Advanced International Relations Theory - 1 st Review Assignment

Name : Andhyta Firselly UtamiDepartment /NPM : International Relations / 0906550373Resource : Fierke, K. M., “Constructivism” in Dunne, Kurke, and Smith,

International Relations Theories, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 178-195

Constructivism: Challenging Challenges of International Relations

For decades, traditional scholars of international relations are gratified to have championed theories

and concepts explaining states’ behavior which used to remain as unanswered questions. As the Berlin Wall fell

and Cold War ended, however, there are tremendous changes in the shape of world’s structure. Security and

economic issues are now challenged by value-saturated, non-conventional problems such as human rights and

the role of civil society in forming a country’s policy. This phenomenon oppugns prevailing approaches (i.e.

rationalism, post-structuralism) and raises new inquiries. How would international relations scholars explicate

transnational and social dimension of the science? More importantly, is objective reality socially constructed?

Fierke in his work “Constructivism” tries to elucidate the emergence of constructivists, the grand

picture of constructivism shaped by debates within IR, as well as War on Terror as its study case. This article is

going to review his work, portray several comparisons of understanding with Emanuel Adler’s “Seizing the

Middle Ground”, and in the end root it back to Alexander Wendt’s ideals in “Anarchy Is What States Make of

It”. Broadly defined, according to Fierke, constructivists shared a critique on static material assumption of

traditional theories and emphasize the possibility of change.

Fierke commenced his assessment on constructivism by bringing forward the idea that international

relations is a social construction, under three themes: (1) it is across context rather than a single objective reality,

(2) norms, rules, and language become very important as the emphasize goes to its social dimension, and (3)

international politics is a world of our making.1 Under these conditions, the possibility of agency with highlight

on processes of interactions is introduced. Thus, constructivism is mainly a critique to rationalism, although it

does not involve a wholesale rejection to the scientific method and rather argues towards the nature of being,

structures-agents relationship, constitution of material world, as well as the role of cognition as its central points.

In this sense, the individualist ontology of rationalism is questioned and thoughts for social ontology

are presented. As fundamentally social beings, individuals or states cannot be separated from normative

meaning which shapes their identity and thus options available for them. Structures, which in rationalism are

seen as function for competition of power distribution, constrain and constitute the characteristics of actors. This

leaves more space for agency, in terms of how states and environment influence each other. Rather than limited,

choices in constructivism are said to be mutually constituted. Constructivists also see that material objects and

institutions are but a product of social facts. Lastly, they suggest that intersubjective understanding or reasoning

is not merely aggregation of individual beliefs but has independent status as collective knowledge.

1Fierke, K. M., “Constructivism” in Dunne, Kurke, and Smith, International Relations Theories, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), page 180

In the next section Fierke tries to depict the position of constructivism in the science of international

relations. He comes to a conclusion that, instead of placing it equivalent to poststructuralism as an opponent of

rationalism, constructivism should be located as the middle ground between both. Although it confronts

ontological assumptions of rationalism, constructivism does not defy any epistemological views in positivism

(i.e. hypothesis testing, causality, and explanation). Constructivists are interested in providing a better

explanation, rather than emancipation per se.2 This, however, does not guarantee that there is a unified

consensus as today’s constructivists are developed into conventional and critical ones. The subsequent inquiry

would be constructivism’s status. Distinct scholars argue differently that it should be accepted as either a way of

study, theory, or approach. Marrying constructivist ontology with positivist epistemology is as inconsistent as

building a constructivist theory on it. Therefore, the most common way to designate constructivism is to accept

it as a middle-ground approach which was introduced by Emanuel Adler in a friendlier manner.

Emanuel Adler’s piece on ‘constructivism in world politics’ injects an acceptably fresh point of view

on how international relations science should place and see constructivism. According to him, a great deal

arguing that international reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures has been written. However, inter

alia, most of the epistemological, theoretical, empirical, as well as methodological foundations of the approach

remain unclear. Its aim for bigger contribution to establish a better understanding of the science is also not

widely appreciated. This is because constructivism opens areas for empirical investigation which did not exist

for realists, overlooked by liberals, and unimportant to psychological approaches. In that article, he concludes

that constructivism may hold the key for developing dynamic theories about the transformation of international

actors, institutionalized patterns, system of governance, as well as new political identities and interests. 3 The last

two famous ‘i’s, identity and interest, are given exogenously by structure and process is reduced to interactions

between those parameters.

This theme and spirit is similar to one that was brought by Fierke. As non-traditional scholars, both

Fierke and Adler try to help their broader audience to really comprehend what this approach aspires for. While

the latter convinces that it is imperative to attempt ‘to pull together the pieces and provide synthetic explanation

of the constructivist approach’, the first answers it by relating the problem to United States-led War on Terror.

Through such case study, he affirms that the attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September

2001 and War on Terror policy have called the ‘timeless’ realist assumption into question. For example on how

realism has a little say on ‘terrorists’ as non-state actors. Constructivism would, instead, be able to explore how

identities, actions, and human suffering of those terrorists are constructed through a process of interaction.4 As a

result, he says, War on Terror has produced a multidimensional reality which composes of meanings that the

two actors brought to their encounters. Constructivists’ perception on how language creates certain

comprehension and causing is direly important also becomes certain impacts in analyzing the situation.

2 Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground” in European Journal of International Relations, (London: Sage Publication, 1997; 3), accessed from http://ejt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/319 on February 8th, 2011, page 303 Ibid., page 314 Op Cit., K.M. Fierke, page 190

Another way to distinguish rationalism and constructivist could be seen from theories that each covers.

Political realist and liberal theories, as well as most Marxist theories, are generally understood as rationalist,

while reflectivist, interpretivist, postmodern and poststructural theories are usually regarded as constructivist.5

At the same time, there are particular scholars who believe that constructivism is a midpoint between political

realism and liberal institutionalism.6

Alexander Wendt, in his incredibly famous work “Anarchy Is What States Make of It” upholds the

idea that the basic ground of all international relations theories is the relationship between actors, process, and

structure.7 Consequently, debates between realists and liberals arise on the fundamental motion of whether

actions of a state are mostly influenced by either one of them. Wendt’s assessment goes back to the profound

debates and need to justify international relations theories. Social dimension still stands as the core for any

international relations theorizing and states decide what anarchy will be like, either conflictual or cooperative,

depending on their identity and interest.

Apparently, this notion leads to another perception on the basis for systemic theories of world politics

which was one of Wendt’s focuses in his writing. First, the level of importance of interaction among states for

the constitution of their identities and interests might be slightly different, considering the existence of domestic

as well as genetic factors. Second, the possibility of change would also impact and shape these theories. The

writer believes that this ground idea plays and becomes the backbone of all discourses upon constructivism. In

fact, Fierke’s ‘classic constructivists’ title shall be rooted to Alexander Wendt himself.

Building on Wendt’s concept, we may conclude that there are three bases for constructivism which are

social knowledge, social practice, as well as social identities and interests. First, “people act toward objects,

including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them. Second, “the meanings in

terms of which action is organized arise out of interaction”. Third, “identities (and interests) are produced in and

through ‘situated activity’.

The writer believes that all uncertainties regarding the significance of each of these pillars of

understanding as well as the scoop in which more inquiries are addressed might depend on how interaction are

conducted by international relations actors themselves. Wendt’s concept bridges the assumption of neorealist

(logic of anarchy is structural and leads to conflict) to that of neoliberalist (logic of anarchy is a process that can

lead to cooperation) by proposing the idea that ‘there is no logic to anarchy’. Cynthia Weber, for instance, calls

‘anarchy is the permissive cause of war’ as a myth because the anarchy is neither necessarily conflictual nor

cooperative for there is no ‘nature’ to international anarchy.8 Hence, constructivism argues that identities and

interests in international politics are not stable—they have no pre-given nature.

5 Fred Chernoff, The Power of International Relations Theory: Reforging The Link to Foreign-policy Making Through Scientific Enquiry, (London: Routledge, 2005), page 206 Ibid.7 Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” in International Organization, 8 Cythia Weber, International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed., (New York: Routledge, 2005), page 60

In the end, Fierke, Adler and Wendt seem to agree that all theories of international relations should be

based on social science principles which don’t determine the content of our international theorizing yet structure

the questions we ask about world politics and the approach of answering them. Thenceforth, constructivism is a

middle-ground approach that accepts and embraces this notion by resting international relations science’s point

of view back to its nature under the realm of social science. Constructivism acknowledges the likelihood of

change, appreciates identity and interests, and it stands as an essential critique to traditional theories. Although

Fierke argues that constructivism is, to some extent, inconsistent in their reasoning, we may say that it managed

to properly respond and retort most puzzles and challenges of contemporary international relations.