When international relations (IR) first became a
distinct field within Western academia in the middle of the twenty century, it was
dominated by rational schools of thought that, for the most part, took their epistemology
for granted.[1] Realism, liberalism, economic structuralism,
and the neo-schools, despite their ontological differences, all assumed that
researchers could observe the world objectively and obtain empirical knowledge
through the scientific method. However,
by the 1980’s, many new schools of thought emerged within the reflexivist
tradition that challenged the objectivity of political scientists and their
ontological assumptions. Two of these
new perspectives were called classical social-constructivism and
post-structuralism. Both theories
challenged the epistemological assumptions of the older schools but did so in
different ways. Classical
social-constructivists have compromised more with rationalists on
epistemological issues than their post-structuralist counterparts. As a result, proponents of the two schools
use different methodologies in their research.
However, both IR theories assume that semi-irrational, ideational
factors that are difficult to measure influence the behavior of states, making
it difficult for political scientists to objectively understand reality.
One
thing scholars within these two schools have in common is that they don’t share
a distinct ontology or a way of explaining how the world works. Instead, classical social-constructivism and
post-structuralism are distinct schools because of their epistemology.[2] Whereas the rational schools of thought have
an epistemology based on the scientific method and empiricism, the post modern
schools of thought are more reflexive in nature, questioning how the political
science community obtained their knowledge of the world and made their
conclusions. By doing this, they are
also questioning the very core values of modernity and Western civilization,
which has a high regard for science and rationality. Classical
social-constructivism and post-structuralism share a lot in common with
post-colonialism, gender studies, and critical theory in this manner. The reflexivist trends found in these schools
also affect their methodologies. Instead
of focusing exclusively on explaining events by finding causation between individual
variables, the reflexevist schools focus more on understanding IR, studying
issues like cultural trends, values, norms, and language. The proponents of these schools doubt that
the social sciences can produce universal truths based on completely objective
scientific research.
Another
thing both schools share in common is that they tend to place a lot of
importance on how semi-irrational, ideational factors like ideas, symbols,
language, and culture influence the decision making of political scientists and
political actors.[3] This differs from the rational schools, which
place a lot of importance on material factors such as power and wealth to
explain how states make decisions in IR.
The rational schools measure power and wealth in terms of material
resources such as technology, weapons, natural resources, and demographics. Also, realists and economic structuralists in
particular have very inflexible views on how human beings will use these
resources. For example, according to
realists, resources will be used rationally by political agents to maximize
their own power, and peace can only be achieved by actors when a balance of
power is reached. On the other hand, liberals
do believe that it is possible for agents in the international system to
cooperate under different circumstances for mutual benefit, but most still
place a lot of importance on wealth and power in determining relations between
countries. According to Alexander Wendt,
only “strong liberals” will acknowledge the great importance of shared norms
like democracy in mitigating conflict irrespective of the resources available
or the balance of power.[4]
However, the post modern schools assert
that semi-irrational, ideational factors like ideas, culture, values, and
language also influence the behavior of state actors. From this perspective, the decisions human
beings make are not always rational and easy to predict nor are the factors
that influence their decisions easy to measure.
For example, classical social constructivists agree with neo-realists
and neo-liberals that a system defined by anarchy among states exists and
affects international relations; however, the constructivists also feel that states
will behave in a system without rules based on how they conceive of anarchy.[5] In other words, constructivists believe
states are influenced by cultural norms that legitimize how political actors
are supposed to act within a system without enforced rules; these norms are
constantly being reconstructed, changing how states act regardless of the
resources at their disposal. Hence,
social norms form the structure by which states act and not power or economics. Post-structuralists go even further in terms
of questioning our preconceived assumptions of ideas like anarchy, sovereignty,
and power, questioning whether states are the only international actors in the
current system or even if a state of international anarchy even exists.
Although
both classical social-constructivists and post-structuralists have a lot in
common, there are also many differences between them. For one, classical social-constructivists are
able to make more compromises with the rational IR theories and even make
limited use of the scientific method in their work. Social-constructivists in general believe
that the decisions of political actors are affected strongly by shared norms
and customs within a given community that legitimize certain types of action
and delegitimize others, creating what Emile Durkheim called a collective
consciousness; so, some scholars within this field believe that it is possible
to measure social norms and customs through surveys and other scientific
methods.[6] However, they also tend to feel that these
methods of quantifying culture are limited and there is still a high degree of
subjectivity in the process. Therefore, surveys
should be supplemented with more intimate studies of the culture through
anthropological observations and analyzing cultural artifacts. The political scientist Alexander Went
labeled social constructivists that can compromise with strong liberals as
classical social-constructivists since they held many of the same
epistemological and ontological assumptions of classical liberals.[7]
However,
bridging the gap between post-structuralism and the rationalist schools is far
less likely according to James Der Derian.[8] Unlike
the classical social-constructivists, post-structuralists are more radical in
terms of their antagonism towards the use of the scientific method in the
social sciences. Post-structuralists
believe that we are not able to objectively evaluate reality. Instead, they believe that we subjectively
interpret the world based on the words and symbols we share with each other
since language is the only we create a picture of the world within our heads. According to this theory, language is only
given meaning based on the context in which it used in discourse. Therefore, one’s view on any issue in IR is
drastically altered by the way in which language is used to describe it. For example, using the word terrorist or
freedom fighter to describe an armed group drastically alters our perceptions
of it. Since language is highly flexible
and can be altered drastically from one conversation to another,
post-structuralists doubt that we can objectively understand reality or that a
community can have a common culture with shared values and norms. This contradicts the ethos of classical social
constructivism.
The
difference between the epistemologies of the two schools has led to significant
differences in methodology. Since social constructivists are concerned
with the shared values and beliefs of community, they are also concerned with
how people come to identify themselves as part of community, and how their
membership in the community shapes their values.[9] To measure this, classical social
constructivists can conduct surveys and interviews; live within and observe the
culture; and analyze the social artifacts produced by the community in the form
of literature, film, and art. The
culture of the community will determine who has the legitimacy to rule and what
is expected of them once they get into power.
Therefore, understanding how individual identities are constructed and
how individuals in term affect the culture of the community is the major
occupation of this school. Post-structuralists,
on the other hand, are more concerned with deconstructing language. Scholars in the field believe that power is
determined by how the use of words evolves in relation to other words.[10]
If one word becomes more frequently used
then another, it can tell us about the power structure within a political
community. This is why
post-structuralists study the genealogy of words and symbols, and how their
usage and application changes overtime.
Due
to their lack of a clear ontology to explain how states interact, the
reflexevist schools are nowhere near as popular as the rational theories within
the IR tradition. Perhaps there is good
reason for this since acting on the assumption that we can’t objectively
understand the world has few practical purpose for state officials and
political activists interested in making reforms. If our species had acted on this assumption,
the scientific revolution and industrialization would not have been
possible. However, we should not be so
quick to dismiss the value of the reflexevist schools. They force political scientists to confront
their own biases and can help us improve our methodologies.
Work Cited
1. Der Derian, James. (1990) “The Space of International
Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed,” International Studies
Quarterly, 34, 295-310.
2. Dillon, M. – Neal, A.W. (2008) “Introduction,” in M.
Dillon and A.W. Neal (eds.) Foucault on Politics, Security and War (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 1-18.
3. Finnemore, Martha and Kathyrn Sikkink. (2001) "Taking Stock: The Constructivist
Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics," Annual
Review Political Science, 4, 2001: 391-416.
4. Hansen, L. (2011) “Poststructuralism,” BSO, pp.
166-180.
5. Viotti, P. – Kauppi, M. (2012) “Constructivist
Understandings,” VK, pp. 313-337.
6. Wendt, Alexander. (1992) “Anarchy is what States Make of
it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization,
46(2), 391-425.
[1]
Der Derian, J. (1990) “The Space of International Relations: Simulation,
Surveillance, and Speed,” International Studies Quarterly, 34, 295-310.
[2] Viotti,
P. – Kauppi, M. (2012) “Constructivist Understandings,” VK, pp. 313-337.
[3]Finnemore, Martha and Kathyrn
Sikkink. "Taking Stock: The
Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative
Politics," Annual Review Political Science, 4, 2001: 391-416.
[4]
Wendt, Alexander. (1992) “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social
Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2),
391-425.
[5]Wendt, Ibid.
[6]
Viotti, P. – Kauppi, M. (2012) “Constructivist
Understandings,” VK, pp. 313-337.
[7]
Wendt, Ibid.
[8]
Der Derian, James. (1990) “The Space of International Relations: Simulation,
Surveillance, and Speed,” International Studies Quarterly, 34, 295-310.
[9]
Hansen, L. (2011) “Poststructuralism,” BSO,
pp. 166-180.
[10]
Dillon, M. – Neal, A.W. (2008) “Introduction,” in M. Dillon and A.W. Neal
(eds.) Foucault on Politics, Security and War (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan), pp. 1-18.
No comments:
Post a Comment