Security: a constructivist point of view

“Constructivism derives its name from the fundamental proposition that political actors construct international political relationships out of their own ideas. Relations between certain countries – and international relations in general – are the way that they are because that is how states and people believe them to be. Ideas matter more than material considerations in the conduct of international relations. These ideas can be of oneself, of a particular “Other,” or of the international state system in general. In the words of leading Constructivist scholar Alexander Wendt, “anarchy is what states make of it.”

Dynamics

“Constructivism can work on two levels. First is the individual, internal state level. Most constructivism looks at the internal characteristics of individual states and societies to determine their interests and likely behavior. All constructivists agree that state interests are problematic – that is, they cannot be taken for granted as in Realism. Constructivism does not say that a state’s interests cannot be the material interests emphasized by Realism – only that they do not have to be. A state’s interests may be derived from some unique set of cultural or other values. There is some overlap between Constructivism and Liberal theories of democratic peace, but Constructivism is the main home for theories that emphasize cultural and other idea-based differences between countries. At this first level of Constructivism, ideas and interests are generated within each state and society.”

Rationality

“A brief discussion of rationality is important to any primer on Constructivism. Rationality is a relative phenomenon in Constructivism. What may seem irrational to Americans may be completely rational to Iranians and vice-versa. It all depends on how states and societies define their ends and apply means to achieve those ends. If culture is the basis of means and ends, then we can expect to see very different ideas of “rationality” around the world. Moreover, there are two kinds of rationality. The rationality to which people most often refer is instrumental rationality. Instrumental rationality emphasizes the logical matching of means and ends and usually assumes material interests ranging from self-preservation to material profit. Such a conception of rationality underpins deterrence theory as well as many other mainstream views on international relations. But the famous German sociologist Max Weber argued for the existence of another kind of rational behavior called “value-rational” behavior. Value-rational behavior is based on values, norms, and ideas. Value-rational behavior may compromise personal material and physical well-being in pursuit of a higher purpose. For example, a protester might march to his own bloody injury or even death at the hands of riot police, yet this can be construed as value-rational insofar as it serves the actor’s interest in dignity or freedom for his people. Viewing affairs from a strictly instrumentally-rational standpoint, such action would simply appear irrational. Value-rationality and instrumental rationality are not mutually exclusive. Value-rational action by an individual could prove instrumentally rational to a group, such as if bloody protests serve as a successful means to overthrow a repressive government. The distinction between the two types of rationality can get a little fuzzy under certain circumstances. In short, though, it is worth keeping in mind different conceptions of rationality when making judgments as to the “rationality” of states, societies, and world leaders.”

Interaction and the Creation of Shared Understanding

“A second level on which Constructivism works is the structural or systemic level (like Neorealism). Alexander Wendt is the leading systemic Constructivist thinker. His seminal work Social Theory of International Politics is a challenge to Realist scholar Kenneth Waltz’s structural Realist work similarly titled Theory of International Politics. Wendt applies Constructivism to the international state system. He argues that states are engaged in social relationships which derive meaning independently of the actual material environment. For example, the United States is involved in very different social relationships with Great Britain and France than with North Korea and Iran. These social relationships make British and French nuclear weapons far less worrisome than Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapons. Pure Realists, of course, would say that the US should react the same way to all of these countries’ nuclear weapons due to the uncertain nature of the international system. According to Wendt, whether states are contentious or cooperative depends on the construction of intersubjective meaning and understanding of the international state system and of each other as individual actors. At this level of Constructivism, ideas and interests are generated by interaction between states and societies.

Intersubjective meaning is a key constructivist concept used by Wendt to explain interaction between states, but its application is far from limited to esoteric discussions of international relations theory. Though intersubjective meaning appears to be an intimidating academic term, its meaning is actually quite simple and intuitive. Intersubjective meaning refers to shared understanding of and belief about meaning, significance, and the nature of things. It can be shared among several actors, but for our purposes is most significant between two sides in a political relationship. Intersubjective meaning between two actors stems from (or in academic terms, is endogenous to) their interaction and relationship. These actors can be states, groups (such as ethnic and national groups), or even individual people. Ideas, identities, and expectations emerge from and are sustained or changed by the construction and re-construction of intersubjective meaning.

Intersubjective meaning and understanding can be stagnant and self-reinforcing rather than evolutionary, however. Myths and narratives of victimization can emerge, especially if an early and/or critical interaction is negative and if additional interactions reinforce a negative impression. At a certain point, objectivity and empathy can be lost in the relationship, and the parties to it may come to define themselves in opposition to each other. Constructivists use this dynamic to explain many ethnic conflicts. Practical circumstances that favor one ethnic group over another, especially circumstances which persist, can lead ethnic groups to develop ideas and narratives of superiority and subordination. Over time, differences that are based on practical questions of politics and economics turn into discourses of “ancient hatreds” rooted in bloodlines, myths, narratives, and traditions.

Actors – be they individuals, groups, or even states – form ideas, identities, and interests through interaction with each other. Repeated interactions can lead to certain beliefs and expectations. These expectations may evolve in innocuous or even positive fashion, or they can get stuck in feedback loops of profoundly negative nature that breed hostility and unfair generalization and strip the participants of their ability to trust and to view the relationship objectively and positively.”

US-Iran Conflict

“In Wendt’s theoretical view, states begin their interactions with a blank slate. Nothing predisposes them to conflict or to cooperation. The early interactions are critical; they can set the relationship and intersubjective meaning construction between two countries on a largely positive or negative course. In the case of US-Iran relations, I argue that the following is a plausible explanation of the countries’ persistent conflict: Intersubjective meaning construction was placed on a profoundly negative trajectory when the current Iranian state known as the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged from the tumult of revolution in 1979. An Iranian narrative of American and Western imperialism and interference – backed by the historical realities of America’s role in the 1953 coup and support for the Shah – helped motivate the creation of a new state whose identity was to be largely based on opposition to America and the West. Meanwhile, a critical moment for the US in its early intersubjective meaning construction with post-revolutionary Iran was the appalling seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and subsequent 444-day hostage crisis. If there was indeed a momentary blank slate between the US and post-revolutionary Iran, this event helped to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran as a radically hostile enemy in American eyes. Relations between the two countries have thus arguably been handicapped over the last three decades by the intersubjective meaning constructed with the bricks and mortar of hostility, trauma, and distrust. In such a Constructivist view, the state of US-Iran relations cannot be blamed on conflicting geopolitical, military, or economic interests. Instead, it is the result of ideas and narratives of grievance and threat developed in each country about the other. These ideas and narratives are in some cases rooted in real historical events that occurred at critical times, but often assume a power and a scale beyond what many outside observers would consider “rational” or objective.”

Rise of China

McDonald (2008, p. 66) said security is a social construction. His statement makes sense when you look at Ferrero’s (n.d.) proposition that political actors construct international political relationships out of their own ideas. He went further to talk about the case of Iran and the US as outlined in the quotations above.

We can use the example of US-China threat to understand constructivism as well. After Deng Xiaoping took over China he initiated the Chinese economic miracle, a major reform which fused elements of capitalism into a traditionally controlled communist economy. The reforms helped China to climb up the ladder of economic success.

As China began to increase its relative power it created a security dilemma according to realists. But for the Constructivists, China was no longer the backward Communist country with a large population but a growing economic powerhouse. Hence, the intersubjective meaning began to change as China became more powerful, economically. China is now seen as a threat to the US, cases of cyber intrusion and the human rights debate have further strengthened the construction of this negative intersubjective meaning.

The US have made China become a threat or in other words a security issue. To counter the created ‘China threat’ they have ventured into employing the geopolitical ‘strategic hedging’ policy to counter the rise of China. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam are all strategic partners in the East and South East Asian region because of their geographical location and their topography. Not forgetting India in South East Asia.

However, China on the other hand does not see itself as a threat to the US or any other state for that matter. Militarily, China is no match to the US when measuring material capabilities. Also China’s foreign policy is based on the principle of ‘peaceful coexistence’ derived from the teachings of Confucius.

References

Ferrero, C. (n.d.). US – Iran Relations. Retrieve October 8, 2015, from http://us-iran-relations.com/wordpress/theory-us-iran-relations/constructivism-us-iran-relations/

McDonald, M. (2008). Liberalisms. In Williams, P. D. (Ed.), Security studies: an introduction (pp. 32-47). London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.