Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 - Collins - Cap 4

    Uploaded by

    credenciais
    8 views19 pages

    Original Title

    20- Collins - Cap 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views19 pages

    20 - Collins - Cap 4

    Uploaded by

    credenciais

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    Contemporary Security Studies cp Ee ET SECOND EDITION Edited by Alan Collins OXFORD ‘UNIVERSITY 288 Social Constructivism ‘CHRISTINE AGIUS ‘Chapter Contents: © lenroduction «Definitions and key concepts 18 Wendt’ three cultures of anarchy ‘9 Comentianal and citcal constructivism © Critiques of constructivism «© Condlusion Readers Guide Since the late 19805, socfal constructivism has emerged as an Influential approach in Inernational teatons theory and international politics, Thiscagter examines is impact on security studiesand how iteals into question theassunved orthodoxy rationalist approaches ‘to security and the international system by asking how security and security threats are “socially constructed: Iefocuses on the importance of socal lations and why ently, norms, and culkure mater Whee rationalist approaches focus on material forces to understand ane theorize security, social constructivism argues that ideational 2s well as material factors construct the world around us andthe meanings we give to it. Therefore, its significance for security studies i crucial in terms not only of conceptualizing securly but of providing ate native eadings of security Hawever constructivism is nota. uniform pproach.As this chapter demonstrates it is broadly divided into two carne, which differ on questions of methodology ‘and parculeraspects of how knowledge and identity are interrogated. Throughout this chap- ‘ter casestudies of constructivist approaches to security questions wil be discussed, and the chapter concludes witn 2 consideration of the critiques of constructivism. 5D Christine Agivs Introduction Social constructivism (henceforth shorteited to ‘con- structivism) brings to the fore the importance of ideas, identity, and interaction in the international system, revealing how ‘the human worldisnot simply given and/or natural but that, on the contrary, the human worldisone of artifice thatitis “constructed” through the actions of the actors themselves’ (Kratochwil 2001: 17). Since Nicholas Onuf coined the term in 1969, constructivism hes risen rapidly, reshaping debstesin Internationel Relations (TR) and challenging the dominance of rationalist theories such a5 neorealism and necliberalism*. Many of its core concepts have been inspired by sociological the- ory (ee KeyTdeas 4.1), With theemergence of Critical Security Studies (see Chapter 6), the constructivist approach? forms part of the post-Cold Wer transfor- ‘mation in security studies; and argues that security” can be socially constructed. It therefore offers the possibility of alternative readings of security that go beyond rationalist theorizing that neglects ideational forces in favour of material ones. The worldis social, and not purely material. This has implications for ‘thinking about security and security relations inter- nationally. Constructivism puts into context the actions, beliefs, and interests of actors and under~ stands thatthe world they inhabit has been created by ‘them and impacts on them. "Ror some, its impact hasbeen so great that constructivism i scento form the foarthdebateinTR theorizing (constructvists ‘ereus rationalist), usurping older debates between realists tnd liberal (Piero and Jorgensen 2001: 2). Debate sl exists over whether constractiviam isa theory or tn approach, Wendts Sacial Theory of Internacional Polis (1999) iswidelycegarded as anette to elevate construtiv= jm as a theory, oF a form of systenic theorirng. However, ‘onsnuctvststhemesves have maintained thatitis not asub- santive theory of poles butrather'a social theory that makes ‘aims about the nature of socl life and social change (Pinnemore and Sickink 2001: 393). Ruggic (1986: 679) aso contonds tht ite not an IR theory inthe same manner that the balunce-of-power theory is; rather it chould be seen ass theoreialy informed approach to the study of internation relation Constructivism has three basic ontological posi- tions, First, normative or ideational structures are important and matter as much a, if not more than, ‘material structures. This means that ideas are centre stage and are privileged. This presents a different picture compared to dominant theories such as neo- realism and neoliberalism, For neotealists, the key to ‘understanding state behaviour has been the anarchic international system and the importance ofthe dis- tribution of material capabilities in the international system; for neoliberals, even though cooperation and international institutions are the focus, state interests are also defined in material terms. ‘The second ontological claim of constructivism is that identities matter. Identities give us interests ‘and those interests tell us something about how actors act/behave and the goals they pursue. Quite simply, actors cannot act without an identity and identity explains the actions of actors. Since neore- alists see all units (states) as similar, itis difficult to make sense of why a state such as the USA may have conflictual relations with one state (for instance, Iran), and friendly relations with another (say, Australig), Identity is therefore crucial to constructivists—as Alexander Wendt (1996: 50) ‘puts its‘A gun in the hands of a friend is different thing from one in the hands of an enemy, and ‘enmity isa social, not material, relation? For neo- realists and neoliberals, actors such as states are rational, unitary actors, pursuing their interests in the international arena, However, we understand only the material interests of such actors in these two accounts. Material forces, which Wendt (1999: 371) defines as ‘power and interest, do not readily tell us where ideas, values, beliefs, and norms come from; the tricks to examine how their content and ‘meaning are made up by ideas and culture. By focusing on how interests are obtained and devel- oped, constructivists argue that we get abetter pi ture of identity and relations es social. Wdentity is not given butis constituted through interaction. ste ete a i ay appecey ee, —, # & ¥ ¢ icin ie it Third, agents and structures are mutually con stituted. ‘This attention to how actors shape the world and how the world shapes actors means that human relations are inherently social and we create the world that we live in and it influences ‘usas well. International politics is not something that is independent from us; if the world ‘out there’ is a World of our Making (as the title of Onuf’s book suggests), it means that different understandings of security may be possible. As part of the agency-structure debate, constructiv- ism’s appreciation of the mutual constitution of both agents and structures is important, When ‘Alexander Wendt (1992) states that ‘anarchy is Origins of constructivist thought Constructivism avs its origins to earlier philosophical and sociological modes of thought. From Kant, construc ‘vist gain an appreciation that our knowledge about the world may never be objective because we process that knowledge through our ovm structures of understanding, Social facts, such as ‘money, rely on common agreetment aout their meaning. Money in itself has no intrinsic ‘meaning part from our common understanding oft. We use ft to buy things thas afunetion in the marke, and we may associate it with our own security. Sovereignty 2 social fact because states and citizens understand is principles of nornterference and recognition in the Intemational syetem. From Searle, constructivsts under ‘rand that social facts eiffer from ‘brute! fects such as 2 lake or 2 mountain; they are common understandings rot only about the object but about its broader meaning, This implies that the world “out there’ [snot given ut constructed by thase who inhabit it Giddens structure tion theory has been influential here with regard to howe structure has a dual nature, constraining hurman actions bout also altered by t (Ruggie 1998: 875) Weber regarded hurmans 2s ‘cultural beings, ‘endowed with the capacity ‘andthe wlltatake adeliberate attitude towards the world and to lend it significance’ (Weber cited in Ruggie 1998: £856). Hs concept of verstehen understanding’ the mean Ing that someone intends or expresses) relates to analys- Ing individualized experiences in a broader collective Social Constructivism 51 ‘what states make of it, he means precisely this. If ‘we exist in 2 world of anarchy (the absence of an. authority above the state), it is because we have come to believe that is hovr the world is, and our actions correspond to that reading of an ‘anarchic world’, Thus, if we find ourselves in an anarchic system, it is because we believe it is anarchic. Anarchy is nota given feature of the international systems it is an idea that states buy into, and, because they buy into it and understand the world as ‘anarchic, they act accordingly. Therefore, anarchy is not a natural, part of the inter- national system; actors who believe it to be 60 construct it, framework (Fietke, 2001: 117; Ruggie 1996: 860). Social | ideas and beliefs flame our understanding ofthe world Durkneim proposed that diferent reations in a particu lar social order could influence social outcomes. In cexolaining why suicide was less likely to be prevalent in Cathal societies than in Protestant, he fooked to the social bonds and belief systems that constructed Catholic society and the belle that suicide was ‘sin'asan expla pation Rugale 1998:856~8) Berger andtuckmann(1991), by developing a sociology of knowledge, sought to under: stand how everyday life and practice relat to ideas about realiy—the ‘socal construction of reality. Through our actions and shared betes, our realty becomes “Institu> tionaized sedimented, and habitual. The more critical form of constructivism draws its influ: ences from ideas about the power of language and speech. \Wietgenstein’s netion that language is a form of action ‘thats constitutive of the word and Habesmas's theory of communicative action add insights into now language ames, argumentation, speech ats and the soclal nature ‘of language construct Our realty. The idea that speech Is a form of action is crucial inthis regard, and constructv- ‘sts working along these lines draw inspiration ftom Searte, John Austin (who distinguished between different ‘ypes of speech acts), Foucault on discourse and ts relar tionship to power and knowledge, and Dercida's decon- struction and the idea that text matters (Fierke and Jorgensen 2001: 4-5) 52. Christine Agius Social constructivism has contributed to-under- standing security’ by focusing on the agenda above. It has let new insights to topics such as European inte- Sration, NATO's persistence and enlargement since the end of the Cold Wa, national-security policy, the social construction of threat (such as Islamic funda ‘mentalism and immigration), the impact of norms and values in he international system (such as respect forhuman rights) ands also, the possibily for change in the international system, (For how the war on te tor hasbeen socially constructed see Think Point 4,1.) ‘An important part of the constructivist agenda is to Show how identity and interests are not fixed over ‘Security as ‘soctally constructed’: the war on terror ‘The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were defined by former US President George W. Bush as an atack on fteedom and emecragy on a plobal cae. requiring a new response 19 8 new kind of was When framing the atacks, Bush drew on shared valves and collective meanings in both the interna, ‘onal andthe domestic context. For the international com. ‘munity the attacks represented a threat to feedom, secur, and modem ways of life Equating the ideologies and meth | 0d50FakQaeds and fundamentalist tenorsm vith ‘ascsm, ‘Nazism and totalitarianism; Bush 2001) claimed that this Ig ‘the wort’ fight. chitaation’s fight This iste Fight of at wo believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and free. dor: Fierhe (2002: 342 observe thatthe iil character ‘ation of the atacs a a ‘clash’ or ‘ruse’ (which could ‘lenate Muslim popultionsand states) shiftedtoan empha: $n binge together a global coition of tats to ett {erforiss: Domestcally, Bush drew comparisons with tre {tack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which remains a significant erent in the American colective memory where Araviea ‘a5 Caught by surprise, leading to massive losses Bush ‘argued thatthe ataks represented anew kindof war tee ‘euies new strategies, resources and tools such 3s depiy. ‘ng inteligenee,diniomacy, fore, utting off the finance Fesources and Support of tertoist groups, and other met ot The Office of Homeland Security, established in 2002,

    You might also like