Constructivist Approaches to International Politics презентация

Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism Compared
“Anarchy is what states make of it”

Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches
The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism Compared
“Anarchy is what states make of it”

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

Different disciplines define and organize themselves in different ways.

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

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.
Their goals may be more or less ambitious…

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.

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

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

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

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. Krasner, 353-72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. See p 353.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 cross-fertilization.

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

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

The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism Compared
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

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

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

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

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

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.

The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism Compared
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

Constructivists utilize a different approach and pursue different questions.

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

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

Or, as Katzenstein and Wendt put it…

“[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)

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

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.

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

“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)

The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism Compared
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

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).

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

But the two approaches differ significantly along several dimensions…

THE RATIONALIST APPROACH
The Rationalist Ontology
The Rationalist Epistemology
Some Differences between Rationalists

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

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

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.

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

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

THE CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH
The Constructivist Ontology
The Constructivist Epistemology
Some Differences between Constructivists

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

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

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.

How do the constructivists differ between one another?

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

Constructivism “Lite”
States’ Interests
International Environment
Strategies for Maximizing Interests
Interstate Interactions
Constructivism attempts to explain state interests

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

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?

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

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

The Discipline of Political Science
Rationalism
Constructivism
Rationalism & Constructivism Compared
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Lec 6: Constructivist Approaches

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.

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

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.

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

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.

“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, 394-95)

Here’s an example…

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].”

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?

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.