ideational nature of power and the absence of eternal laws governing the social world, constructivism adopts interpretive methods relying on hermeneutics. The logic, casual mechanisms, and explanatory power derived from the natural sciences have limited applicability in understanding human consciousness, intersubjective meanings, and their role in international relations. The social sciences require a different ontological and epistemological approach.

Case Study: Refugees

The case of refugees highlights how the definition and recognition of refugees has evolved significantly over time, reflecting the socially constructed nature of the concept.

After World War I, the League of Nations was responsible for refugees, yet the definition remained narrow, only pertaining to specific groups displaced from Russia, Armenia, and Turkey. After World War II, the 1951 Refugee Convention defined a refugee as someone outside of their country of origin, unwilling or unable to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on characteristics like race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. This expanded definition increased recognition and rights for refugees.

However, during the Cold War, ideological concerns shaped definitions, with people fleeing communist countries more likely to be recognized as refugees than those fleeing non-communist regimes. The definition continued to broaden after the Cold War, incorporating gender-based persecution and relaxed requirements for documents and proof.

The evolution of the refugee concept underscores how it is not objectively defined, but subject to changing social and political contexts. At different points, states have expanded or restricted definitions and recognition according to their interests and norms. The social construction of the term has impacted who receives assistance, rights and even the ability to cross borders. Rather than a fixed category, “refugee” is a fluid concept renegotiated by states and institutions over time.

Explaining Global Change

Constructivism offers a compelling framework for analyzing global transformations that cannot be fully explained through neo-realist or neo-liberalist theories. Neo-realism assumes the primacy of anarchy and the distribution of power in the international system, with states positioned as rational actors competing for power and security. Meanwhile, neo-liberal institutionalism focuses on how international institutions allow states to achieve absolute gains through cooperation.

However, constructivism contends that changing norms and understandings of legitimate order offer greater explanatory power. The assumption that Westphalian norms are fixed and immutable is challenged, as the socially constructed nature of all norms is highlighted. What was previously taken for granted as the appropriate structure of the international system evolves over time through the efforts of norm entrepreneurs, diffusion and internalization.

Rather than material factors, ideational factors shape how states understand and pursue their interests. The robustness of sovereignty norms cannot be assumed when norms and the shared meanings underpinning them are subject to contestation and modification. Constructivism looks beyond rational choice and absolute gains, probing how intersubjective structures and identities constitute actor interests and behaviors. Therefore, transformations in global politics require examining shifts in collectively held norms and accepted models of order.

Norm Diffusion

Norms evolve in distinct stages, undergoing a process of emergence, cascade, and internalization. This sheds light on how new norms arise and become widely accepted over time.

Norm emergence occurs when norm entrepreneurs actively promote new norms and “frames” to shape the international agenda. These influential state and non-state actors call attention to issues, proposing new models of appropriate behavior for states to follow.

A norm cascade follows as the norm spreads rapidly when states imitate early norm leaders. States adopt the norm to enhance their legitimacy and standing in the international community. A combination of pressure to conform and a desire to model successful states drives the norm’s diffusion.

Finally, a norm reaches internalization when it becomes so widely accepted that it is no longer seriously debated. The norm is taken for granted by states and internalized into domestic discourse and identities. This signifies the norm’s consolidation and durability over time.

By breaking down norm evolution into distinct stages, constructivism provides insights into the mechanisms and tipping points through which new norms emerge and become internalized in global politics. The emphasis is on the ideational factors and legitimacy concerns that lead states to embrace norms promoted by progressive norm entrepreneurs.