Reus-Smit: Constructivism

Reus-Smit, C. 2005. “Constructivism.” Theories of international relations.

Throughout the 80’s, there were two debates: between neorealists and neoliberals and between critical theorists and rationalists. Constructivism became a third node in these debates. “Constructivism is characterized by an emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material structures, on the role of identity in shaping political action, and on the mutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures” (209).

The chapter then traces the rise of realism by positioning Waltz as a decisive voice giving rise to the distinction between neo and structural realism. Then, moving through dissenting voices like Keohane writing in After Hegemony, where he crucially agrees with realists on the following: importance of anarchy, state centered action and state self interest.

“The debate between neo-realists and neoliberals is often characterized as a debate between those who think states are preoccupied with relative gains versus those who think states are more interested in absolute gains” (212).

Rationalist theories: “First, political actors…are assumed to be atomistic, self-interested and rational” (213). “And they are rational, capable of establishing the most effective and efficient way to realize their interests within the environmental constraints they encounter” (213). “Second, and following from the above, actors interests are assumed to be exogenous to social interaction. Individuals and states are thought to enter social relations with their interests already formed” (213). “Third…society is understood as a strategic realm, a realm in which individuals or states come together to pursue their pre-defined interests” (213).

Reus-smit calls the debate between realists and liberals a “rationalist family feud” (214).

The rise of Constructivism:

Price and Reus-smit argue that Constructivism should be identified with the growth of critical theory. “The rise of constructivisim was prompted by four factors. First, motivated by an attempt to reassert the preeminence of their own conceptions of theory and world politics, leading rationalists challenged critical theorists to move beyond theoretical critique to the substantivec analysis of international relations. While prominent critical theorists condemned the motives behind this challenge, constructivists saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate the heuristic power of non-rationalist perspectives. Second, the end of the Cold War undermined the explanatory pretensions of neo-relaist and neoliberals, neither or which had predicted, nor could adequately comprehend, the systemic transformations reshaping the gtlobal order…Third, by the beginning of the 1990s a new generation of young scholars had emerged who embraced many of the propositions of critical international theory, but who saw potential for innovation in conceptual elaboration and empirically-informed theoretical development…Finally, the advance of the new constructivist perspective was aided by the enthusiasm that mainstream scholars, frustrated by the analytical failings of the dominant realist theories, showed in embracing the new perspective, moving it from the margins to the mainstream of theoretical debate” (216).

Constructivists divided between modernists and post-modernists.

Ideational structures just as important as material structures.

Identities inform interests and actions.

Agents and structures are mutually constituted.

Contrast between constructivism and rationalism: atomistic actor v. social actor; endogenous v. exogenous interests; society as strategic realm or constitutive realm.

Three kinds of Constructivism have emerged: systemic, unit-level and holistic. The first ignores domestic politics and theorises about the interaction of states. Wendt is a systemic constructivist. Unit-level construcitivsm focuses on the units. Katzenstein is a good example of this. “Setting out to explain why two states, with common experiences of military defeat, foreign occupation, economic development, transition from authoritarianism to democracy, and nascent great power status, have adopted very different internal and external national security policies, Katzenstein stresses the importance of institutionalised regulatory and constitutive national social and legal norms” (220). Holist constructivists try to bridge the divide between unit-level constructivism and systemic constructivism. This has brought about two foci: grand shifts in the international system and another focusing on recent changes. The first can be seen through Ruggie’s work exploring the transition from feudal to modern sovereignty. The later can be seen in Kratochwil’s writing on the end of the Cold War (220).

“The rise of constructivism heralds a return to a more sociological, historical and practice-oriented form of international relations scholarship” (227).