Ir: Constructivism

Front 1

social world is not...

Back 1

• The social world is not a given that exists out there, but it is dependent on human consciousness and perception.

Front 2

Constructivism is a programme of ? not ?

Back 2

• Constructivism as a programme of interpretation not explanation. It mistrusts our capacity to form predictions in IR, because there is no objective empirical reality which will fulfil law like patterns irrespective of human interpretation.

Front 3

accoridng to constructivism, key element to understanding IR is...

Back 3

• The key element in the understanding of IR is not the understanding of ‘structures’ or objective qualities of states and their interaction, but how actors perceive themselves and social setting, in the international level. In other words, what counts is the inter-subjective beliefs which are widely shared among people. The essential materials of IR are not material conditions and forces, but thoughts and ideas. This ideas are expressed in norms and institutions (e.g. state sovereignty, or humanitarian intervention).

Front 4

Wendt famously claimed that "? is what you ?"

Back 4

• Wendt famously claimed ‘anarchy is what states make out of it’. This means that there is no logic of anarchy per se, but how states react to a condition of anarchy results from their shared understandings. There are three distinct possibilities: Hobbesian anarchy (where states see each other as ‘enemies’), Lockean anarchy (‘rivals) and Kantian (‘friends’).

Front 5

what differs in structure is not only ? that prevail but also ?

Back 5

• What differs in structure is not only the kind of understandings that prevail, but also their level of internationalisation. The first level of internalisation, is one where agents act in a certain way because they are coerced, the second because they feel that it is in their own interests, and the third because they take it to be a norm that defines what they ought to do.

Front 6

Norm of sovereignty belongs to...

Back 6

• The norm of the sovereignty of the state belongs to the second type of culture, the Lockean which has reached a third degree of internalisation. The example that Wendt gives, on how the US would not even consider invading the Bahamas, shows that the sovereignty norm is so far internalised that there have to be serious overriding reasons for states to disregard it, at least in the West. (of course a serious jeopardy of national interest could represent such a reason).

Front 7

? culture is exmplified in realtions between western democracies?

Back 7

• Kantian culture is exemplified in the relations between Western democracies – esp in the UK – US relations, where a commonality of culture, language, and political structure, as well as a close connection of history, has fostered the kind of relations that the US finds hard to built with countries where fewer identity elements are shared.

Front 8

Elements of ? culture are more obvious in West-World realtions

Back 8

• Elements of Hobbesian culture are more obvious with the relation of the West with the rest of the world, especially when it comes to Middle Eastern countries. There the conflict of interests becomes also a conflict of identities, and it is hard to demarcate the cause from the effect.

Front 9

What is Wendt's critique of Waltz?

Back 9

• Wendt has a good critique of Waltz. (p 98 – 108) First of all he describes how Waltz takes the view of a ‘defensive positionalist’, in maintaining primarily that states want to ensure survival, and this is what determines their behaviour and ultimately the outcome. But, as he points out, there is not reasons why states which are merely ‘status quo’ will not manage to achieve a orderly outcome. What we need is a ‘revisionist’ state to kick off the security dilemma. This already moves us beyond the motivational assumption that Waltz made. There are two points to take into consideration here: one is that Waltz is accused of making a motivational assumption and therefore goes beyond the limits of the model itself. (that states seek survival, rather than anything else). The second is that even with the assumption of survival as the underlying motive, the model does not yield the competition in power that results in balancing.

Front 10

Wendt criticizes realist model because ? itself is a constant

Back 10

• Remember: in the parsimonious realist model, everything is a constant except the number of states and their capabilities; anarchy itself is a constant, because it has been a persistent element of the international system.

Front 11

Christian Reus – Smit
Three levels of constructivism:

Back 11

Structural, Unit level, and Holistic

Front 12

Wendt as a structural constructivist

Back 12

• Wendt as a structural constructivist. To some extent, similar to Waltz, in that he considers the effects of structure on how identities and culture built on top of the anarchic order are built. But isn’t he limited in his scope, by restraining his analysis to structure, in order to approximate the scientific approach of the realists?

Front 13

• Katzenstein

Back 13

• Katzenstein as an example of a unit level constructivist (seminal work of his has focused on explaining the different internal and external national security policies of Germany and Japan, which shared many commonalities in the 20th century. As a unit level constructivist he focuses on how the internal structure, culture and identity formation of states, and how this comes to influence and shape the world order.

Front 14

unit level constructivist

Back 14

• Katzenstein as an example of a unit level constructivist (seminal work of his has focused on explaining the different internal and external national security policies of Germany and Japan, which shared many commonalities in the 20th century. As a unit level constructivist he focuses on how the internal structure, culture and identity formation of states, and how this comes to influence and shape the world order.