00:00:03
hello everyone my name is Sebastian
00:00:05
welcome back to the IR today Channel and
00:00:08
today we're going to be talking about
00:00:10
constructivism and the IR theory of
00:00:12
constructivism and what it is
00:00:16
so constructivism is an IR theory that
00:00:20
is basically concerned with the role of
00:00:21
identities and social practices in the
00:00:23
international system and the term
00:00:26
constructivism was coined by an American
00:00:28
scholar called Nicholas own of in 1989
00:00:31
and so the breakthrough of
00:00:33
constructivism into IR theory is usually
00:00:35
associated with the end of the Cold War
00:00:37
and that is largely because the dominant
00:00:40
paradigms at the time so realism and
00:00:42
liberalism and a lot of people argue
00:00:44
that these are still the dominant
00:00:45
theories today these two theories
00:00:47
couldn't really explain or predict the
00:00:50
end of the Cold War and so
00:00:51
constructivism tried to you know fill
00:00:54
that gap so basically the starting point
00:00:57
for constructivism is that international
00:00:59
politics is a social construct that has
00:01:02
the potential to change so
00:01:04
constructivism the constructivist story
00:01:06
argue that there is nothing sort of
00:01:08
natural or given in social practices
00:01:11
they analyze these social practices by
00:01:14
studying the nature of reality which is
00:01:16
known as ontology and the nature of
00:01:19
knowledge which is known as epistemology
00:01:21
and research language so I think a good
00:01:24
example to sort of think about
00:01:25
constructivism is one that is made by
00:01:27
Nicolas wheeler who is a professor at
00:01:30
Birmingham University and he sort of
00:01:32
argues that we can think about
00:01:33
constructivism as we think about money
00:01:35
and so let's say that money in society
00:01:38
has a certain meaning we ascribe a
00:01:40
certain meaning to it but that meaning
00:01:44
is essentially you know lost or money
00:01:47
essentially loses its significance when
00:01:49
we start prescribing that meaning to it
00:01:51
and so money becomes nothing more than
00:01:53
sort of a piece of paper
00:01:57
so the main tenets of constructivism and
00:02:00
to just sort of like start from
00:02:03
contrasting it to realism and liberalism
00:02:06
is that constructivism does not see
00:02:09
States as rational egoist actors in the
00:02:11
international system and constructivism
00:02:13
doesn't simply reduce States to sort of
00:02:15
the material level the material
00:02:18
interests at state states have it is
00:02:21
however I think at this point important
00:02:23
to say that constructivism nonetheless
00:02:24
just like realism and liberalism and
00:02:26
sees the state as the central act in the
00:02:29
international system at least that's the
00:02:32
case for mainstream constructivism so
00:02:35
constructivism argues that identity
00:02:37
shape how states think about their
00:02:39
interests for constructivist normative
00:02:42
or ideational structures are just as
00:02:44
important if not more important actually
00:02:46
than material structures identities in
00:02:51
the international system matter
00:02:53
according to constructivist because they
00:02:55
give actors interests and those
00:02:58
interests tell us about how actors might
00:03:00
behave or react so in contrast to this
00:03:02
material forces as is emphasized by the
00:03:05
neoliberal and the neo-realist school of
00:03:07
thought these material forces simply do
00:03:10
not tell us anything about States
00:03:12
identities or where States beliefs come
00:03:14
from
00:03:14
so while constructivism accepts the
00:03:19
realist and liberal tenant so that is
00:03:21
really one of the core tenets that the
00:03:23
international system is anarchic in
00:03:25
nature which means that there is no
00:03:27
overarching Authority that sort of
00:03:29
governs the conduct of states and the
00:03:31
conduct between States constructivists
00:03:33
argued that on our key is what states
00:03:35
make of it and this idea was first put
00:03:38
forth by Alexander Wendt who is probably
00:03:41
one of the most prominent constructivist
00:03:43
scholars in IR theory in his seminal
00:03:46
1992 article on our key is what states
00:03:49
make of it and basically what he means
00:03:52
by this is that anarchy can be
00:03:54
interpreted in different ways depending
00:03:56
on the meaning that actors so depending
00:03:58
on the meaning that states ascribe to it
00:04:01
for when the structure of anarchy is not
00:04:04
given but it is constituted through
00:04:06
mutual agreements of norms and rules so
00:04:08
States sort of come to these agreements
00:04:10
between them
00:04:12
so what this means if you put it a
00:04:14
little more simplified is that because
00:04:16
we have come to believe that we live in
00:04:17
an anarchic system we act accordingly
00:04:21
so for constructivists the anarchic
00:04:24
nature of the international system and
00:04:26
the possibility of states to shape that
00:04:28
nature of anarchy means that there can
00:04:31
be essentially two types of
00:04:32
relationships between states the first
00:04:34
type is a relationship of Amity and the
00:04:37
second type is a relationship of enmity
00:04:40
so depending on their relation to one
00:04:43
another this sort of gift states a whole
00:04:45
different range of options for their
00:04:47
interactions and I think a very good
00:04:50
example to sort of think about this is
00:04:52
the Alliance system during World War two
00:04:54
when the US and the Soviet Union had a
00:04:57
common cause working together to defeat
00:04:59
Italy Japan and Germany but as soon as
00:05:02
those powers were defeated they sort of
00:05:04
lost their common ground and their
00:05:06
relationship to another changed to one
00:05:08
another changed from a relationship of
00:05:10
Amity to enmity as we all know which
00:05:16
marked the start of the Cold War then
00:05:21
within constructivism there are
00:05:23
essentially two main branches there is
00:05:26
conventional constructivism and then
00:05:27
there's critical constructivism and I'll
00:05:29
sort of just try to explain these two
00:05:31
separately so um conventional
00:05:35
constructivists basically ask what type
00:05:37
questions so this means that for
00:05:40
instance one such question would be what
00:05:42
causes an actor meaning a state in the
00:05:44
international system to act in a certain
00:05:46
way
00:05:47
conventional constructivists tend to
00:05:49
accept key aspects of neo-realist
00:05:51
thinking such as the centrality of the
00:05:53
state in IR as we've talked about
00:05:55
already conventional constructivists
00:05:58
also assume for example that states in
00:06:01
the international system act according
00:06:03
to the identity and that it is possible
00:06:04
to predict their actions and their
00:06:06
behavior by looking at that identity
00:06:10
also when a States identity change
00:06:13
changes conventional constructivists
00:06:15
investigate what factors cause this
00:06:18
change in identity so then on the other
00:06:21
hand we have critical constructivism and
00:06:23
critical constructivists ask how type
00:06:26
questions such as how do actors come to
00:06:28
believe in a certain identity so
00:06:30
contrary to conventional constructivists
00:06:33
they are not very interested in the
00:06:35
effect that a certain identity has on
00:06:37
States behavior instead they want to
00:06:40
find out what component parts or what
00:06:42
make what are the component parts what
00:06:45
make up a States identity and they
00:06:49
believe that an actor's identity is
00:06:50
creating through written or spoken
00:06:52
communication among and between peoples
00:06:56
so critical constructivists are often
00:06:58
said to be inspired by philosophers like
00:07:01
Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault and
00:07:04
they sort of look at what makes up a
00:07:07
state's identity by questioning language
00:07:10
discourse and the reality of meaning and
00:07:12
just as the last sort of contrasting
00:07:15
point to conventional constructivist
00:07:18
critical constructivists are generally a
00:07:20
lot more cautious about or there are a
00:07:23
lot more cautious with regards to truth
00:07:26
claims and power relations
00:07:30
okay so probably the most as I've said
00:07:34
before probably one of the most
00:07:35
important and prominent scholars in in
00:07:39
constructivism in the constructivist
00:07:41
school of law is Alexander Wendt and he
00:07:46
probably also provides one of the best
00:07:49
examples for how we can think of
00:07:51
constructivism in real life and
00:07:53
day-to-day politics and so basically the
00:07:56
argument that he makes is that you know
00:08:00
500 British nuclear weapons are less
00:08:03
threatening to the US than five North
00:08:06
Korean nuclear weapons and so went
00:08:09
argues that these identifications are
00:08:11
not so much caused by the nuclear
00:08:13
weapons themselves so they are not so
00:08:15
much caused by the material structure
00:08:17
itself but rather by rather by the
00:08:21
meaning that is given to nuclear weapons
00:08:23
so what he means by this is that you
00:08:26
know depending on the relationship that
00:08:28
the US has to either the United Kingdom
00:08:30
which in this case is one of Amity and
00:08:33
then to North Korea which in this case
00:08:34
is one of enmity the United States
00:08:37
reacts differently to material
00:08:41
capabilities of those countries by
00:08:43
assigning a different meaning to it even
00:08:45
if there are vast differences in those
00:08:47
material capabilities so as I've said he
00:08:50
argues that in this scenario Britain
00:08:53
would have 500 nuclear weapons whereas
00:08:55
the North Koreans would only have five
00:08:57
so what the example also shows really
00:09:00
well is that nuclear weapons by
00:09:02
themselves do not have any meaning
00:09:04
unless we understand them in their
00:09:07
social context and unless we ascribe the
00:09:09
meaning to them and again that is
00:09:11
basically what constructivism is all
00:09:12
about it also further demonstrates that
00:09:16
constructivism goes beyond the material
00:09:19
reality by including the effect of ideas
00:09:22
and beliefs on world politics
00:09:27
so why do I think that constructivism
00:09:30
is probably perhaps the most convincing
00:09:33
ir theory out there at least when at
00:09:37
least when comparing it to realism and
00:09:39
liberalism in my opinion and realism
00:09:41
liberalism and constructivism are
00:09:43
generally thought to sort of form the
00:09:45
core basis of ir theory that other
00:09:48
theories then either build upon or
00:09:50
criticize I'm certainly convinced that
00:09:54
you know constructivism is important
00:09:56
because it provides a different lens of
00:09:58
analysis on International Affairs and
00:10:00
the interaction between states that
00:10:02
realism and sim and liberalism simply
00:10:04
cannot provide so I've talked about you
00:10:07
know explaining the end of the Cold War
00:10:09
which constructivism they're much more
00:10:11
convincingly than realism or liberalism
00:10:13
I probably think that you know when you
00:10:17
think about constructivism and when
00:10:19
you're studying constructivism I would
00:10:21
say that the most important key takeaway
00:10:24
about the theory is that it contributes
00:10:26
immensely to understanding of
00:10:28
international relations because
00:10:30
constructivist saw alternative
00:10:31
explanations and insights for events
00:10:34
that are occurring in the social world
00:10:36
so I think it is important to think
00:10:37
about ir3 not just sort of as it being
00:10:40
very abstract which it certainly is but
00:10:43
constructivism tries to you know show
00:10:46
that interaction between states can
00:10:49
actually better be explained by looking
00:10:51
at their social interactions rather than
00:10:53
just looking at it from a very sort of
00:10:54
abstract point of view so constructivism
00:10:59
as we've talked about shows that it is
00:11:02
not only the distribution of material
00:11:03
power wealth and geographical conditions
00:11:07
that can explain state behavior but it
00:11:09
is all but it is also very much about
00:11:11
ideas identities and norms all right
00:11:14
thanks for listening and like subscribe
00:11:16
to I am today
