Chapter 4: Constructivism

Is anarchy what states make of it?

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

 Learning aims:
Be able to identify how
constructivism differs
(and doesn’t) from
realism and liberalism
To critically interrogate
Wendt’s state-centric
constructivism
© 2014 Cynthia Weber
Understand the
fundamental principles
of constructivist social
theory and what Wendt
means when he claims
that “international
anarchy is what states
make of it”
To critically engage with
the advantages and
disadvantages of
Wendtian
constructivism
 Last week:

Myth: “there is an international society”

Key concepts: International society,

communication, domestic analogy

What appears to be international society may also

just be US domestic society extended globally

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

Constructivism flashcard

Key thinkers: Key concepts:

Alexander Social
Wendt & construction
Nicholas G. Identities
Onuf Practices

Myth: “anarchy is what

states make of it”

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

 Three fundamental principles of
constructivist social theory (box 4.2)

1. “People act toward objects, including other actors, on the basis of

the meanings that the objects have for them”
 SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE

2. “The meanings in terms of which action is organized arise out of

interaction”
 SOCIAL PRACTICE

3. “Identities [and interests] are produced in and through ‘situated

activity’”
 IDENTITIES AND INTERESTS

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

 Constructivism
Wendtian
constructivism
No logic to anarchy
Anarchy is an effect
of practice
“Anarchy is what
states make of it”
(Neo)realism Neoliberalism
Logic of Logic of
anarchy is anarchy is a
structural and process that
leads to can lead to
conflict cooperation

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

 Constructivism
Table 4.2 Three stories of international anarchy
Realism Idealism Constructivism
Actors States States States
Goals Survival Survival Survival
Actors’ Increase power to Promoting social learning Unpredictable prior to social interaction
behavior in ensure survival through
anarchy • Institutions (e.g. UN)
• Ideas (e.g. democracy
and liberal capitalism)
What Self help because International society Intersubjectively constituted structure of
mitigates • No world identities and interests
state government • If state identities and interests
behavior? (anarchy) produced as competitive 
• Cooperation competition
among states • If state identities and interests
unreliable produced as cooperative 
cooperation

Logic of Conflictual Cooperative Anarchy is what states make of it

anarchy © 2014 Cynthia Weber
 Advantages and disadvantages of
Wendtian compromise
Table 4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of the Wendtian compromise
Advantages
Can hold states accountable for their part
in producing anarchy as either conflictual
or cooperative
Disadvantages
• Cannot escape reification because
Wendt replaces a reified logic of
anarchy with reified states
• Misses the opportunity to restore a
broad focus on process and practice in
international politics because Wendt
must exclude from consideration the
practices that produce states as
products of anarchy in order for his
myth to function

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

 Theory activity: Rationalism, reflectivism and
the politics of bridge building
• Aim: To think critically about Wendt’s aims at bridge building
and what it means for the reflectivist critique
• Answer the following question in groups (7 min.)
– What is rationalism and reflectivism?
– How does Wendtian constructivism attempt to build a
bridge between rationalism and reflectivism?
• Either as whole group or in smaller groups discuss the
following (7 min.):
– What are the politics of Wendt’s move?
– What does this move mean for rationalism and
reflectivism respectively?
– Is it really possible to bridge
© 2014 Cynthiathese
Weber two traditions?
 Theory activity: What is wrong with
rationalism? (box 4.1)

2. Rationalism also
3. Overall, rationalism
1. Rationalism takes the takes the identities of
limits theoretical
identities and interests and the interests
understandings of
of states as given generated from
change in agents and
because it only international anarchy as
structure because it
recognizes changes in given. For rationalists,
only examines changes
states’ behavior but not neither the structure of
in behavior and
in states themselves international anarchy
excludes an
(i.e. their identities and nor the self-help system
examination changes in
interests) is said to produce can
identities and interests
be changed

© 2014 Cynthia Weber

What seems to be typical and deviant
in the world of Wag the Dog (table
4.3)

Typical Deviant
For the tail (spin For the dog (the
doctors and US public) to wag
policy-makers) to its tail (spin
wag the dog (the doctors and
US public policy-makers)
© 2014 Cynthia Weber
 Reconsidering what is typical and
deviant in the world of Wag the Dog
Typical
For the tale (mediatic practices)
to wag the tail (producers/spin
doctors) so that it appears that
the tail (producers) wags the
dog (US public)
© 2014 Cynthia Weber
Deviant
Either:
 For the dog (US public) to
wag its tail (producers/ spin
doctors/policy-makers)
Or
 For the tail (producers/ spin
doctors/ policy-makers) to
“really” wag the dog (US public)
without being wagged by the
tale (mediatic practices) itself
 Production and seduction in Wag the
Dog
Connie: You can’t do it
Stanley: [angrily] Don’t you tell
me that. Don’t you ever tell me “Seduction doesn’t just tease us into wanting
that. I’m the producer of this
show. [looks out the window at what we cannot see. It convinces us that
the set where the patriotic funeral there is something there to be seen”
for the returned war hero is being (Weber, 2013)
shot] Look at that. That is a
complete fucking fraud, and it
looks one hundred percent real.
[contemplatively, softly] It’s the
best work I’ve ever done in my ‘The tale itself tricks us into thinking that
whole life, because it’s so there is an author of the tale’
honest…[insistently] I tell you, for (Weber, 2013)
once in my life I will not be pissed
on. I want…I want the credit. I
want the credit
(Wag the Dog)
© 2014 Cynthia Weber
 Film activity: Updating Wag the Dog
Aim: Think about how the role of authorship, seduction, production and the
media might have changed from 1997 to today

1.Could the role 1.With the changes you have

Task 1: of the producer made to your movie, how
be the same does this affect the role of
In small today as in
groups authorship and seduction?
1997? Task 2:
come up 2.Who would take the role of
with a 2.What in the Either in the producer (Stanley in Wag
basic film plot would need small the Dog) in your film?
plot which to change and groups or
what could be 3.Consider the statement:
updates together
kept for it to “Seduction doesn't just tease
Wag the discuss the
make sense us into wanting what we
Dog to following
today? cannot see. It convinces us
today questions
that there is something there
consider- 3.Which (7 min.):
to be seen” (Weber, 2013).
ing the characters could
following you keep and Is this more or less true in
(7 min.): who would need your film (today) than in Wag
to be added? the Dog (1997)?
© 2014 Cynthia Weber
 Next week: Gender
Feminisms place in
IR
Femininity
Film:
Masculinity
Fatal Attraction
Is gender a variable?

© 2014 Cynthia Weber