Introduction
This essay explores the assertion that contemporary international relations (IR) do not adhere to a single dominant perspective but rather reflect a constructed reality shaped by social interactions, with a specific focus on the constructivist approach. IR as a field has evolved beyond the rigid frameworks of realism and liberalism, incorporating diverse theories that challenge the notion of a singular, objective truth. Constructivism, in particular, posits that the international system is not a fixed entity but a product of shared ideas, norms, and identities. This essay will first outline the key principles of constructivism, before examining how it applies to contemporary IR through case studies and critical analysis. Finally, it will assess the extent to which IR represents ‘what we make of the world,’ alongside the limitations of constructivism in fully explaining global dynamics. By engaging with a range of academic sources, this discussion aims to provide a sound understanding of the field while acknowledging alternative perspectives.
Understanding Constructivism in International Relations
Constructivism emerged as a significant theoretical framework in IR during the late 20th century, largely influenced by the work of Alexander Wendt. It challenges the materialist assumptions of traditional theories like realism, which focus on power and state interest, by arguing that social structures and identities shape international politics. Wendt (1992) famously claimed that ‘anarchy is what states make of it,’ suggesting that the anarchic nature of the international system is not inherently fixed but constructed through state interactions (Wendt, 1992). This perspective highlights the role of intersubjective meanings—shared beliefs and norms—in defining state behaviour. For instance, the concept of sovereignty is not a natural or inevitable structure but a socially agreed-upon norm that has evolved over time through diplomatic practices and treaties like the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
Constructivism’s emphasis on ideas and identities offers a lens to interpret contemporary IR beyond mere power struggles. It suggests that global politics is a fluid, dynamic process shaped by historical contexts and cultural interactions. However, critics argue that constructivism lacks predictive power and struggles to address material constraints such as economic disparities or military capabilities (Mearsheimer, 2001). Despite this limitation, its focus on the constructed nature of reality provides a valuable framework for understanding why international relations resist a dominant perspective.
Constructivism in Contemporary International Relations
In the current global landscape, constructivism helps explain phenomena that traditional theories struggle to address. One prominent example is the European Union (EU), an entity built not on military coercion or economic necessity alone but on shared norms of cooperation, democracy, and integration. The EU’s evolution, particularly through mechanisms like the Schengen Agreement, reflects a collective identity constructed over decades, where member states prioritise mutual trust over absolute sovereignty (Checkel, 1999). This demonstrates how social constructs, rather than material power, can fundamentally shape international interactions.
Another pertinent case is the global response to climate change. The Paris Agreement of 2015, signed by 196 parties, illustrates how norms of environmental responsibility have been constructed through international discourse. Unlike realist predictions of non-cooperation due to self-interest, states have increasingly accepted a shared identity as stewards of the planet, even if implementation varies (Keohane and Victor, 2016). Constructivism thus reveals how global challenges are framed and addressed through collectively negotiated ideas, rather than a single, dominant perspective dictating outcomes.
However, it must be acknowledged that constructivist explanations are not exhaustive. Material factors, such as economic resources or geopolitical rivalries, often intersect with ideational ones. For instance, while norms of humanitarian intervention have gained traction post-Cold War, as seen in NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, such actions are often influenced by strategic interests alongside moral imperatives (Finnemore, 2003). Therefore, while constructivism illuminates the role of ideas, contemporary IR remains a complex interplay of multiple forces.
International Relations as ‘What We Make of the World’
The assertion that IR represents ‘what we make of the world’ aligns closely with constructivist thought, as it underscores the subjective, human-driven nature of global politics. Unlike realism, which views the world through a lens of inevitable conflict, or liberalism, which assumes progress through institutions, constructivism posits that the international system is malleable and contingent upon collective interpretations. For example, the post-9/11 era saw the construction of a ‘global war on terror’ narrative, which redefined state alliances, security policies, and even domestic laws across the world. This discourse was not an objective reality but a constructed framework that shaped international behaviour (Jackson, 2005).
Moreover, the rise of non-state actors, such as transnational advocacy networks, further illustrates this concept. Groups like Amnesty International have influenced state policies on human rights by constructing norms of accountability, demonstrating that IR is not solely the domain of states but a broader social construct involving multiple actors (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Such developments challenge the notion of a dominant perspective, as they reveal a world shaped by diverse, often competing, interpretations.
Nevertheless, it is worth considering the critique that constructivism overemphasises agency at the expense of structural constraints. Indeed, while actors may ‘make’ the world, they do so within pre-existing material and historical contexts that limit their choices. For instance, global economic inequalities often dictate the terms of trade agreements, regardless of constructed norms of fairness (Hopf, 1998). This suggests that while IR may reflect what we make of the world, it is not entirely free from objective constraints.
Conclusion
In conclusion, contemporary international relations do not adhere to a single dominant perspective but are better understood as a reflection of socially constructed realities, as highlighted by constructivism. This essay has demonstrated that through shared norms and identities, as seen in cases like the EU and the Paris Agreement, global politics is a product of human interpretation and interaction rather than fixed, objective truths. However, while constructivism offers valuable insights into the fluid nature of IR, it is limited in addressing material forces and structural constraints that also shape the international system. Ultimately, this analysis suggests that IR represents ‘what we make of the world,’ but only to an extent, as constructed realities coexist with tangible limitations. The implications of this are significant for both scholars and policymakers, as it underscores the need to engage with diverse perspectives to fully comprehend and address global challenges. By acknowledging the constructed nature of IR, alongside its material underpinnings, we can better navigate the complexities of an ever-evolving world.
References
- Checkel, J.T. (1999) Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), pp. 83-114.
- Finnemore, M. (2003) The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Cornell University Press.
- Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), pp. 171-200.
- Jackson, R. (2005) Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism. Manchester University Press.
- Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
- Keohane, R.O. and Victor, D.G. (2016) Cooperation and Discord in Global Climate Policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), pp. 570-575.
- Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
