Understanding Constructivism

International relations is all about theories. The different theories help us to explain or understand how states and non-state actors behave or interact. It is important that we ground ourselves with knowledge about the theories to help us become better policy makers with the hope of fulfilling the Vision 2050 strategic plan.

The theory of Constructivism according to Griffiths, Roach and Solomon (2009) focuses on the social interaction of agents and actors in world politics. They said, state interaction reflects a learning process in which action shapes, and is shaped by, identities, interest and values over time.

Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (2008) defines constructivism as a distinct approach to international relations that emphases the social, or intersubjective, dimensions of world politics. State interaction is understood as a pattern of action that shapes or is shaped by identities over time.

In comparison, Goldstein (2005) defines constructivism as a movement in international relations theory that examines how changing international norms help shape the content of state interests and the character of international institutions. Also, he states that norms are the shared expectations about what behaviour is considered proper.

Constructivists used their understanding of human interaction to theorize how states behave or interact in the international system. Especially, the European social theory or ‘sociology of knowledge’ developed by German sociologist Karl Mannheim according to Lawson (2012) in the initial stages. Later, in the postwar period, Lawson (ibid) said they used the work of Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966). Their work based on the notion of the ‘social construction of reality’ helped to explain how and why social institutions emerged and are consolidated over time through a process of habitualization. Lawson (2012) further states that, the process constructs a reality which successive generations tend to accept as a fixed, even natural, background condition of their own lives.

Our interaction with others in the classroom is shaped by core values that we learn at home from our parents, siblings and kinsmen or women. We respect our peers verbally and behaviorally because the knowledge of this core value was shared by our parents. Our parents gained this knowledge from their parents and the learning pattern goes back generations. This core value shapes our identity and interest as individuals.

Griffiths, Roach and Solomon (2009) go on to say that social constructivism explores the constructive and regulative influence of international norms. In other words, they say that state identity and interests are linked to fundamental institutional structures.

In addition, Griffiths, Roach and Solomon (ibid.) explain that regulative norms set basic rules for standards of conduct by prescribing or proscribing certain behaviours. The norm of ‘killing diplomats is not right’ is regulative in nature. It has led to the creation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an international law that regulates how all states in the international system manage their diplomatic relations.

Going back to our analogy, our parents are part of a very important social institution called family. In the family institution, we have rules and norms that form the basis of the institutional structure. The rule of ‘do not steal from your parents’ embodies the regulative norm that ‘stealing is not right’.

Griffiths, Roach and Solomon (ibid.) explain that constitutive norms define a behaviour and assign meanings to that behaviour. Constructivists use the chess analogy to help us understand that constitutive norms, which are the rules of the game, enable the actors to play the game and provide the actors with the knowledge necessary to respond to each other’s moves in a meaningful way.

Lawson (2012) talks about the work of constructivist Nichloas Onuf (1989). Onuf discusses the extent to which individuals and society continually construct each other through the activity of rule-making. He says that rules embody certain norms and arise from agreements reached between people who are in a position to make binding agreements.

Most importantly, as citied by Lawson (2012), Onuf highlights that the sovereign state and the state system is a product of rule-making which has been ongoing for centuries. “The institutions and the norms underpinning this system have spread throughout the world, enveloping virtually all political actors within the same set of rules and norms. Thus the world as we know it did not emerge, and does not continue to exist, independently of human action and interaction. Because it is a product of human agency it can, in principle, be changed by human agency, although it is not easy to do so.” (p. 50)

To conclude, Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (2008: p. 53) state that constructivism is a difficult theory to employ. It does not predict any social structure to govern the behaviour of states. It requires that a given social relationship be studied, articulated and understood. When this is done, then it maybe possible to predict state behaviour within that particular structure.

References

Goldstein, J. (2005). International relations (6^th ed.). Beijing: Peking University Press.

Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. C. (2008). International relations the key concepts (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, M., Roach, S. C., & Solomon, M. S. (2009). Fifty key thinkers in international relations (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Lawson, S. (2012). International relations (2^nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.