How Compelling is the Social Constructivist Account of Global Politics?

Authors Avatar

How compelling is the Social Constructivist account of Global Politics?

Constructivism breaks the mould with regard to political events in the 20
th century. It acts to prove that political absolutes are far from given, states are not states, anarchy is a human creation, and most interestingly, our interests on an international scale define who we are. Whilst this may seem convincing, the theory runs into serious problems and contradictions when empirical evidence is taken into account, it is compelling, but not definitive and certainly not concrete.

The Constructivist account of global politics can be split into three core elements. The first is an attitude towards the state. Constructivism does not subscribe to a realist doctrine of international anarchy where states are the prime political units. Constructivists decentre the state as the prime agent of International Relations. This stems from their belief that understanding the world of global politics in terms of anarchy creating states and their interests is inadequate. For Constructivists anarchy does not impose limitations on state interactions as it is not a defining feature of international relations. Constructivists maintain that state interaction is the core concept responsible for creating the global society.  Wendt, a key Constructivist thinker argued that whilst the nation state remains the subject of analysis, it is how the nation state interacts with neighbouring states that is fundamental, not its national interests. He argued ‘rationalist claims presuppose a history of interaction in which actors have acquired “selfish” identities and interests. They have no experience upon which to base such a definition of self and other’ (Wendt 1992:401-402). In relation to the Constructivist account, Wendt it postulating that whilst rationalism makes the mistake of creating innate state interests that presuppose history, Constructivism argues that no such interests can exist prior to history. It is the interactions between states that create state interests; they are not ‘pre-programmed’ as such. Many suggest that Wendt is not putting forward a coherent argument in this case.

Linklater argues

“Constructivist thought highlights the importance of agency at the basis of normative international theorising, as the dominance of norms and values would be impossible without the presupposition that states and other actors have the capacity to overcome structural limitations on ethical action” (Linklater 1998:19)

He believes Constructivists are creating this agency with one hand, via the use of concepts such as the Nation State, but taking it away with the other by hollowing state autonomy; creating  an actor who is no longer self interested but created through interaction. Constructivists frequently fall foul of this mistake, beginning with the refutation of a theory, then going on to use the areas of it that suit their argument. It creates an image of an illogical argument grounded on premises that have just been disproved, an incoherent account of global politics leaving the reader confused rather than persuaded.  Wendt of course responded to such criticism by reminding us that “states and their interests are constructed through international interaction” (Wendt 1992: 392) This argument can be followed to suggest that state identities are not fixed as their interactions with other states are changing constantly and it is those interactions, according to Wendt, which give the state an identity, surely that suggests the state identity can change.  Regardless of the logic of this first element of the Constructivist account, to attempt to discredit it is to miss the point. The main success of this element was the foundation it laid for the theories of Constructivism which still exist. Wendt was revolutionary in arguing that state interests are not fixed, he allowed likeminded scholars to explore the possibility that states are not predefined, they define themselves. Wendt “laid the foundations upon which theories of actually existing global civil society were constructed” (Chandler 2005: 28-29)

Join now!

Once this foundation had been laid further developments followed. The end of the Cold War marked a refutation of neo-liberal and neo-realist ideas. Neither theory could adequately predict or explain the events that had led to the end of the war. This reinforced Wendt’s view that the study of state interests could no longer adequately explain international politics.This shift in focus from states to their interactions led to further developments in the Constructivist view of global politics. Scholars began to realise that existing methods of explaining the global model were failing to predict events of the 20th Century. A key event ...

This is a preview of the whole essay