Wiener Constructivisst Approaches to IR.pdf

Constitutionalism Webpapers, ConWEB No 5/2006

Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and

Promises

Antje Wiener 1

Queen’s University Belfast

a.wiener@qub.ac.uk

To be published in Italian in Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica / Review of Italian

Political Science 2007, 1 (in press).

Abstract:

By raising the question of what made constructivism possible the paper discusses the puzzle and

promises of constructivist scholarschip in IR. It is argued that the communicative style which

coined constructivism as a movement provides the key. Two puzzles are the focus, first, a lack

of epistemological overlap, secondly, a disciplinary culture of consecutive debates which

reached their high point of non-communication with the so-called Third Debate. However,

while the constructivist movement gathered influence as a reference frame in the late 1990s, it is

neither genuine to international relations theory nor does it originate in the 1990s. Why and how

did constructivism manage to bring such a diverse group of scholars to one table? Section 2 of

the paper develops the argument and introduces the concept of framing to understand the puzzle

of conversation in IR. Section 3 recalls the emergence of constructivism, identifies the

theoretical discussions and the significant conceptual moves. Section 4 summarizes the value-

added and flags ‘norms’ research as the core of constructivist political science.

Keywords: Constructivism, Norms, Theory, International Relations, Political Science

1 Professor of International Relations, School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s

University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN; from 1 March 2007, Professor of Politics, University of Bath.

This paper was first prepared for presentation at the annual convention of the International Studies Association ,

Chicago, 20-25 February 2001. Earlier versions have been discussed at a roundtable discussion on

Constructivism and Its Critics (with Michael Barnett and Mark Pollack) in the Department of Political Science,

University of Wisconsin at Madison, 25 April 2000, the colloquium European Integration/European Studies at

the Institute of Political Science, University of Hanover, Germany, 20 June 2000, the Colloquium Institutions

and Social Change , Department of Governance, University of Erfurt, 17 January 2001, and the European

Integration/International Relations Colloquium at the Institute of European Studies, Queen's University of

Belfast. I would like to thank the respective participants for their comments on earlier versions. The

responsibility of this version is mine.

ConWEB No. 5/2006

Antje Wiener

1 Introduction: Communication Out of a Paradigmatic Battle Field

The academic context of International Relations theory (IR) is usually framed as a history of

consecutive debates, beginning with the first debate between idealists and realists, proceeding

with the second debate between historicists and scienticists and reaching a high point of

controversy with the infamous “Third Debate” between positivists and post-positivists. 2 It has

been observed that it was the fourth debate, namely the exchange between rationalist and

constructivists (see Table 1 ), which resembled an actual conversation among different

theoretical positions in the discipline for the very first time. What had been perceived as debates

had, in fact, little in common with the practice of discursive interaction or even deliberation

with a view to be persuaded by the better argument of the conversation partner at any time

throughout the first debates. In short, when paradigmatic competition was the issue, the

discipline appeared more like an academic battlefield where participants took no prisoners.

Table 1: Framing Debates

Time

1920s -

1930s

1950s - 1960s

1980s

1990s

Frames

First Debate

Second Debate

Third Debate

Fourth Debate

Paradigms

Idealism vs.

Realism

Scientific

Behaviourism

vs.

Traditionalism

Post-Positivists vs.

Positivists

Constructivists vs.

Rationalists vs.

Reflectivists

Communication

unilateral

bilateral

Multilateral

Focus

Institutions

vs. Interests

Science vs.

History

Epistemology:

Positivism vs.

Post-

positivism/Critical

Theory

Ontology:

social vs.

material capabilities

Innovation

State system

vs. Society of

states

Behavioural

explanation

Explanation vs.

Understanding

Causal vs.

Constitutive

Explanation and/or

Understanding

What is surprising is that the fourth debate could emerge from its battle-ridden disciplinary

context, which was best known to students of the 1990s as a sequence of “interparadigm

battles” (Lapid 1989). After all, third debaters kept with the practice of binary positioning as the

dominant disciplinary practice in the 1980s. This style reflected the either/or-logic of cold war

politics, and the central structuring element of modern philosophy, which has been long

2 See most explicitly Waever's observation of a 'state of war' (1997, 22), see also Lapid (1989), Whitworth

(1989).

- 2 -

ConWEB No. 5/2006

Antje Wiener

criticised by feminist scholarship. 3 In the 1990s, however, constructivism was able to break

with the traditional battlefield behaviour. Indeed, constructivism turned into a buzzword in

international relations and European integration theorising, so much so, that the notion of a

“constructivist turn” (Checkel 1998) became widely accepted in the community. Constructivists

were found to be “seizing the middle ground” (Adler 1997) and aspired to construct a

compromise based on a “via media through the Third Debate” (Wendt 1999, 39-40). In short,

the constructivist move contributed to “establishing the middle-ground” (Christiansen et al.

1999, 535-537, 542-544) between the mutually exclusive paradigmatic positions of the so-

labelled rationalists and reflectivists, by taking a third position above a base-line of a binary

relationship between positivism and postmodernism allowed for a web of communications to

emerge (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1: Core Theoretical Positions

Constructivism

‘Rationalism’

‘Reflectivism’

Source: Christiansen, Jørgensen and Wiener, 1999: 532 4

The metatheoretical move of taking a third position while focusing on middle-range theorising,

i.e. discussing the ontologies (identity, norms, ideas, discursive practices) created an opening

for ‘friendly’ debates (Risse and Wiener 1999) which moved IR theory forward from the grid-

lock of binary positioning. In the wake of this move, the popularity of constructivism as a label

for a strong movement in international relations theory and theories of European integration still

3 See e.g. List and Studer (1989) the work of Judith Butler, Susan Hekman, Carol Pateman and many others, as

well as in IR for example the work of Sandra Whitworth, Spike Peterson and Cyntha Weber, respectively.

4 Note that this figure’s baseline displays the binary approach to IR theorising as it has been constructed by

rationalists. The opposition between ‘rationalists’ and ‘reflectivists’ was a construction of Robert Keohane

(1988).

- 3 -

ConWEB No. 5/2006

Antje Wiener

stands strong two decades after the first constructivist moves in the 1980s. 5 In the process,

empirical research has produced detailed and comparative case studies, for example, on the

impact of norms such as human rights, minority rights, citizenship rights or environmental

standards; on changing strategic positions in global politics and games international actors play:

on the role of socialisation in international organisations; on the diffusion of specific

administrative cultures; and on the influence of different rationales on compliance with global

norms, principles and procedures identified by international law.

Two Puzzles

In recalling the movement’s emergence, substance and the challenges lying ahead, this article

raises the question of what made the constructivist movement possible. In the following, I argue

that much of its popularity is due to the communicative style, which coined constructivism as a

movement. Does it, however, offer potential beyond its capacity to raise stimulating research

questions? Why did interest in constructivism increase in the 1990s and how was it possible for

constructivism to bring together scholars from such a broad range of intellectual backgrounds?

The use of constructivist language by a set of scholars from backgrounds or bases as diverse as

neofunctionalism, the English School, the Frankfurt School, the Copenhagen School or the

Stanford School is puzzling on two grounds (Moravcsik 1999, Haas 2001, Dunne 1995, Risse

2000, Finnemore 1996, Long 1995). First, the research tools and conceptual assumptions of the

scholars affiliated with the various approaches differ to the point of being mutually exclusive.

Secondly, the discipline of international relations has been characterised by a culture of

consecutive debates, which reached their high point of non-communication, disinterest and

misunderstanding with the third debate. Why and how did constructivism, then, manage to

bring these scholars to sit at one table? 6 To answer this question, I examine constructivism as a

movement in the subdiscipline of international relations. This movement gathered influence as a

shared frame of reference in the late 1990s (Checkel 1998), yet it is neither genuine to

international relations theory nor does it originate in the 1990s. 7

To understand how the movements’ emergence from within the context of international

5 Note that while appreciating Onuf’s ‘World of our Making’ (1989) as one of the founding constructivist works

in IR, this article emphasises the role Kratochwil’s (1984, 1989, Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986) and Wendt’s early

work (1987) especially the proposition to incorporate the Giddensian approach to ‘structuration’ into IR theory

as a key step into the constructivist direction, played in moving away from the polarity of the Third Debate.

6 See Gabriel Almond's argument for the opposite move, for example, to describe the situation in political

science in the 1980s (Almond 1996).

7 See for example the works of Simmel, Luhmann, Luckman and Berger and others.

- 4 -

ConWEB No. 5/2006

Antje Wiener

relations theory was possible, I recall the theoretical questions raised by two major

constructivist moves – one epistemological the other ontological – and identify the contents of

the emerging tool-kit. The article proceeds in three further sections. Section 2 develops the

argument and introduces the concept of framing from proposed by the resource mobilisation

approach in social movement theories to understand the puzzle of conversation in IR. Section 3

recalls the emergence of constructivism with the debating culture, identifies the theoretical

discussions which established constructivism as a frame facilitating communication and the

significant conceptual moves which allowed for the inclusion of ‘the social’ into political

science. Section 4 summarizes the value-added and flags ‘norms’ research as the core of

constructivist political science and the sign-post concept of its limited bridge-building

capacities.

2 Interaction on the Middle Ground

Constructivists focus on middle-range theorizing and include the role of social factors in world

politics. They usually produce more agreement with regard to ontological issues such as the

general assumption of the social construction of things than with regard to the epistemological

basis of the respective research question which needs to be asked (Fierke 2006).

Constructivism's quality of facilitating theoretically informed deliberation among scholars has

been characterized as “an attempt [...] to build a bridge between the widely separated

positivist/materialist and idealist/interpretive philosophies of social science”. (Adler 1997, 323;

Checkel 2000; emphasis added AW) It has led to enhanced theorizing of the middle ground

even though bridge building is not generally welcomed. 8 Despite reservations expressed

towards the concept of ‘friendly debates’ and the call to evoke the tradition of ‘fault-line

politics’ in IR instead, 9 the recurring reference to bridge building has been a marker of the

movement (Zuern and Checkel 2005). It has become a key property of constructivism; yet, it

may also turn into the prime obstacle to reaching new theoretical high ground. The primary

interest of the following sections lies in exploring the role of constructivism as a movement

within a particular context and as voicing a particular message. The focus is therefore on

8 This is most explicitly expressed by Risse (2000) who summarises extensive debates among rationalist and

constructivist institutionalist discussions in the German Journal of International Relations.

9 A number of scholars have suggested, for example, a classification of constructivist approaches according to

their subscription to positivist assumptions, identifying them as 'modern' constructivists and, in the process

evoking the camp mentality of the arguable helpful debating culture in international relations theories (IR), see

e.g. Katzenstein, Keohane and Krasner 1998; Waever 1997, 24; Smith 1999, and the critical response to Smith

1999 and Moravcsik 1999 by Risse and Wiener 1999.

- 5 -

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: