1

Constructivism: Presentation

Introduction
In this paper, I argue that constructivism views human consciousness as enabling the

social configurations of the international system and society. While neorealism and neoliberalism

share a commitment to “rationalism,” which prioritizes structure over process, constructivism

views identities and roles as socially-constructed dependent upon the interaction among states

(Wendt 1992; 391). In this way, constructivism views process as fundamental in forming

identities, rather than being determined by a structure and shares a similar critical framework

with feminism. I will conclude this paper by critically evaluating a few aspects of constructivism.

Meaning as Social Construction

Waltz defined structure as “the arrangement, or the ordering, of the parts of a system”

(1971; 81). The three characteristics of structure are: “the ordering principle of a system, the

specification of function of different units, and the distribution of capabilities across units”

(Sjoberg 2012; 7). Both the neorealist and neoliberals view anarchy as the “third image” or

structure of the international system. Wendt (1992) argues that structural “permissiveness” of

anarchy is insufficient to explain the variances in states’ behavior and the recurrence of war.

Arguing that identities are relational, Wendt (1992) argues that “identity, with its appropriate

attachments of psychological reality, is always identity within a specific, socially constructed

world” (397-398). This intersubjective collective experiences enable identities, which form the

basis of interests. Independent of social context, no national interests exist. Such interests and

identities, therefore, are never fixed and cannot be mistaken for permanent objects. A collection

of such interests converge to form an institution, which could be defined as “a process of

internalizing new identities and interests, not something occurring outside them and affecting
 2

only behavior” (Wendt 1992; 399). It is in this vein that constructivism views institutions, such

as self-help and power politics, as socially constructed features of the international system, not a

logical inevitability of anarchy.

Anarchy, when conceived as an absence of overarching authority, does not preclude order. Bull

(1977) deconstructs order from a constructivist perspective by arguing that order as pattern

inherently assumes a distinct set of goals. It is only in service to these goals that such patterns of

behavior are recognized as orderly. Such set of goals are socially constructed through interaction

among states, rather than determined exclusively by the structure of anarchy. Bull (1977) argues

that states have, traditionally, recognized common interests and values to form a society “in the

sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a set of rules in their relations with one

another, and share in the working of common institutions” (13). Such practices or patterns of

behavior are influenced by a shared understanding of identities in relation to each other and their

roles in relation to the goals. An international society does not necessarily entail the relativistic

terms of security as it is in the neorealists’ conception; an international society is not bound by

anarchy to pursue only a self-help system. In essence, such institutions of neorealism are a

product of social construction than natural necessities of structural anarchy. Similarly, Sjoberg

(2012) argues that the international system structure is gender-hierarchical leading to

differentiated impact of the international system on each gender. Such gendered-hierarchy is

based on the intersubjective ideas of masculinity and femininity, relating to the constructivism’s

argument in favor of social interaction and ideas determining the structures of human

association.

Criticism
 3

Constructivism assumes that “all research involves interpretation, and thus there is no

neutral stance from which they can gather objective knowledge about the world” (Finnemore and

Sikkink 2001; 395). Such an epistemological position allows constructivism to function as a

critical theory, but not so much as a positive theory. While realism and liberalism offer

substantive theories of politics, constructivism is a social theory “that makes claims about the

nature of social life and social change” (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001; 393). It does not offer any

particular claims in regards to the content of social structures or predicts political outcomes.

Moreover, the reliance on scientific methods for constructivist research is problematized when

constructivism denies neutrality of any medium of knowledge. Finnemore and Sikkink (2001)

allude to such a contradiction when they pointed out that the constructivist camp is divided over

the positivist methods as value-free and independent of social context.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued that constructivism is novel in its approach towards

international relations – one which is based on ideational factors. Intersubjective experiences

provide meaning. Without social context, neither interests nor identities hold any significance. It

is a departure from the narrow focus on materialism of neorealism and neoliberalism.

Constructivism assumes a sociological worldview in interpreting social facts. In its critical

approach, it shares feminist’s concern of gender hierarchy as a structural factor in international

relations. While critical in its approach, constructivism falls short of positing a positive

international relations theory and contradicts the basic assumptions of positivist methodologies.

References
 4

Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program

in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review Political Science, 4, 391-

416.

Sjoberg, L. (2012). Gender, structure, and war: What Waltz couldn’t see. International

Theory, 4(1), 1-38.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power

Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.