ClubEnsayos.com - Ensayos de Calidad, Tareas y Monografias
Buscar

Constructivism: International Relations


Enviado por   •  26 de Noviembre de 2013  •  2.244 Palabras (9 Páginas)  •  384 Visitas

Página 1 de 9

How the central themes of constructivism have contributes to the discipline of IR?

I. Introduction

Constructivism is one of the most influential IR traditions of the late 1990s and the early 2000s. This assumption creates an interpretation on how identities and interest within the International Arena, and the International Anarchy, are nor pre-given nor established. One of the central themes of constructivism relies on the influential myth that “anarchy is what states makes of it”, but the essential theme relies on what this myth is about, that idea on how constructivism is a window of possibility of change within the anarchical world we lived on. The previous statement assumes Constructivism in the inquiry to change and transformed, or to “Construct”. The following paper will be constructed from two main approaches, how does constructivism differ from the assumptions and theories before it, and how does it can be seen as the window of possibility of change in the International Relations environment. These two approaches have the objective to come up with an answer to the initial question. Finally the paper will be composed by the idea on how constructivism as an approach is a different possibility of the structure of the world we live in, and how this approach is mainly associated with change according to different aspects.

II. Constructivism different from other theories

The myth “anarchy is what states makes of it” is a proposal that gives a way out to the complicated dilemmas that faced some previous scholars of IR, whom understand that the effect of the International Anarchy were determined and cannot be change or seen in another way. This myth is associated to the argument that identities and interests in the world of international politics are not purely stable, they aren’t pre-given nature, but it’s doesn’t acquire the idea that are not real.

Cynthia Weber on her work, “Constructivism: Is Anarchy what states makes of it?” makes this brilliant approach based on Alexander´s Wendt analysis in 1992. “States determine the nature of International Anarchy. And, most importantly, what states do depends on what their identities and interests are, and identities and interest changes” (Weber, 60). In the real world , this last statement takes a lot of validity because , just as states, our interests and identities changes, the myth reflects a window of possibility to the reality we lived on, this myth reflects an improvement against the mainstream theories.

But, the myth mentioned by Cynthia Weber has more content than just words. That previous myth reflect the huge difference on study to constructivism to other theories, such as realism, neo-realism, and neo-neoliberalism. “For more than a decade realism, by most accounts the dominant paradigm in international relations theory, has been under assault by the emerging paradigm of constructivism. “ (Copeland, 2000, pg. 1), it´s not a secret that this theories and the constructivist approach are not friends on the field, they manage to express by different ideas their perception on how the world function, and what path does it need to follow to functions right. Despite this, these two different ideas do not reject possibility and the existence of an anarchical world.

As mentioned before, Alexander Wendt, was the first one to provide the sophisticated constructivist critique to structural realism and the other theories. “Realists contend that anarchy and the distribution of relative power drive most of what goes on in world politics. Constructivists counter that structural realism misses what is often a more determinant factor, namely, the intersubjectively shared ideas that shape behavior by constituting the identities and interests of actors” (Wendt,1999). The statement before, reflects the importance of subjective matter on the study of the International study, a possibility brought into the table from constructivist. For the neorealism and neoliberalism, the worry begin with the commitment of both theories to do not accept the international change. “The neorealist and neoliberal scholar divide on the issue of structure vs. process” (Weber, 61). This division of the issues relied on the idea that structure and process are not susceptible to any type of change, relies on the structure state as pre-given, and process according to the survival instinct within the Anarchical composition of the International Arena. Wendt, as a constructivist, does not eliminate what mainstream theories established according the composition of the International atmosphere, but what Wendt´s extend to announced is that the world we are living needs more than just self-survival, and selfish interest from states, he relied on the idea that Constructivism gives a possibility for States to interact in another way nor just by an anarchical presumption order.

After the arguments mentioned before, we recall that Wendt´s go beyond a moderate constructivism, and established that anarchy has no logic determinant, because each actor conception of “self” is product of the others diplomatic gestures and those states can reshape its structure in order to change and to accomplished its interest and identities towards peaceful means and ends, the self-help and power are institutions not essential to features of the anarchy, even though they are present in the Anarchical atmosphere. Wendt makes huge statements for the analysis of the IR in terms of constructivism and in the window to possibility of change, but also some other authors make differences between this approach and other theories, even though almost all of the constructivist authors use Wendt´s ideas for a base to make their assumptions, one of this authors is Dale Copeland.

Dale Copeland also make some reference to the myth and its complete interpretation of it , but from a different perspective, he seeks to explain bases of anarchy from a constructivist angle, but he focused on the anarchy and the conflict, “anarchy is the permissive cause of war” (Weber, 60). This perception of conflict relies on how the self-interest of states sometimes led them to conflict, but what this author try to explain relied on the possibility of diminishing conflict by the uses of constructivism.

The previous myth, came from the base of the first myth mentioned. The myth of the anarchy and causes of war has a purpose to explain how international politics are likely to be conflictual, “According to Wendt, whether a system is conflictual or peaceful is a function not of anarchy and power but of the shared culture created through discursive social practices” (Copeland, 2000,pg.3). From the constructivist’s point of view,” he seeks to challenge the core neorealist premise

...

Descargar como (para miembros actualizados)  txt (14.2 Kb)  
Leer 8 páginas más »
Disponible sólo en Clubensayos.com