The Global Questions Series: Number 18 - Constructivism

A Synthesis of Realism and Idealism?

Contents

1. Introduction

2. What Is Constructivism?

3. How Do Realism and Idealism View Constructivism?

4. The Thesis-Antithesis of Idealism and Realism

5. Is Constructivism The Synthesis?

6. Why Isn’t Constructivism Dominant Today?

7. Real-World Implications and Relevance To Our World Today

8. Concluding Remarks

---

Bitesize Edition

• Last month in the Global Questions Series, I explored how Realism and Idealism could work together to change our global system for the better. With the differences between the two being a defining principle of International Relations, it’s difficult to foresee the debate ever coming to an end.

• However, throughout history, a thesis naturally gives rise to an antithesis. Eventually, when thesis and antithesis combine, we create a synthesis. This synthesis becomes the new thesis, and the cycle repeats forever, advancing humanity through innovation.

• But, outside of Realism and Idealism, we have other ideologies to explore. Today, we’ll start this pursuit as we explore Constructivism. Could this be the synthesis that we eventually innovate towards? If not, why is Constructivism less relevant in the world today?

---

Introduction

Constructivism was often associated with the end of the Cold War. When the well-known theories in international relations, such as realism, idealism, and liberalism, failed to account for such an event, new ideas to philosophically explain the world in which we live were inevitable. International relations has big, wide-ranging ideologies that refer to states as the actors that determine the future direction of our world. However, the Cold War’s end was sparked by ordinary people. Constructivism is an attempt to account for this. So, what is Constructivism? Let’s dive in.

---

What Is Constructivism

Constructivism is an idea that implies that the world, and what we know about it, are a consequence of our social structure. Our reality and knowledge are both constructed as a result of the beliefs we hold about the world. For example, Wendt (1995) provided a great example. To the United States, the small number of nuclear weapons held by North Korea is more threatening than the hundreds possessed by the UK. It’s not the context that determines this, but the meaning given to it.

More importantly, it’s this idea behind meanings that is a key part of Constructivism. The effect of ideas and beliefs on world politics has a huge effect on our world, and meanings aren’t fixed. These can always change over time depending on how ideas and beliefs shift. This is especially true in periods of rising geopolitical tension, where relations and the meaning behind them can be redrawn. For example, perhaps one day, the UK’s nuclear weapons will be seen as a bigger threat than North Korea’s. Unlikely, but a possibility.

Another key idea of Constructivism is identities and interests. Just as we individually are complex and multi-faceted, Constructivism believes that states are also. They can possess multiple identities as a result of interactions with other actors. These identities are an actor’s understanding of who they are, and their identities drive interests. A small state has different identities and hence different interests from a large state. A small state wants to survive, whereas a large state is focused on power expansion, political stability, economic power, and military strength. If a state acts against its identity, then it’s questionable whether that was ever its identity at all.

Photo by mostafa meraji on Unsplash

Social norms are also vital to Constructivism. This helps to set a standard for how actors should behave, given that they possess a certain identity. This leads to the idea that some behaviours and actions are more acceptable than others. Once norms are accepted and adopted by a relevant individual or collection of actors, they then become a part of their practices and can spread. For example, Constructivism would imply that climate change has seen many nations come together because mitigating its adverse effects is seen as necessary for the survival of humanity.

This all collectively can lead to constructivists assuming that actors act according to their identity, and that it is possible to predict when this identity becomes visible or not. When an identity is changing, it’s here that Constructivists investigate what factors have led to this pursuit of change.

However, there is even a tussle within Constructivism. Some ask “what” questions, such as “what causes an actor to act this way?”. Others ask “how “ questions, such as “how do actors come to believe in this identity?”. Although these extremes exist, most position themselves between the two. This again demonstrates that when it comes to ideology in international relations, there isn’t one clear answer. It’s all a range scale. With this in mind, are there any flaws that exist in this scale of Constructivism?

---

How Do Realism and Idealism View Constructivism?

In international relations, the flaws of one such ideology are viewed through the lens of another. And so, what would Realism and Idealism say about Constructivism?

Realism: I believe constructivism is naive. It overstates how important ideas, norms, and identities are, while underappreciating the hard evidence that power determines strength. The international system is one of anarchy. No power is in control, and as a result, states are always seeking survival. This breeds competition, not cooperation. Norms don’t stop wars or balance power. A state’s identity won’t stop an invasion. Looking back at history, weak nations are bullied, and powerful states do the bullying. Constructivism does little to predict this because if everything is socially constructed, nothing is objective. While norms might shift, the structure of our world is constant: Strong nations do what they want, and weak nations suffer as a result.

Idealism: Although constructivism highlights values and identities, it does little to offer moral direction. It describes how our world is socially constructed, but doesn’t explain how it should be. It lacks a framework. According to constructivism, norms are important, but we don’t know which ones. If we consider human rights, constructivism would say their influence depends on whether states possess and adopt these norms. But shouldn’t this be actively promoted for all actors around the world? We need a theory that aspires to advance the world, reduce suffering, and promote justice, not just track the underlying meaning. If all realities are socially constructed, as constructivism states, why not advocate more forcefully for a better one? Constructivism focuses on how we interpret the world around us too much and risks limiting our ability to change.

Photo by Sunguk Kim on Unsplash

Although there exist clear flaws in the eyes of realists and idealists, Constructivism is welcomed in international relations. It can seem simplistic that ideas and actions create the world around us, but when applied theoretically, it offers explanations for events occurring in the social world. State behaviour isn’t solely determined by the distribution of power, wealth, and geographical conditions, but also by ideas, identities, and norms. Most importantly, Constructivism shows us that this is subject to change with the times.

So, if this could change, where does Constructivism tie into our previously discussed ideologies, Realism and Idealism? Are they somehow connected and intertwined? If they are, could this help solidify our understanding of the world and our capability to change it?