Onuf first introduced the term ‘constructivism’ to IR and both Kratochwil and Wendt refer to this fact.43 With World of Our Making,
43WOM; Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, ‘Understanding Change in Inter-national Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the InterInter-national System’, InterInter-national Organization 48 (1994), 216, n. 3; A 393; and STIP 1.
Three constructivisms Onuf presented the first constructivist theory of international relations in 1989. This ambitious and dense book was an unlikely candidate for reshaping the way IR scholars think. Indeed, the significance accorded to constructivism today is surprising in view of the limited impact this first formulation had. Yet it provided the label, taken up by Wendt in his 1992 article ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It’, which has since proved attractive to many. Hence Wendt is credited with popularising the approach.44The reception of Wendt’s book, which has been hailed as extremely important,45 underscores the significance constructivism is attributed in IR today. Kratochwil, finally, who is also identified as a key constructivist,46co-authored an article with John Ruggie47 early on which established the significance of intersubjectivity, a central con-structivist concept. This is further developed in his Rules, Norms, and Decisions which is regularly referred to by scholars working in the con-structivist vein.48
Hence, all three not only played an important part in setting off the constructivist project but also continue to influence it. Their work, al-though distinct, is of significance to constructivism in IR more broadly.
The centrality of especially Wendt’s work in relation to wider debates about constructivism is often noted, but Kratochwil and Onuf have also played a significant role in the construction of constructivism. Even if other sources are offered for their arguments, constructivists doing
44Steve Smith, ‘New Approaches’, p. 183; Ole Wæver, ‘Figures of International Thought:
Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms’, in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver (eds.), The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 4.
45‘Forum on Social Theory of International Politics’, Review of International Studies 26 (2000), 123; Robert O. Keohane, ‘Ideas Part-Way Down’, Review of International Studies 26 (2000), 125; Hayward E. Alker, ‘On Learning from Wendt’, Review of International Stud-ies 26 (2000), 141; Steve Smith, ‘Wendt’s World’, Review of International StudStud-ies 26 (2000), 151.46Alexander Wendt, ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security 20 (1995), 71; STIP 3, 31–2 and 84; Steve Smith, ‘New Approaches’, p. 183; Wæver, ‘Figures’, p. 24;
Knutsen, History of IR Theory, p. 281; Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘Interna-tional Norms Dynamics and Political Change’, Interna‘Interna-tional Organization 52 (1998), 890;
Steve Smith, ‘Wendt’s World’, 159.
47Ruggie is increasingly recognised as another key constructivist. However, although Ruggie claims to have done constructivist work since 1975, he, unlike Wendt, Kratochwil and Onuf, does not contend that he developed a new way of investigating international politics. See Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity, esp. p. 3 and ch. 1; John Gerard Ruggie,
‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization 52 (1998), 855–85; Katzenstein, Keohane and Krasner,
‘International Organization’, 660.
48Friedrich Kratochwil and John Gerard Ruggie, ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State’, International Organization 40 (1986), 753–75; RND.
Introduction
empirical work often refer to Wendt, Kratochwil and Onuf.49Bizarrely, Wendt is sometimes quoted and hence implicitly credited with ideas, such as the claim that people act towards objects on the basis of the mean-ing these have for them, that should more appropriately be attributed to his source, Herbert Blumer’s key work on symbolic interactionism.50 As a result, and I further develop this in the conclusion, my critique is relevant beyond the work of Wendt, Kratochwil and Onuf, even if not all the issues I raise are pertinent to every piece of constructivist work;
for I proceed by way of a careful reading of their work (and their work only) which I will now briefly introduce.
Wendt’s constructivism
Wendt argues that the way international politics is conducted is made, not given, because identities and interests are constructed and sup-ported by intersubjective practice.51 The approach revolves around identity, which is construed as more basic than interests. Notions of self and the environment shape interactions and are shaped by inter-actions. Thereby social reality is created. Thus, the existing competitive international system could be reshaped. This claim develops from an engagement with realism52and structuration theory.53
Wendt’s engagement with Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory is significant in two respects. Firstly, Wendt follows Giddens in his solu-tion to the agent–structure problem.54Hence, he conceptualises agents and structures as mutually constitutive entities with ‘equal ontological status’.55As far as this implies that social reality develops in interaction,
49Finnemore, National Interests in International Society, pp. 4, 15 and 32; Thomas Risse-Kappen, ‘Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO’, in Katzen-stein, Culture of National Security, pp. 396 and 371; Michael N. Barnett, ‘Identity and Alliances in the Middle East’, in Katzenstein, Culture of National Security, pp. 407–8; Thomas U. Berger, ‘Past in Present’, 43; Weldes, ‘Constructing National Interests’, 279–80.
50Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson and Raymond Duvall, ‘Introduction: Con-structing Insecurity’, in Weldes et al., Cultures of Insecurity, p. 13. See Herbert Blumer, Sym-bolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 2.
51Alexander Wendt, ‘Levels of Analysis vs. Agents and Structures: Part III’, Review of International Studies 18 (1992), 183. See also ISC 48; STIP 1.
52In this book ‘realism’ refers to the philosophical position and ‘Realism’ to the approach in IR.
53Alexander E. Wendt, ‘The Agent–Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization 41 (1987), 335–70; Ian Shapiro and Alexander Wendt, ‘The Difference That Realism Makes: Social Science and the Politics of Consent’, Politics and Society 20 (1992), 197–223.
54See Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).
55Wendt, ‘Agent–Structure Problem’, 339. See also STIP 180.
Three constructivisms this prepares the ground for his constructivist argument. Secondly, the notion that structures ‘really’ exist is incompatible with empiricism.
Wendt licences this claim by introducing scientific realism as the philo-sophical foundation of structuration theory.56In an article co-authored with Ian Shapiro, he explains that scientific realism consists in the belief that both the world of everyday objects and such unobservable entities and causal mechanisms as are posited by scientific theories exist inde-pendently of the mind.57 The existence of unobservables is supported by the so-called miracle or ultimate argument. Successful manipulation of the world through scientific practice would be a miracle if science was not based on an existing causal structure of the world.58 Significantly, Wendt assumes the existence of a reality independent of mind in terms of not only the material but also the social world. As a result, he ar-gues that scientific explanation consisting in the identification of causal mechanisms is applicable to the social sciences.59In other words, there is a social reality ‘out there’, independent of our thoughts, and Wendt wants to explain it.60
Structuration theory calls for a focus on the study of social practices.61 Wendt takes this further in ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It’, in which he develops his constructivist approach. He starts by locating his posi-tion in relaposi-tion to liberal and Realist theories of internaposi-tional politics.
The point is to take into account the transformation of identities and in-terests, that is, of entities which are, because of their shared commitment to rationalism, taken as exogenously given by both Realists and liber-als. However, Wendt claims an affinity to ‘strong’ liberal scholarship which addresses complex learning and therefore changes of identities and interests (A 393). He aims ‘to build a bridge’ between the liberal and the constructivist tradition and as a consequence ‘between the realist–
liberal and rationalist–reflectivist debates’ (A 394). Thus Wendt posi-tions his work between rationalist and reflective approaches as defined by Robert Keohane.62More recently, he speaks of finding a ‘via media’ be-tween the ‘mainstream’ and ‘postmodern’ approaches (STIP 40 and 47).
56Wendt, ‘The Agent–Structure Problem’, 350. See also STIP ch. 2.
57Shapiro and Wendt, ‘Difference That Realism Makes’, 210.
58Shapiro and Wendt, ‘Difference That Realism Makes’, 211. See also STIP 63–7.
59Wendt, ‘Agent–Structure Problem’, 355.
60See also Alexander Wendt, ‘Bridging the Theory/Meta-Theory Gap in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 17 (1991), 391.
61Giddens, Constitution of Society, p. 2.
62Robert O. Keohane, ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, in Robert O.
Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 158–79.
Introduction
Wendt develops his argument against the background of (Neo)-Realism, specifically Kenneth Waltz’s work.63 Like Waltz, Wendt pro-poses a state-centric structural theory.64 His point contra Waltz is that the way international relations are conducted is socially constructed rather than transhistorically given. In Wendt’s conceptualisation, struc-ture does not exist apart from process, that is, the practices of actors (A 395; STIP 12 and 185). Although Wendt agrees with (Neo)Realists that the international system is characterised by anarchy and self-help, he argues against their claim that self-help is a necessary feature of an-archy (A 394; see also STIP 249). Rather it is an institution developed and sustained through process.
Using symbolic interactionist and structurationist sociology, Wendt presents an argument designed to show how self-help and power politics are socially constructed in a condition of anarchy. The claim is based on two principles of constructivism taken from symbolic interactionism.65 Firstly, people act on the basis of meanings that objects and other actors have for them (A 396–7). And, secondly, these meanings are not inherent in the world but develop in interaction (A 403). Wendt develops his constructivist argument in relation to the claim that conceptions of security under conditions of anarchy do not have to be self-interested. Behaviour, according to Wendt, is influenced by intersubjective rather than material structures. It is based on collec-tive meanings (A 397) through which actors acquire identities, that is,
‘relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self’ (A 397). Identities provide the basis for interests which are defined in the process of conceptualising situations (A 398; STIP 122). Identi-ties are not only developed and maintained in interaction with others (A 401; STIP 36); they also crucially determine what kind of anarchy or security environment will prevail (A 399–400).66 A self-help situation need not arise from the interaction of actors seeking their own survival under the condition of structural anarchy (A 404–5).
Wendt has elaborated on his notion of identity and its relation to the security environment in later work. Specifically, he focuses on collective identity formation (ISC).67 Whether identities can be seen as
63See, for example, Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979).
64Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, American Political Science Review 88 (1994), 385; see also STIP 6, 8–10 and 193.
65See Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism, p. 2. 66See also STIP ch. 6.
67An earlier version of this chapter appeared as ‘Collective Identity Formation’.
Three constructivisms collective depends on how interests are defined. What matters is whether and how far ‘social identities involve an identification with the fate of the other’ (ISC 52; see also STIP 106 and 229). The nature of iden-tification in each situation shapes how boundaries of the self are drawn.
If there is no positive identification, the other is relevant to the defini-tion of interests only insofar as it may be used for the purposes of the self (ISC 52; STIP 240). This, Wendt argues, is the core of self-interest.
Collective identity, on the other hand, refers to positive identification such that the other cognitively becomes a part of the self and its welfare is of concern (ISC 52). Actors who have such a collective identity de-fine their interests on a higher level of aggregation, based on feelings of solidarity, community and loyalty. The point is not that self-interested identities will necessarily be replaced by collective ones but rather that cooperation may change actors’ identities, rather than just their payoff structure (ISC 53–4), and hence the prevailing security environment.
Identity is, I would argue, the key to Wendt’s approach. Research, according to Wendt, should focus on ‘the relationship between what actors do and what they are’ (A 424). Self-interested identities lie at the heart of the self-help system and identity change is the way to get out.
Wendt’s argument is presented in most detail in Social Theory of Interna-tional Politics which, Wendt insists, is not an investigation into identity formation.68I do not take issue with this observation. What I claim and demonstrate in detail in chapter 2, however, is that Wendt’s approach revolves around and hinges on his conception of identity.
Kratochwil’s constructivism
Kratochwil’s work is, on the one hand, a critique of the ‘poverty of epistemology’69in IR and, on the other hand, an exploration of the role of rules and norms for political life and its analysis. Kratochwil criticises mainstream IR theory for a narrow conception of politics and human behaviour. Adopting a notion of rationality as instrumental leads, he argues, to excluding interesting questions about the ends sought from the analysis.70The normative character of politics must be denied in the name of ‘science’.71
68STIP 11; Wendt, ‘On the Via Media’, 175.
69Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Errors Have Their Advantage’, International Organization 38 (1984), 305.
70Kratochwil, ‘Errors’, 306 and 316–17; RNV 308.
71RNV 308; Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘The Protagorean Quest: Community, Justice, and the
“Oughts” and “Musts” of International Politics’, International Journal 43 (1988), 212 and 218–22.
Introduction
Positivist explanations, as they are common in IR, start from an-tecedent conditions, although intentionality and goal-directedness are important for human action.72In response Kratochwil focuses on every-day language and on the norms guiding human behaviour (RND 28–
30). His analysis is indebted to linguistic philosophy, especially speech act theory, and practical philosophy, but also jurisprudential theories.
Crucially, he asserts that international politics must be analysed in the context of norms properly understood (RND 10–12). The idea that norms influence all human conduct is turned into a more clearly constructivist approach when Kratochwil uses the metaphor of Wittgensteinian games defined by rules and norms as a starting point for analysis.73
Political interactions take place on the basis of partially shared, if contested, understandings which illuminate them for both actors and observers and thereby help analysis.74Any attempt to eliminate ele-ments of appraisal and interpretation to make analyses more ‘objective’
leads to a misconceptualisation of praxis, as human beings use moral criteria and interpretation.75Kratochwil wants to move towards a con-ception of ‘rationality’ linked to common-sense understandings. The meaning of rationality should, following J ¨urgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action, be seen as ‘constituted by the use of the term’
(RNV 310). Thus, an action or belief may be called ‘rational’ when it
‘makes sense’ to act that way. Significantly, this links in with normative considerations, as to ‘call something rational means then to endorse it in terms of some norm or moral feeling that permits it’ (RNV 311).
Utilitarian calculation as depicted by an instrumental notion of ratio-nality becomes possible only after an actor has already taken an attitude towards a situation (RNV 318).
Kratochwil’s attempt to reintroduce the political dimension to IR theory relies on understanding ‘political action in terms of meaning-ful, rather than purely instrumental, action’.76 Based on a reading of Max Weber, he claims that action is meaningful if it can be placed in an intersubjectively shared context (RND 24). Kratochwil sees this context as based on and mediated by rules and norms. Consequently, norms are crucial to his discussion of political action. They shape decisions but also
72Kratochwil, ‘Errors’, 306.
73Koslowski and Kratochwil, ‘Understanding Change’, 216; Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism as the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics’, Review of International Studies 19 (1993), 75.
74Koslowski and Kratochwil, ‘Understanding Change’, 225.
75Kratochwil, ‘Protagorean Quest’, 206–7. 76 Kratochwil, ‘Embarrassment’, 65.
Three constructivisms give actions meaning and provide people with a medium through which they may communicate. Rules are speech acts which depend on success-ful communication (RND 34). They function only if they achieve the desired effect with the addressee; they are not independent of context.
There are regulative and constitutive rules, and the latter cannot be re-duced to the former. We cannot understand the role of norms in social life if we take regulative rules as paradigmatic,77 because conceptualising norms as merely constraining is mistaken (RND 61). What Kratochwil calls ‘practice-type’ or ‘institution-type’ rules, for which promising and contracting are paradigmatic, are most important for his argument.78 Following J. L. Austin, Kratochwil explains that these rules usually re-late to performances in which the rule specifies the conditions under which an act counts as valid (RND 91–2).
Although rules and norms influence human behaviour fundamen-tally, they do not determine it. Therefore, processes of deliberation and interpretation must be analysed (RND 10–11).79As social problems do not have logically necessary solutions and social situations are nec-essarily indeterminate, analysis has to concentrate on how questions concerning validity claims are decided through discourse (RND 36).
The interesting question is why decisions based on rules and norms which are not logically compelling receive support (RND 36). Instru-mental explanations fail as rules ‘often function “heteronomously”, i.e., instruct us what interest of others we have to take into account while making our choices’ (RND 95).80 The key lies in realising that rule-following does not involve blind habit but argumentation (RND 97).
Kratochwil explores legal reasoning because of its parallels with moral discourse. Both involve an element of heteronomy, that is, regard for the other. They are also based on a process of principled argumentation which leads to an equally principled application of the respective norms (RND 142 and 208).
It is necessary to investigate the reasons that are seen to be an ac-ceptable justification for following a rule in specific circumstances.
77Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Norms Versus Numbers: Multilateralism and the Rationalist and Reflexivist Approaches to Institutions – a Unilateral Plea for Communicative Rationality’, in John Gerard Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 460. See also RND 28.
78See also Kratochwil, ‘Protagorean Quest’, 209.
79See also Friedrich V. Kratochwil, ‘Thrasymmachos Revisited: On the Relevance of Norms for International Relations’, Journal of International Affairs 37 (1984), 344 and 346.
80See also RND 130 and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, ‘Is International Law “Proper” Law?’, Archiv f ¨ur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 69 (1983), 34.
Introduction
Kratochwil argues that only the emergence of a ‘moral point of view’ can advance us towards a solution (RND 123). Norms provide the basis for a reasoning process in which some violations of the rules are classified as excusable, whilst others are not. For this process the identification of relevant premises (RND 37) is significant. Whether an action can obtain support depends on the definition of the situation, on what it is seen as an instance of. Therefore the justifications given for a particular course of action provide an important indication for its appraisal (RND 63).
As good reasons must be put forward for acts and decisions, the choice of a narrative becomes necessary and crucial (RND 213). Such narratives usually start from commonplaces or topoi. These, accord-ing to Kratochwil, locate the matters at issue with respect to common understandings which provide links in the argumentation (RND 219).
Crucially, it is impossible to talk about human acts neutrally. A so-called objective fact is ‘not the thing described but rather the intersubjective validity of a characterization upon which reasonable persons can agree’
(RND 229).81 Processes of reasoning do not lead to single best solu-tions even if some arguments are seen as more persuasive than others.
Thus authoritative decisions are necessary (RND 142). This does not, however, mitigate the influence of norms and intersubjective context, as
Thus authoritative decisions are necessary (RND 142). This does not, however, mitigate the influence of norms and intersubjective context, as