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.