Social Constructivism

Constructivism is a success story. It rose very quickly from rather humble beginnings to become, one of the leading schools in International Relations.

Twenty years ago Constructivism did not exist. Ten years ago Constructivism was recognized as an exciting, but still unproven paradigm.

Seven years ago one of the leading American Journals of International Relations, International Organization, exclaimed that the next great debate in the discipline would be between rationalism and Constructivism.

In The Beginning...

International relations theory in the 1980s was dominated by neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism; both theories ascribed to materialism and individualism.

Various scholars critical of neorealism and neoliberalism drew from critical and sociological theory to demonstrate the effect of normative structures on world politics.

In The Beginning...

The mainstream responded coolly to these challenges, demanding that critics demonstrate the superiority of these alternative claims through empirical research.

The Rise of Constructivism The end of the Cold War meant that there

was a new intellectual space for scholars to challenge existing theories of international politics.

Constructivists drew from established sociological theory to demonstrate how social science could help international relations scholars understand the importance of identity and norms in world politics.

The Rise of Constructivism Constructivists demonstrated how attention to

norms and states identities could help uncover important issues neglected by neorealism and neoliberalism.

Term Constructivism was coined by Nicholas Onuf in his important book, The World of Our Making (1989)

Constructivism Constructivists are concerned with human

consciousness, treat ideas as structural factors, consider the dynamic relationship between ideas and material forces as a consequence of how actors interpret their material reality, and are interested in how agents produce structures and how structures produce agents.

Knowledge shapes how actors interpret and construct their social reality.

Constructivism The normative structure shapes the identity

and interests of actors such as states. Social facts such as sovereignty and human

rights exist because of human agreement while brute facts such as mountains are independent of such agreements.

Social rules are regulative, regulating already existing activities, and constitutive, make possible and define those very activities.

Constructivism

Social construction denaturalizes what is taken for granted, asks questions about the origins of what is now accepted as a fact of life and considers the alternative pathways that might have and can produce alternative worlds.

Power can be understood not only as the ability of one actor to get another actor to do what she would not do otherwise but also as the production of identities and interests that limit the ability to control their fate.

Constructivism Although the meanings that actors bring to

their activities are shaped by the underlying culture, meanings are not always fixed but are a central feature of politics.

Although constructivism and rational choice are generally viewed as competing approaches, at times they can be combined to deepen our understanding of global politics.

Constructivism and Global Change

The recognition that the world is socially constructed means that constructivists can investigate global change and transformation.

A key issue in any study of global change is diffusion, captured by the concern with institutional isomorphism and the life cycle of norms.

Constructivism and Global Change

Although diffusion sometimes occur because of the view that the model is superior, frequently actors adopt a model because of external pressures and incentives to adopt a model that has symbolic legitimacy.

Institutional isomorphism and the internationalization of norms raises issues of growing homogeneity in world politics, a deepening international community, and socialization processes.

Konstruktivisti pozajmljujući iz različitih polja i naučnih disciplina, ispituju procese putem kojih lideri, narodi i kulture menjaju svoje preferencije, oblikuju vlastite identitete i uče novo ponašanje. Na primer, i ropstvo u devetnaestom veku i rasni aparthejd u Južnoj Africi bili su nekad prihvaćeni od strane većine država, ali su im se kasnije svet široko suprotstavljao. Konstruktivisti se pitaju zašto se to promenilo? Kakvu ulogu su igrale ideje? Hoće li praksa rata krenuti istim putem jednog dana? Šta sa konceptom suverenih nacionalnih država?

Svet je pun političkih entiteta kao što su plemena, nacije, i nevladine organizacije. Samo je u poslednjih nekoliko vekova suverena džava postala dominantan koncept. Konstruktivisti ističu da su koncepti poput nacije i suvereniteta, koji daju značenje našim životima kao i našim teorijama, socijalno konstruisani, i ne postoje „izvan“ nas, kao neka stalna realnost. Feministkinje koje pripadaju grupi konstruktivista dodaju da su jezik i predstave rata, kao središnji instrumenti svetske politike, pod velikim uticajem roda.

Konstruktivizam je pre pristup nego teorija, ali on obezbeđuje istovremeno korisnu kritiku i važan dodatak glavnim teorijama realizma i liberalizma. Premda ponekad labavo formulisani i sa nedostatkom moći predviđanja, konstruktivistički pristupi nas podsećaju na ono što dve glavne teorije često propuštaju. Kao što ćemo videti u narednom poglavlju, važno je uzeti u obzir i ono što se dešava izvan instrumentalne racionalnosti ostvarivanja sadašnjih ciljeva i pitati kako menjanje identiteta i interesa može ponekad da vodi suptilnim pomeranjima u državnim politikama, a ponekad prema dubinskim promenama u međunarodnm poslovima

Konstruktivisti nam pomažu da razumemo kako se formiraju preferencije, kao i kako se stvara znanje koje prethodi ispoljavanju instrumentalne racionalnosti. U tom smislu, njihov pristup je pre komplementaran, nego što je u suprotnosti sa dvema glavnim teorijama.

Konstruktivisti naglašavaju da etnicitet nije nepromenljiva činjenica koja neminovno dovodi do rata. On je društveno zasnovan u smislu da simboli, mitovi i sećanja mogu da se menjaju tokom vremena. Na primer, u Ruandi, koja je 1994. pretrpela genocid, ljudi su govorili istim jezikom i imali istu boju kože, ali su postojale razlike u statusu između naroda Tutsi koji je migrirao u oblasti sa stočarskom kulturom vekovima ranije i brojnijeg naroda Hutu koji se bavio zemljoradnjom. Vremenom su mešoviti brakovi i društvene promene zamaglili neke od ovih razlika, ali one su ponovo ojačale tokom kolonijalne vlasti. U genocidu 1994. u kome je ubijeno 750 000 Tutsa, mnogi Huti koji su se zalagali za modernizaciju ili za koje se ispostavilo da su Tutsi, takođe su ubijeni.

Intervencija je zbunjujuća zamisao, delom zbog toga što je ta reč istovremeno opisna i normativna. Ona ne samo da opisuje ono što se događa, nego oblikuje i vrednosne sudove. Prema tome, diskusije o intervenciji često za sobom povlače moralne sporove.

Kako nacionalizam izaziva rat? Zaista, šta je nacionalizam, a šta je nacija? Konstruktivisti ukazuju da je koncept nacije problematičan. Rečnik definiše naciju kao grupu koja se poziva na zajednički identitet i pravo da bude država. Ali koje vrste grupa to obuhvata? Šta je izvor zajedničkog identiteta? Jedno pozivanje je na etničku sličnost, ali SAD su etnički različite, a ipak jedna nacija.

Sledeće pozivanje je na jezičku sličnost, ali Švajcarska se jezički razlikuje, a ipak je jedna nacija. Drugi kažu da religija može biti osnova nacije, i neke države, kao što su Izrael i Pakistan, su uglavnom zasnovane na religijskom identitetu. Stvar je u tome da kada grupa ljudi sa zajedničkim identitetom sebe naziva nacijom, mogu postojati različiti izvori tog identiteta. Kako je rekao francuski mislilac Ernest Renan: “Suštinski element nacije je da svi njeni pojedinci moraju imati mnogo toga zajedničkog, ali su takođe morali zaboraviti mnoge stvari”

Nacije se takođe nazivaju “imaginarnim zajednicama“ jer su prevelike da bi se svi međusobno poznavali, i zamišljanje igra značajnu ulogu.

Nacionalizam je varljiv zato što nije samo deskriptivni, nego i preskriptivni termin.

Најпознатији представници

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what States make of it”, 1992

Michael Barnett Nicholas Onuf Martha Finnemore Friedrich Cratochwill Peter Katzenstein

Alexander Wendt, 1958, Mainz, Germany Ralph D. Mershon

Professor of International Security, The Mershon CenterProfessor of Political Science, The Ohio State University

Previously he was professor of Political Sciences at Yale University

He defines constructivism as follows: States are the principal units of analysis for

international political theory The key structures in the states system are

intersubjective, rather than material; and states identities and interests are in

important part constructed by these social structures, rather than given exogenously to the system by human nature or domestic politics.

“Anarchy Is what States make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”

International Organization, Volume 46, No. 2, Spring

1992, pp. 391-425.

I will not here contest the neorealist description of the contemporary state system as a competitive, self-help world, I will only dispute its explanation.

I will develop my argument in three stages. First, I disentangle the concepts of self-help and anarchy by showing that self-interested conceptions of security are not a constitutive property of anarchy. Second, I show how self-help and competitive power politics may be produced causally by processes of interaction between states in which anarchy plays only a permissive role… Third, I reintroduce first and second image determinants to assess their effects on identity – formation in different kinds of anarchies.

Waltz defines political structure on three dimensions: ordering principles (in this case, anarchy), principles of differentiation (which here drop out) and the distribution of capabilities. By itself, this definition predicts little about state behavior. It does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other’s sovereignty, will have dynastic ties, will be revisionist or status quo powers, and so on.

The question whether self-help is a logical or contingent feature of anarchy. In this section, I develop the concept of a “structure of identity and interest” and show that no particular one follows logically from anarchy.

A fundamental principle of constructivist social theory is that people act toward objects, including other factors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them.

States act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends because enemies are threatening and friends are not. Anarchy and the distribution of power are insufficient to tell us which is which.

The distribution of Power may always affect states’ calculation, but how it does so depends on the intersubjective understandings and expectations, on the “distribution of knowledge”, that constitute their conceptions of self and other.

If society “forgets” what a university is, the powers and practices of professor and student cease to exist; if the United States and Soviet Union decide that they are no longer enemies, “the cold war is over”.

It is collective meanings that constitute the structures which organize our actions.

Actors acquire identities – relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self-by participating in such collective meanings…

Identities are the basis of interests. Actors do not have a “portfolio” of interests that they carry around around independent of social context.

An Institution is a relatively stable set or “structure” of identities and interests.

Institutions are fundamentally cognitive entities that do not exist apart from actor’s ideas about how the world works.

Self-help is an institution, one of various structures of identity and interests that may exist under anarchy.

Waltz’s three –part definition of structure therefore seems underspecified. In order to go from structure to action, we need to add a fourth: the intersubjectively contstituted structure of identities and interests in the systems.

Competitive systems of interaction are prone to security “dilemmas” in which the efforts of actors to enhance their security unilaterally threatens the security of the others perpetuating distrust and alienation. The form of identities and interest that constitute such dilemmas, however, are themselves ongoing effects of, not exogenous to the interaction; identities are produced in and through “situated activity”. We do not begin our relationship with the aliens in a security dilemma; security dilemmas are not given by anarchy or nature.

Identities and interests are constituted by collective meanings that are always in process.

“Social Theory of International Politics”

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999

In this book I develop a theory of the international system as a social construction.

The subject of this book is the ontology of international life. The dominant ontology today in mainstream theories of international politics is materialist.

In this book I try to show that Neorealism’s problematic conclusions about International Politics stem from its underlying materialist and individualistic analogy, and that by viewing the system in idealist and holist terms we could arrive at a better understanding.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА: Dragan R. Simić, Nauka o bezbednosti- savremeni pristupi bezbednosti, Službeni

List SRJ, fakultet političkih nauka, Beograd, 2002, str. 73- 75. Michael Barnett, “Social Contructivism”, in: Steve Smith, John Baylis, (Eds.), The

Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, Third Edition, pp. 251-270;

Chris Brown, Understanding International Relations, Palgrave, London, 2005, Third Edition, pp. 48-52.

Džozef S. Naj, Jr., Kako razumevati međunarodne sukobe, Stubovi kulture, Beograd, 2006, str. 23-25.;

Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States make of it", in, Robert J. Art, Robert Jervis, International Politics, Longman, New York, 2003, Sixth Edition, pp. 73- 80.

Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics”, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1, (Summer 1999), pp. 71-81;

Michael N. Barnett, “Identity and Alliances in the Middle East”, in: Peter J. Katzenstein, (Ed.), The Culture of National Security-Norms and Identity in World Politics, Columbia University Press, New York, 1996, pp. 400-447

Martha Finnemore, “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention”, in: Peter J. Katzenstein, (Ed.), The Culture of National Security-Norms and Identity in World Politics, Columbia University Press, New York, 1996, pp. 153-185

Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999

Martin Grifiths, Fifty key thinkers in International Relations, Routledge, London, 2005, pp. 199-204.;

Stefano Guzzini, Anna Leander, Constructivism and International Relations – Alexander Wendt and his critics, Routledge, London, 2006;

ХВАЛА НА ПАЖЊИ