Constructivism

What are the contributions and limitations of a constructivist approach to IR?

The “old guard” of constructivism points back to Foucault in order to criticizes the watering down of constructivism in Wendt’s work. His acceptance of realist and liberal premises is frequent pointed to by his critiques when claiming that Wendt was not able to build a bridge between the two but in fact simply crossed the bridge to the other side. These defend that substantive (rationalist) theories and social (reflectivist) theories simply cannot come together.

Personally I believe he was successful in challenging the basic logical flaw of the traditional theories on what concerns the inherent anarchy of the international system which does not mean that a definite bridge between the two approaches was built. Showing how concepts in IR are social constructs and how state-centrism is historically a self-fulfilling prophecy was indeed achieved but a bridge only becomes a bridge once people start to use it. Constructivism is an expanding school in IR as so its body of work is still rather limited specially if one compares it to the dimension of the traditional schools. Wendt’s new bridge might have caused authors on both camps to re-evaluate their arguments and positioning in the field but it has not gathered the desirable momentum and autonomy. The question if it is viable depends on what Wendt is looking for at the end of the road. An autonomous school or a theoretical impact in the field, if viability implies an autonomous school he has failed, if alternatively viability is measured by impact then his middle ground has been instrumental in terms of stimulating change and debate. His positive take on IR is empowering and logically sound, particularly his take on the possibilities for change and his de-naturalization of self-help (actually an institution dependent on forms of interaction) and of anarchy as an intersubjective construction.

His writings are not yet seen as a school or a sub-school of its own as happened with Hedley Bull’s English school. Wendt remains a non-realist statist that joined the mainstream debate with softened constructivism. His belief in sovereign states as the dominant form of political actors in the international system and his insistence on science as the good criteria for sound scholarly work have ultimately put his bridge under attack from both sides of the camp.

Do you think Wendt’s goals of achieving middle ground between mainstream rational and reflectivist approaches is a viable one?


The “old guard” of constructivism points back to Foucault in order to criticizes the watering down of constructivism in Wendt’s work. His acceptance of realist and liberal premises is frequent pointed to by his critiques when claiming that Wendt was not able to build a bridge between the two but in fact simply crossed the bridge to the other side. These defend that substantive (rationalist) theories and social (reflectivist) theories simply cannot come together.

Personally I believe he was successful in challenging the basic logical flaw of the traditional theories on what concerns the inherent anarchy of the international system which does not mean that a definite bridge between the two approaches was built. Showing how concepts in IR are social constructs and how state-centrism is historically a self-fulfilling prophecy was indeed achieved but a bridge only becomes a bridge once people start to use it. Constructivism is an expanding school in IR as so its body of work is still rather limited specially if one compares it to the dimension of the traditional schools. Wendt’s new bridge might have caused authors on both camps to re-evaluate their arguments and positioning in the field but it has not gathered the desirable momentum and autonomy. The question if it is viable depends on what Wendt is looking for at the end of the road. An autonomous school or a theoretical impact in the field, if viability implies an autonomous school he has failed, if alternatively viability is measured by impact then his middle ground has been instrumental in terms of stimulating change and debate. His positive take on IR is empowering and logically sound, particularly his take on the possibilities for change and his de-naturalization of self-help (actually an institution dependent on forms of interaction) and of anarchy as an intersubjective construction.

His writings are not yet seen as a school or a sub-school of its own as happened with Hedley Bull’s English school. Wendt remains a non-realist statist that joined the mainstream debate with softened constructivism. His belief in sovereign states as the dominant form of political actors in the international system and his insistence on science as the good criteria for sound scholarly work have ultimately put his bridge under attack from both sides of the camp.

How convincing is the argument that “anarchy” is what states make of it?

In general lines Alexander Wendt lacks the parsimony of Neo-Realism but also does not distance itself from the possibility of exercising practical normative theory as is the case with radical post-modernists. Ultimately, Alexander Wendt does not consider behavioural-individualism and cognitive-constructivism as mutually exclusive. Originating from the constructivist school he followed Robert Keohane’s advice calling for constructivists to empirically test out their hypothesis in order to supposedly make their theory more scientifically sound and reliable. The result has been that the nature of interaction among states can be both product of the rational dynamics of a previously constructed system which is not static but can in fact be reviewed and overcome through processes of intersubjective interaction.

Wendt does not shy away from meta-theory, it shares with other positivist schools of Marxism, Neorealism and Neoliberalism the understanding the succession of historical processes as being cumulative and path-dependant. Wendt agrees with Waltz that the nature of the current international relations dynamics is anarchic but that this anarchy is circumstantially constructed. In practical terms, Wendt fundamentally disagrees with the traditional theories in the causes for the current state of international affairs in the relational trend but not in its actual existence. This means that, in theory, he will also propose distinct policy-making and notions about how state relations in international can and should change. Here is where problems can arise, when going about policy-making, being in a suppose middle ground is both a blessing and a curse. How to go on about the practicality of problem-solving on the everyday life of foreign-policy making by simultaneously using two grand schools of IR that are frequently not compatible is the big task ahead.

His argument is excellent in convincing readers that it is not the case that states are what anarchy makes of them. The opposite, however, might not always be true. Not all states have the leverage to define the nature of anarchy as they wish and this anarchy, because it is constantly being disputed, has so far had the tendency to constantly fall back into trap of the old game of power-politics.