Constructivist Approaches to International Politics

1. Constructivist Approaches to International Politics

Alexander Wendt
Peter Katzenstein
Lecture 6
Thursday, 24 February 2011
J A Morrison
1

2. Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism
Compared
V. “Anarchy is what states make of it”
2

3. Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism
Compared
V. “Anarchy is what states make of it”
3

4.

Before we grapple with the
“constructivist” approach to IP, it is
worth noting something distinctive
about the discipline of political science.
4

5.

Different disciplines define and
organize themselves in different ways.
5

6.

Historians define themselves as those
who adhere to a particular
methodology: the construction of
narrative.
6

7.

Their goals may be more or less
ambitious…
As chroniclers, they may simply hope to
document the progression of events and lower
the barriers to understanding that progression.
As social scientists, they may attempt to uncover
causal relationships within their narratives.
7

8.

Within the discipline, they arrange
themselves based on distinctions of
geographic and temporal space…
“I’m a 19th Century Americanist.”
“I study medieval France.”
“I’m a scholar of Imperial Japan.”
And so on.
8

9.

Historians are meant to be competent
to discuss all the big issues within the
context of their chosen time and space.
They are meant to know the state of…
Politics
Society
Gender
Culture
Ethnicity
Science
in their particular historical spot.
9

10.

Economists define themselves
according to a specific approach—a
specific framework and methodology.
10

11.

In general, economists attempt to
explain how individuals maximize their
preferences given environmental
constraints.
11

12.

As Barry Eichengreen (an economist)
put it…
Economists utilize their same “kit of tools to
[explain] everything from dental hygiene to
nuclear war.”
And “[e]conomists are notorious for their
intellectual imperialism,” for their attempts to
export their methodology to other disciplines.
Eichengreen, Barry J. "Dental Hygeine and Nuclear War: How International Relations Looks from Economics." In
Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, edited by P. J. Katzenstein, R. O. Keohane and Stephen D. 12
Krasner, 353-72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. See p 353.

13.

The discipline of political science, by
contrast, is defined rather differently
from the disciplines of history and
economics.
13

14.

Political science is a discipline defined
by its substantive concern—politics—
rather than its approach or
methodology.
14

15.

To be a political scientist, one must
study any of the many facets of
politics…
Political Economy
Political Conflict
Political Organization Political Culture
Political Behavior
Political Process
Political Theory (positive & normative)
(There are more, of course.)
15

16.

In terms of approach, however, political
science is quite pluralistic.
16

17.

These substantive issues of politics are
studied in any number of ways, using…
Game Theory
Historical Narrative
Statistics
Case Studies
Surveys
Interviews
Rational Choice Materialism
Structurationist and Symbolic Interactionist
Sociology
17

18.

Thus, there is no distinctive “political
scientific” approach.
And political scientists generally import
the approaches and methodologies
developed in other fields: statistics,
history, economics, psychology, and
sociology.
18

19.

A critic would say that this makes
political science schizophrenic and
deeply fractured.
But while this diversity does inspire
constant conflict, it also brings the
benefits of intellectual crossfertilization.
19

20.

This way political scientists get a range
of perspectives on a narrow set of what
we think are very important issues.
20

21.

Constructivism, in fact, was the
product of this kind of intellectual
cross-fertilization.
21

22. Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism
Compared
V. “Anarchy is what states make of it”
22

23.

While Waltz, Mearsheimer, Keohane,
Axelrod, Russett, et al, come to
different conclusions about IP, their
approach to studying IP is
essentially the same.
23

24.

They all assume:
(1) Autonomous actors (states,
policymakers) possess exogenously
determined interests.
(2) These actors attempt to maximize their
preferences in a constrained
environment (specifically, an anarchic
environment).
(3) IP is the sum total of actors’ attempts to
maximize their preferences given these
constraints.
24

25.

These theorists all think about
states in the international
system in the same way that
economists think about actors in
markets.
25

26.

They all employ (often explicitly) the
economists’ “rational choice”
approach.
Thus, they are sometimes called
rationalists.
26

27.

These rationalists explain how actors
maximize their goals given various
constraints.
But they pay little attention to the source of
these actors’ goals.
Instead, these preferences are treated as
exogenously determined—as
determined outside the political process.
27

28. Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism
Compared
V. “Anarchy is what states make of it”
28

29.

Constructivists utilize a different
approach and pursue different
questions.
29

30.

Constructivists want to ask: how are
these actors’ all-important
preferences formed in the first
place?
30

31.

These constructivists want to
endogenize several of the
elements that rationalists treat as
exogneously determined.
31

32.

Or, as Katzenstein and Wendt put it…
32

33.

“[T]his book makes problematic the state
interests that predominant explanations of
national security often take for granted.”
(Katzenstein, 1)
“Despite important differences, cognitivists,
poststructuralists, standpoint and postmodern
feminists, rule theorists, and structurationists
share a concern with the basic ‘sociological’
issue bracketed by rationalists-namely, the
issue of identity- and interest-formation..”
(Wendt, 393)
33

34.

How, then, do constructivists study and
understand where identities and
interests come from?
34

35.

While economists may best explain how
actors maximize their preferences,
sociologists have the most to say about
how actors’ preferences develop in the
first place.
35

36.

Constructivists understand identities and
interests to be the product of process rather
than structure…
36

37.

“It is through reciprocal interaction, in other words,
that we create and instantiate the relatively
enduring social structures in terms of which we
define our identities and interests.” (Wendt, 406)
“State interests do not exist to be ‘discovered’ by
self-interested, rational actors. Interests are
constructed through a process of social
interaction.” (Katzenstein, 2)
“State interests and strategies thus are shaped by a
never-ending political process that generates publicly
understood standards for action.” (Katzenstein, 21)
37

38. Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism
Compared
V. “Anarchy is what states make of it”
38

39.

According to constructivists,
constructivism is not a theory or a
“school” of theories.
It is an approach, an understanding
of what there is to study (ontology)
and how to study it (epistemology).

40.

Constructivists also see
“rationalism” as an approach rather
than as an individual theory or
school of theories.

41.

But the two approaches differ
significantly along several
dimensions…
41

42. THE RATIONALIST APPROACH

- The Rationalist Ontology
- The Rationalist Epistemology
- Some Differences between Rationalists

43.

The Rationalist Ontology
Interstate
Interaction
s
States’
Interests
International
Environment
The Building Blocks
The Outcome
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

44.

The Rationalist Ontology
Interstate
Interaction
s
Note that these building
blocks are determined
prior to interstate
interactions. Their values
are exogenous to these
interactions.
States’
Interests
International
Environment
The Building Blocks
The Outcome
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

45. The Rationalist Epistemology

• States are assumed to enjoy
(bounded) rationality
• States attempt to use strategies to
maximize their preferences given
their constraints
• Different theories specify different
values for these building blocks
This epistemology is borrowed from economics.

46.

Here is where some of these
rationalist theories differ from one
another...

47.

Some Differences between Rationalists
Interstate
Interaction
s
Jervis: O/D
Balance
States’
Waltz &
Interests
Mearsheimer:
Disb’n of
Power
Keohane:
Int’l
Regimes
International
Environment
The Building Blocks
The Outcome
Mearsheimer:
Hegemony
Waltz: Balance
of Power
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests
Goldstein:
Incumbent
Ideas

48. THE CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH

- The Constructivist Ontology
- The Constructivist Epistemology
- Some Differences between
Constructivists

49.

The Constructivist Ontology
Interstate
Interaction
s
States’
Interests
International
Environment
The Products of Process
The Determinative Process
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

50.

The Constructivist Ontology
Interstate
Interaction
s
Here, states’ interests,
their environment, and
their strategies are
potentially all constituted
through the process of
interacting with one
another.
States’
International
Interests
Environment
The Products of Process
The Determinative Process
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

51. The Constructivist Epistemology

• Structure (interests, environment, and
strategies) cannot be understood
apart from process (international
interaction)
• States construct these elements
through their interaction
This epistemology is borrowed from sociology.

52.

How do the constructivists differ
between one another?

53.

Constructivists may see process
doing more or less work in
shaping structure.
Here are the two extremes.

54.

Constructivism “Lite”
Constructivis
m attempts to
explain state
interests
States’
Interests
Interstate
Interaction
s
International
Environment
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

55.

Constructivism “Heavy”
Wendt:
Interaction
influences
all of the
component
s
States’
Interests
Interstate
Interaction
s
International
Environment
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

56.

This can be used to organize IP
theories along yet another
dimension, this one based on
approach.
The key issue: to what extent
does structure depend on
process?

57. Approach to IP

Keohane
Axelrod
Mearsheimer
Waltz
Jervis
Goldstein
Rationalism:
Structure
Independent of
Process
Constructivism “Lite”
Wendt
Katzenstein
Constructivism:
Structure
Dependent on
Process

58.

Interstate
Interactions
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests
International
Environment
States’ Interests
No Influence
The key issue: to what extent does
structure depend on process?
Limited Influence
Extensive Influence
Interstate
Interactions
Interstate
Interactions
States’
Interests
International
Environment
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests
States’
Interests
International
Environment
Strategies for
Maximizing
Interests

59. Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism
Compared
V. “Anarchy is what states make of it”
59

60.

Alexander Wendt wants to do more than
simply address the questions neglected
by the rationalists.
He wants to challenge (head-on) the
rationalists’ explanation for the outcomes
they observe.
60

61.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in
his suggestion that “anarchy is what
states make of it.”
61

62.

Rationalists say that, without
me and my sword, there
would be constant violence
and war. So, let’s not go
there.
Yeah. We definitely don’t
want to go there.
62

63.

Well, actually, Mr. Leviathan, Mr. Hobbes, that’s
precisely where I want to go.
63

64.

Wendt contends that the structure of the
international system alone is insufficient to
draw the bleak conclusions the materialists
have drawn about the state of anarchy.
64

65.

“I argue that self-help and power politics do
not follow either logically or causally from
anarchy and that if today we find ourselves in
a self-help world, this is due to process, not
structure. There is no ‘logic’ of anarchy
apart from the practices that create and
instantiate one structure of identities and
interests rather than another; structure has
no existence or causal powers apart from
process. Self-help and power politics are
institutions, not essential features of anarchy.
Anarchy is what states make of it.” (Wendt, 39495)
65

66.

Here’s an example…
66

67.

In the late 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev
deliberately reshaped the rhetoric that had
defined the relationship between the US and
the USSR.
He worked to transform the two states’
identities and interests from being antithetical
to being compatible.
As he later put it, “We wanted a new set of
international relationships that would make it
possible to address global issues [like
identity and globalization].”
67

68.

As Wendt would argue, structural features
like the distribution of power matter less than
how we interpret those circumstances.
After all, is the power going to someone we
consider to be a friend or an enemy?
How do our two states usually resolve our
differences? Via international regimes or
through force?
68

69.

Wendt proposes that actors might
“construct” several different “logics” of
anarchy: Hobbesian, Lockean, and
Kantian.
The mere absence of a sovereign does
not inevitably lead to any of the three.
69

70. To Do…

• Keep thinking about your papers
• Goldstein & Keohane: Develop an Outline of
a Critical Analysis
70