Contructivism

Constructivism is an influential theoretical approach in international relations that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. Drawing on sociological insights, constructivism emphasizes the social construction of the world through ongoing processes of interaction between agents and structures. It asserts that international politics is shaped not just by material factors, but also socially constructed norms, identities, and ideas.

At the core of constructivism is the premise that agents (e.g. states, leaders, communities) and structures (e.g. international systems and institutions) constitute one another through their interactions. Agents make decisions and take actions based on intersubjective meanings, collective knowledge, and social norms, not just material calculations. Meanwhile, structures like international law and organizations are created by states and shape state interests and behavior.

Constructivism stands in contrast to rationalist international relations theories like neorealism that focus primarily on the distribution of material capabilities. Instead, constructivism highlights the central role of ideational factors, shared knowledge, and social relationships in world politics. It provides a sociological lens to examine how interests and identities are produced, how norms emerge and evolve, and how security and power are socially constructed over time.

Core Tenets

Constructivism emphasizes the social construction of international relations through the mutual constitution of agents and structures. It asserts that structures, such as norms and identities, shape and influence agents like states. At the same time, agents impact structures through their actions and interactions. This mutual constitution highlights the interplay between agents and structures in world politics.

Central to constructivism is the concept of intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity refers to the shared understandings and meanings that emerge through social interactions between agents. Rather than existing independently, identities and interests are relationally constructed and develop through intersubjective processes. Shared knowledge, norms, ideas, and perceptions shape how states understand each other and inform their relations. Intersubjectivity is key to how agents socially construct international relations.

Constructivism on Security

Constructivism provides important insights into how we conceive of security in world politics. According to constructivist principles, security is a socially constructed concept rather than an objective condition. Agents, such as states, negotiate the meaning and implications of security through social interactions and collective understanding.

Particularly, constructivism proposes that states designate other states as ‘friends’ or ‘enemies’ based on shared identities and norms instead of material factors. The structure of the international system, characterized by anarchy between states, can shape relations. But states also constitute structures like the anarchic system through their practices and beliefs. So agents and structures exist in a reciprocal, mutually constitutive relationship.

Moreover, security involves continuous processes of contestation and negotiation. Political leaders shape security policies based on domestic priorities and pressures, not just external threats. Public audiences also significantly influence security’s meaning and effects through mass communication and collective sensemaking. Overall, constructivism emphasizes the fluid, intersubjective construction of security rather than viewing it as a static objective condition.

The Copenhagen School

Emerging from the defunct Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, the Copenhagen School broadens the concept of security beyond just military concerns to include issues like environmental degradation, poverty, and human rights abuses. This school of thought focuses on how security threats are socially constructed and given meaning through intersubjective processes between political leaders, experts, and the public.

A core contribution of the Copenhagen School is the framework of “securitization” proposed by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and others. Securitization refers to the process by which an issue is turned into a security threat that requires emergency action. This occurs when a securitizing actor (e.g. a political leader) declares an existential threat, convincing a target audience to accept exceptional measures beyond normal politics. Issues can also be “desecuritized” when they are no longer treated as security matters.

According to the Copenhagen School, security threats do not exist independently, but rather are constructed through speech acts and intersubjective meaning-making. Their framework examines how securitization operates across various sectors like the environment, economy, and health. It also looks at regional security complexes where security interdependencies bind certain groups of states together. Overall, the Copenhagen School provides a constructivist approach to security that centers discourse, identity, norms, and the social construction of threats.

Notable Figures

The Copenhagen School is associated with several influential scholars who have contributed substantially to its theoretical development and conceptual frameworks.

Barry Buzan

Barry Buzan is widely considered the founder of the Copenhagen School. As a professor at the University of Copenhagen, Buzan wrote extensively on security studies and international relations. His work introduced pivotal concepts like securitization theory and sectors of security. Major publications include “People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era” (1991) and “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” (1998) co-authored with Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde.

Ole Wæver

Ole Wæver, a Danish political scientist, is another prominent theorist of the Copenhagen School. Wæver collaborated closely with Barry Buzan and advanced securitization theory, analyzing how issues become labeled as security threats. His key works include “Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe” (1993) and “Securitization and Desecuritization” (1995) with Barry Buzan.

Jaap de Wilde

As a Dutch academic, Jaap de Wilde contributed significantly to the Copenhagen School’s theoretical breadth. De Wilde’s research delved into environmental security and European cooperation. He co-wrote the seminal book “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” with Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver in 1998, cementing core Copenhagen School concepts.

Critical Theory Challenges Traditional Notions of Security

Critical theory provides a philosophical and ideological critique of traditional international relations theory and conceptions of security. Rather than accepting the premise of security studies at face value, critical theorists question the underlying assumptions and perspectives that shape mainstream security discourse.

Most notably, critical theory views security as a ‘derivative concept’ - meaning one’s understanding and definition of security is not objective, but rather derives from broader political, philosophical and ideological outlooks. Critical theory rejects the notion that the study of security can be value-neutral or objective.

Instead, critical theorists emphasize the inherent subjectivity involved in conceptualizing security. They argue that how we define threats and referents of security stems from subjective political positions and normative values. There is no purely objective way to study security aside from the perspective of the observer.

This aligns with critical theory’s broader mission to challenge dominant modes of thought and Structures of power. Critical theorists aim to reveal the contingency and malleability of social reality, as opposed to treating current conditions as natural or inevitable.

In terms of methodology, critical theory distinguishes itself from traditional ‘problem-solving’ theories that take institutions and social power structures as givens. Instead, critical theory treats theory itself as a form of practice - using critique to reveal and challenge hidden assumptions. The goal is emancipation from dominant paradigms through ideological critique. This underpins the critical theory perspective on security.

The Welsh School of Critical Security Studies

Wales, United Kingdom has become a hub for the development and expansion of critical security studies. The Welsh School of Critical Security Studies focuses on deepening the understanding of security by examining the concept through alternative viewpoints.

Scholars associated with the Welsh School aim to broaden the definition of security beyond just the military domain. They argue that security should encompass economic, societal, environmental, and human rights issues as well. The Welsh School also emphasizes the subjectivity of security, asserting that one’s conception of security derives significantly from their political and philosophical perspective.

The Welsh School distinguishes itself from traditional international relations theory by rejecting rigid positivism and notions of objectivism. Instead, scholars view theory as a form of practice in itself that is intrinsically linked to promoting change. The Welsh School considers the emancipatory potential of critical security studies. How can these alternative conceptions of security empower people and lead to greater justice? The Welsh School grapples with these normative questions.

Overall, the development of the Welsh School has been pivotal in expanding the boundaries of security studies. It has pushed theorists to reconsider traditional state-military centered views and incorporate a wider range of security concerns. The Welsh School’s critical orientation questions prevailing assumptions and power dynamics while aiming to give voice to marginalized peoples. Its contributions have enriched international relations theory and security studies.

Key Scholars

Critical theorists have challenged traditional perspectives on international relations and security through their writings and research. Several prominent scholars stand out for their contributions to critical theory and critical security studies:

Robert Cox was a Canadian political scientist known for his critical theory work on international relations. He emphasized the subjectivity inherent in theories, which he argued derive from a theorist’s political outlook and interests. Cox distinguished between problem-solving theory and critical theory, with the latter taking a more reflexive approach to challenge assumptions. His writings like “Social Forces, States and World Orders” and “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations” were influential in applying and advancing critical theory.

Max Horkheimer was a German philosopher and sociologist who helped found the Frankfurt School of critical theory. With Theodor Adorno, he wrote “Dialectic of Enlightenment” which critiqued Western modernity and instrumental reason. Horkheimer’s work highlighted how human domination over nature related to social domination, bringing a critical perspective to capitalism, science and progress. His insights on enlightenment, myth and reason contributed to critical theory as applied to international relations.

Ken Booth is a prominent Welsh scholar who helped develop critical security studies and the Welsh School. Booth emphasized the need to expand our understanding of security beyond just the state level. His writings like “Critical Explorations” and “Theory of World Security” challenged realist perspectives, calling for a more ethical approach to international relations and security. Booth helped establish security as a “derivative concept” shaped by language, politics and power relations rather than a self-evident, objective notion.

Feminism

Feminist perspectives in security studies have challenged patriarchal assumptions and provided distinctive insights. Feminists focus on the gendered nature of global politics, exposing how security discourse contains masculine biases. For example, protection and defense are framed around stereotypically male traits like strength and aggression.

Feminists also highlight how women often hold more cooperative and peace-oriented viewpoints compared to men. This cooperative ethic stems from women’s shared experience of subordination and vulnerability. Women leaders sometimes employ negotiation and compromise to a greater degree.

Moreover, armed conflict and political violence have differential impacts based on gender. Women and girls disproportionately suffer from conflict, facing increased risks of sexual violence and exploitation. Yet their perspectives are frequently excluded when addressing solutions for conflict and security.

Feminist scholars emphasize the need to include women in security policymaking in an equitable way. Both women’s viewpoints and lived experiences in situations of insecurity should help shape discussions of international security. Mainstreaming gender in policy formulation leads to more comprehensive solutions.

The feminist critique has enriched understandings of security by revealing typically overlooked assumptions. It demonstrates how factors like gender norms and identities construct the meaning of security in global politics and society. Feminist approaches continue to provide vital alternative frameworks for rethinking security.