Constructivism

Constructivism in International Relations emerged from a critique of the more traditional IR theories during the Cold War period. Constructivists rejected the static material assumptions that dominated traditional IR theories and instead emphasized the social dimensions of IR and the possibility for change. They argued that international relations are socially constructed rather than existing independently. This means that phenomena such as states, alliances, or international institutions do not inherently exist on their own but rather come into being through human meaning and action. The central themes of change, social interactions, and ongoing processes pointed to the value of a constructivist perspective within a field that had previously focused on generalization across time, material factors, and rational choice assumptions.

The term “constructivism” was introduced to IR by Nicholas Onuf in 1989 to refer broadly to postpositivist perspectives which shared a skepticism of the static assumptions in mainstream IR theories. However, over time scholars began distinguishing between “conventional” constructivism and more critical variations like poststructuralism.

Moreover, constructivists reject the assumptions of egoism and instrumentalism. They claim that international actors are committed in their decisions to values and norms and choose the appropriate instead of the efficient behavioral option. On the basis of these assumptions, constructivists analyze international institutions not merely as regulatory institutions that constrain the behavioral options available to actors and influence their cost-benefit assessments. Constructivism posits that the origins and the constitution as well as the goals and the procedures of international organizations are more strongly determined by the standards of legitimacy and appropriateness of the international community they represent than by the utilitarian demand for efficient problem-solving

Core Ideas

Constructivism is based on the notion that international relations are socially constructed. This means that phenomena such as states, alliances, or international institutions do not exist independently of human meaning and action. Rather, these are constructs that only come into being through social acts and shared understandings.

Some key themes and assumptions of constructivism include:

• Socially constructed reality - The international system and its components do not have inherent properties, but gain meaning through social interaction and interpretation. Constructivists emphasize the importance of social context and intersubjective knowledge.
• Change - Unlike rationalist theories which emphasize continuity, constructivists see change as possible through new ways of social interaction and meaning making. International relations are not fixed structures but ongoing dynamic processes.
• Sociality - Humans are fundamentally social beings, and individual identities and interests are shaped by cultural and institutional contexts, not pre-existing. Therefore, understanding social dimensions is key.
• Processes - Constructivists focus on the processes through which structures constitute agents and vice versa, rather than just structures or just agents. Ongoing interaction and mutual constitution between agents and structures are central.

Origins

Constructivism in International Relations emerged in the late 1980s as a critique of the dominant theories in the field at the time. The term “constructivism” was introduced by scholar Nicholas Onuf in his 1989 book, World of Our Making, to refer broadly to a range of postpositivist perspectives united by their rejection of the static assumptions of realist and liberal theories.

Onuf and other early constructivists argued that mainstream IR theories like realism and liberalism treated the international system as fixed and immutable. They assumed that the nature of international relations was determined by the rational, material interests of states or individuals. Constructivists challenged these positivist perspectives by emphasizing that the subjects and structures of international relations are socially constructed, not objectively given.

The constructivist critique maintained that phenomena like states, alliances, threats, institutions, and identities do not have any inherent meaning outside of human interpretation. Their meaning is constructed through social interaction and can change over time as norms, ideas, language, and culture evolve. This contrasted with mainstream theories that treated these elements of world politics as static objects that could be studied empirically.

By introducing ideas about social construction from sociology and philosophy into IR theory, early constructivists like Onuf opened up new possibilities for understanding how the international system is shaped by intersubjective factors like beliefs, shared knowledge, language, and socialization. This established constructivism as a leading alternative to rationalist theories grounded in materialism and individualism.

Types

Constructivism refers broadly to a range of postpositivist perspectives in IR theory which share a critique of the static assumptions of mainstream IR approaches. However, scholars have made a distinction between ‘conventional’ constructivism and more critical variations, including poststructuralism.

Conventional Constructivism

Conventional constructivism is said to occupy the middle ground between rationalism and poststructuralism in IR theory. By adopting a positivist epistemology, conventional constructivists have gained considerable legitimacy within the discipline. As a result, their debate with rationalists has come to occupy an important place in IR theory.

Conventional constructivism adds a social dimension that is missing from rationalist approaches. What is considered rational is seen as a function of legitimacy, defined by shared values and norms within institutions or other social structures, rather than purely individual interests.

Critical Constructivism

Critical constructivists have questioned the individualist ontology of rationalism and instead emphasize a social ontology. As fundamentally social beings, individuals or states cannot be separated from the context of normative meaning which shapes their identities and possibilities.

Critical perspectives also focus on how structures not only constrain actors, but also constitute their identities. The individual or state can influence their environment as well as being influenced by it, through a process of interaction and mutual constitution.

Conventional Constructivism

Conventional constructivism is said to occupy the middle ground between rationalism and poststructuralism. By adopting a positivist epistemology, constructivists have gained considerable legitimacy, such that their debate with rationalists has come to occupy an important place in the discipline.

Constructivism adds a social dimension that is missing from rationalist approaches. What is rational is seen as a function of legitimacy, defined by shared values and norms within institutions or other social structures rather than purely individual interests.

Critical Constructivism

Critical constructivists have questioned the individualist ontology of rationalism and instead emphasize a social ontology. As fundamentally social beings, individuals or states cannot be separated from a context of normative meaning which shapes who they are and the possibilities available to them.

Structures not only constrain actors they also constitute identities. The individual or state can also influence their environment as well as being influenced by it, through a process of interaction and mutual constitution.

Structures and Agents

Constructivism emphasizes that structures not only constrain actors, they also constitute identities. The individual or state can also influence their environment as well as being influenced by it, through a process of interaction and mutual constitution.

Structures like states, alliances or international institutions are not thought to exist independent of human meaning and action. Rather, these structures shape the identities and possibilities available to the agents that inhabit them. For example, the structure of the United Nations constitutes the identity of a country as a member state, which confers certain rights and responsibilities.

At the same time, agents like states and individuals are not completely determined by structure. They have agency to influence and change the environment that shapes them through a process of mutual interaction. States can cooperate to reform international institutions, or an individual can advocate for policy changes in their country. Both structure and agency are important for understanding how the social world is constructed.

The emphasis on mutual constitution of structures and agents moves away from traditional IR theories that treat structures as static constraints and focuses instead on the complex interplay between the two. This dialectic relationship is key to the constructivist view that international relations are not fixed, but are socially constructed and thus contain possibility for change driven by social interaction.

Case Study : NATO Enlargement

The constructivist view of NATO enlargement as international socialization is based on the idea that countries learn the values and norms of the community and change how they do things in their own countries and in international relations as a result. Compared to rationalist views like neorealism and neoliberalism, which have trouble explaining why international organizations like NATO keep growing, this view gives a more complete picture of why NATO has grown.

The constructivist explanation addresses three main questions:

1. Why do central and eastern European (CEE) countries strive to become NATO members?
2. Why did NATO decide to expand to the east?
3. Why were only the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland invited to become NATO members?

The constructivist response to these questions is as follows:

1. CEE countries have tried to find a new identity and a new “home” in the international system since the fall of the communist system in their own countries and around the world. It has become their main foreign policy goal to “return to Europe,” with joining NATO being a big part of that. Not having to agree with all of the Western world’s rules and values is not a requirement for the Central and Eastern European countries to want to join NATO

2. NATO chose to grow to the east to support and strengthen democracy, liberal values, and multilateralism in the area. CEE countries want to join NATO, which encourages them to continue working on democratic reform and making their own systems more like those in other countries. They also want to handle international conflicts in this area peacefully, through multilateralism, and according to international law.

3. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to join NATO because they shared the liberal values of the Western world, had internalized its core values well enough, and had behaved in line with those values for a certain amount of time. The constructivist hypothesis says that these countries’ membership in NATO gave them a reason to keep working on democratic reform and solidify the changes they were already making to their own systems.

To sum up, the constructivist view of NATO expansion as international socialization is based on the idea that countries adopt community values and norms, which causes them to change how they handle their own domestic and foreign policies. When compared to rationalist views, this one gives a more complete explanation for NATO’s growth.