Constructivist Approach to Climate Change Realism has been the prevailing international relations (IR) theory since the Second World War (Sens & Stoett, 2010). Bennett Rambery, George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger, and Samuel Huntington are just some of the prominent realists that swayed U.S. foreign policy during the recent era. However, state-centric realism seems to come short in explaining the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of non-state threats, e.g., al Qaeda, (Snyder, 2004). At the same time, the second and third waves of globalizations shed light on liberalism. The proliferation of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the validity of the democratic
…show more content…
Constructivism, however, takes into account the influence of material power and “the power of knowledge, ideas, culture ideology, and language, that is discourse” (as cited in Hopf, 1998). This distinction is made clear by different theories’ approach to anarchy. Neorealism defines anarchy as the lack of central authority beyond state, and the survival of state depends on self-help (Wendt, 1922). Neoliberalism also accepts the notion of anarchy, but suggests that the key to survival under anarchy is through cooperation (Wendt, 1992). In both theories, anarchy is the material condition that constitutes the world, and states must rely on material power to thrive in this world. Alexander Wendt (1992), in response to neorealism and neoliberalism’s assumption, claims “anarchy is what states make of it”. This differentiates constructivism from the neorealism and neoliberalism because anarchy is not defined. To put this in another way, the meaning of anarchy is intersubjective and the meaning of anarchy can change. The intersubjective nature of constructivism enables a wider range of IR analysis, which is often more difficult under theories with a more fixed …show more content…
Neorealism assumes the state will always make the rational choice to maximize its utility. In neoliberalism, non-state actors such as civil societies and individuals also make rational choices. Both theories borrow ideas from the theory of rationalism (Wendt, 1992). Constructivism, on the other hand, does not make such assumption about rationality. By no means is constructivism suggesting that actors are irrational, but it provides us with two cautionary tales about rationality.
The first cautionary tale has to do with instrumental rationality “that emphasizes the logical matching of means and ends and usually assumes material interests ranging from self-preservation to material profit” (Ferrero, n.d.). Individuals do not always make the rational choice to maximize their utility. Human emotions, desires, and limitation of cognitive abilities are inconsistent with the assumption of maxims of rationality (Quattrone & Tversky, 2004). Constructivism does not deny the existence of rationality in decision making. From times to times, rationality is also assumed in constructivist analysis (Wendt, 1992). However, constructivism does not rely purely on the rational choice theory; other factors such as identities and emotions can also participate in the decision-making process. In other words, constructivism allows for more flexibility in the analysis of
Constructivism, however, takes into account the influence of material power and “the power of knowledge, ideas, culture ideology, and language, that is discourse” (as cited in Hopf, 1998). This distinction is made clear by different theories’ approach to anarchy. Neorealism defines anarchy as the lack of central authority beyond state, and the survival of state depends on self-help (Wendt, 1922). Neoliberalism also accepts the notion of anarchy, but suggests that the key to survival under anarchy is through cooperation (Wendt, 1992). In both theories, anarchy is the material condition that constitutes the world, and states must rely on material power to thrive in this world. Alexander Wendt (1992), in response to neorealism and neoliberalism’s assumption, claims “anarchy is what states make of it”. This differentiates constructivism from the neorealism and neoliberalism because anarchy is not defined. To put this in another way, the meaning of anarchy is intersubjective and the meaning of anarchy can change. The intersubjective nature of constructivism enables a wider range of IR analysis, which is often more difficult under theories with a more fixed …show more content…
Neorealism assumes the state will always make the rational choice to maximize its utility. In neoliberalism, non-state actors such as civil societies and individuals also make rational choices. Both theories borrow ideas from the theory of rationalism (Wendt, 1992). Constructivism, on the other hand, does not make such assumption about rationality. By no means is constructivism suggesting that actors are irrational, but it provides us with two cautionary tales about rationality.
The first cautionary tale has to do with instrumental rationality “that emphasizes the logical matching of means and ends and usually assumes material interests ranging from self-preservation to material profit” (Ferrero, n.d.). Individuals do not always make the rational choice to maximize their utility. Human emotions, desires, and limitation of cognitive abilities are inconsistent with the assumption of maxims of rationality (Quattrone & Tversky, 2004). Constructivism does not deny the existence of rationality in decision making. From times to times, rationality is also assumed in constructivist analysis (Wendt, 1992). However, constructivism does not rely purely on the rational choice theory; other factors such as identities and emotions can also participate in the decision-making process. In other words, constructivism allows for more flexibility in the analysis of