Griffin Smith
Blog #1
The Merit of Constructivism
With the complex web of
international politics being what it is, it can often seem rational to apply a
black-and white model to a world that instead exists in infinite shades of
gray. This simplistic view is necessary
for making policy, for preserving security, and to save us a terrible headache
whenever we try to make sense of the world we live in. The problem with applying a black-and-white
model to a gray world is not only that it doesn’t fit, but also that two models
are created, each differing from the other almost as black differs from
white. These philosophies – realism and
liberalism – stem from a grounded rational perception, yet explain the
international scene differently to the point where the pure form of each is
virtually irreconcilable with the other.
The purpose of this essay is to show that these simplistic views, on
their own, are flawed and should not be resorted to when explaining international
relations just because they are easy
comprehendible. Alexander Wendt* and his IR* theory of constructivism have
reconciled these two philosophies together in a way that is fairly representative
of the way states seem to function.
Realism and liberalism, while very different, are actually two sides of
the same coin; a coin that is tossed into the air on a regular basis and yields
a seemingly unique outcome every time.
This may be a credible model, seeing as states are numerous and diverse
and therefore are able to play a variety of roles, either by structure or by
stimuli and process as actors and reactors.
And what better way to illustrate this than by examining the most
radical actions states can engage in: Warfare and resulting foreign policy.
In this essay, we’ll examine how different
IR theories come into play in foreign policy and the precedents set by
conflicts. We’ll also examine whether
structure or process plays a bigger role in specific state actions.
To begin, states and the actions of states
can often be explained through multiple IR theories. Whether this is due to the endemic structure
of a state or the lessons and ideologies developed through a process of
international relations can each be argued with an almost equal level of
viability. Take for example Russia. Russia, despite its significant size and
military strength, remains relatively isolationist in today’s world – not
venturing outside of its borders either to “flex its muscles” or assist in
coalition operations abroad. The reasons
for this can be argued. From a realist
perspective, Russia behaves in this manner because it already has sufficient
resources (i.e. Oil), military force, and geopolitical power to make certain
that it will have a good hand when the chips are down. In other words, Russia is a sizable state
with plenty of resources, so why should it pursue either more expansionist or
cooperative foreign policy? The
constructionist school, on the other hand, might argue that Russia behaves in
this manner as a result of process. For
example, the results of the fall of communism and a relative defeat at the end
of the Cold War, military preoccupation with fighting with separatists in
Chechnya, the struggle of enforcing law and unity across a fragmented and
diverse physical space, embittered and tedious relations with the West, and
lack of a more liberal drive to “make the world better” could all be viable
explanations for Russia’s foreign policy.
So as we can see, realism and liberalism can often be used to explain
the same thing, which is why constructivism is such a practical IR theory.
Another instance where constructivism
shines through is in foreign policy precedents.
Take for example the current debate over whether the United States
should intervene in Syria. From a
realist perspective, this debate is, or at least should be, centered on what
the U.S. stands to gain from potentially involving itself in the conflict,
whether it is resources or influence.
But if we look more closely, we find that realist theory fails to cut to
the heart of the issue to expose the myriad of factors that come into play in
this debate. This is where
constructivism shows its practicality - ultimately, process comes into play
more than structure. The U.S. is still
engaged in a war in Afghanistan and only recently withdrew from a lengthy
conflict in Iraq; a war which resulted in heavy loss of life and cost the U.S.
dearly both monetarily and in public image.
The reasons for why the conflict was initiated are still being debated,
as is whether or not the war brought about any positive outcome. The results of these conflicts form a
precedent, which is imprinted in public opinion and policymaking institutions. So the reasons for the debate are not only
focused on realist gains, but also on the possibility of soiling U.S.
international image, loss of U.S. troops, and the dangerous side effects of
creating a power vacuum (especially in a region plagued by radical Islam), all countered
against the “moral” duty to intervene to stop civilian casualties and chemical
warfare. Ultimately, the decision will
be a result of weighing realistic possible outcomes against liberal ideals.
In conclusion, the actions of a state are
determined by its structures, needs, and internalized identity and moral code;
or in the lack thereof, the actions of other states. Therefore, each IR theory is validated in its
own way – what model(s) is/are relevant depend on the characteristics and
relations of a state or group of states.
*IR – International
Relations
*Citation: Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What
States Make of It: The Social Construction
of Power Politics.” International Organization 46, no. 2
(Spring 1992): p. 391–425.
