Analysing Constructivism In International Relations Theory Politics Essay

Analysing Constructivism In International Relations Theory Politics Essay With its opposite position to mainstream International Relations (IR) theorists’, rationalist or positivist (neo-realism and neo-liberalism), explanations to international politics, constructivism could be perceived as the development of group of critical theories that contested the way in which IR should search for knowledge in 1980s, the period Yosuf Lapid (1989) describes as â€Å"the Third Debate†. Although scholars who subsume to constructivist idea acknowledged this point, they argue that constructivist ideas toward IR are not exactly the same with its predecessor. The like such as Ted Hof (1998) and Christian Reus-Smit (2001) point out that constructivism is focus on the way in decoding the international social phenomenon through empirical analysis as well as normative approach. It also emphasize on the role of identity in determining agent’s behaviour and the mutually constituted between agents and structures. These concepts are not fit in to the mindset of critical theories, which tend to employ different aspects of social exchanges as a unit of study in trying to understand the nature of international politics. Having asserted that constructivism is neither rationalism nor critical theories, this essay aims to explore the uniqueness of the particular theory and its prominence in IR in the globalization stage, where the explanatory power of, the dominant, realism seems to be less tenable. This essay is divided into three parts: firstly, exploring premised concept of constructivism; secondly, giving empirical observation regarding the North-South relations through constructivist view; lastly, wrap up the study and assess the promise of the theory as one of the key approaches in the field of IR. What is constructivism? The rise of constructivism after the end of the Cold War not only contest the limited account of rationalism, both neo-realism and neo-liberalism, in explaining the changing order in global politics but also, at the s ame time, put forward critical theories beyond its territory by subsuming to the normative and empirical analysis. Rationalists, both neo-realists and neo-liberalists, share the same premise toward the structure of IR and how states response to it. As a result of Lakotos’ theory construction model and microeconomic theory, they have a common view that states are self-interested and rational agent within the anarchic international system, states perceive IR as a venue for maximizing their interests, thus, the way states act is subject to the power they get from the distribution of material power within the system, this also lead to hierarchy in IR (Reus-Smit, 2001). On the other hand, critical theories which might not pay much attention on the structure of IR, they are more interested in meta-theoretical debate which rationalism. They oppose the epistemology and ontology that are postulated by rationalism, which lead to their rejection of using normative or universalist approa ch in studying the discipline. This part of essay is going to differentiate premise ideas of constructivism with the other two branches of thought. Ted Hof (1998) highlights that the key premised concept of constructivism is an intersubjective set of meanings, a shared meaning in a society, which can be in a form of social norms or social practices. According to Hof (ibid), intersubjective set of meanings plays a vital role in formulating, another important focus of constructivism, state’s identity. Social norms are the foundations that influence state’s behaviour and that behaviour creates interactions with others who, through the reproduction process, will recognize this behaviour as state’s identity. Whereas realism emphasizes on distribution of material capabilities in the anarchic system of IR, constructivism views that normative structures are of importance as well as material capabilities. As having asserted by Reus-Smit (2001), normative structures are t he thought to shape the social identity of political actor. The norms that determine actors’ identity can go in parallel between International practices and internal elements. Having focused on how normative structures shape actor’s identity, constructivism provides an account for the development of interests as well as actor’s perception toward others. According to Alexander Wendt, the prominent constructivist scholar, â€Å"identity is the basis of interests† (1992: quoted in Reus-Smit, ibid), constructivist scholars hold that by having examined the connection between identity and interests, it is possible to provide room for understanding why each actor sometimes views the same situation differently.