An evaluation of constructivism as an approach to international relations theory

Résumé du document

Before the 1980s, the focus of the international scholarship relations was on two main debates: on the one hand, opposing the neo-realists to the neo-liberal institutionalists; and on the other rationalism to critical theory. Whereas the former is a debate in which the two mainstream theories, both described as rationalist, accept common assumptions (among which the logic of anarchy and the self-interest of the states, principal actors of international relations); the latter involves the challenging of the critical theory of the core epistemological and ontological beliefs of rationalism. However, in the incidents of that decade, these debates, especially the first one, seems to be languish. It is in that period that a certain number of researchers appeared, describing themselves as belonging to a "constructivist" approach to international relations. This approach is derived from other forms of social sciences, including philosophy, anthropology, sociology and history, which explain the multiplicity of its influences, and the different degrees of assimilation of other sciences.

Extraits

[...] The second question that confirms the importance of constructivism is the one of the distinction between an international or a world society. Here, constructivism operates as a reconciliation of the two views, arguing that the international society is indeed constructed by the actors which evolve within the world society. And finally, the third actuality issue at stake here is the one regarding the role of culture, central to the study of identities and interests, bracketed by a great number of theories and nevertheless appearing as essential in today's world politics. [...]

[...] 315- 348, p Maja Zehfuss, “Constructivism and identity: a dangerous liaison”, European Journal of International Relations (2001), vol pp. 315- 348, p Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of international relations”, International Organization (1992), vol.46, p Ronen Palan, world of their making: an evaluation of the constructivist critique in international relations”, Review of International Studies (2000) pp. 575-598, p Maja Zehfuss, “Constructivism and identity: a dangerous liaison”, European Journal of International Relations (2001), vol pp. 315- 348, p Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations. [...]

[...] There is therefore a mutual constitution of agency and structure, and in that sense, there is a clear inspiration on Anthony Giddens[27]. Here, it is necessary to point out the fact that structures are not only material, as the ones conceived by rationalist theories, but also ideational, or normative[28]. What it is referred to is composed by shared ideas or values with structural characteristics. These structures are the ones shaping the identities of the actors and giving meaning to material structures. [...]

[...] And finally, the third explanation given by Checkel is the fact that Wendt explicitly removed the study of agency from his research programme, and his influence might have caused the negligence of the agents. The weaknesses of constructivism In addition to the research agenda that we have described above, constructivism has some weaknesses that can compromise its evaluation as an approach to international relations theory. Indeed, the first of them concerns the divisions within the school of thought, which could as well be strength or a burden. As early as in the 1990s, constructivism was already divided. At that time, we can already identify three different forms of constructivism[46]. [...]

[...] Checkel, constructivist turn in international relations theory”, World Politics (1998), vol pp. 324-348, p Jeffrey T. Checkel, constructivist turn in international relations theory”, World Politics (1998), vol pp. 324-348, p Audie Klotz, Cecelia Lynch, constructivisme dans la théorie des relations internationals”, Critique Internationale (1999), p Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations. The politics of reality, Cambridge university press p Jeffrey T. Checkel, constructivist turn in international relations theory”, World Politics (1998), vol pp. 324-348, p Jeffrey T. Checkel, constructivist turn in international relations theory”, World Politics (1998), vol pp. [...]