Baker 1

Harrison Baker

Professor Dainoff

POLS-237

24 Apr. 2022

Constructivism: An Accurate Theory to Assess International Relations

American educator, author, and businessman Stephan Covey once said, “Strength lies in

differences not in similarities.” One can interpret this statement as observing differences between

two or more given groups as the source of power and influence. This can also be applied to

international relations in the form of constructivism in how a nation’s differences from others in

culture and norms gives influence to international cooperation. In American professor Ted

Hopf’s article, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” he examines

the constructivism theory and compares it to other political theories such as neorealism and

neoliberalism. Although neorealism and neoliberalism are commonly observed in international

relations, Hopf’s constructivism theory offers a better understanding of the current international

system and behavior of each state.

Before understanding the constructivism outlook on international relations, one must first

examine the theories of neorealism and neoliberalism. Hopf first explains that neorealists believe

there is a constant state of anarchy from which nations are obligated to protect themselves. In his

article he writes, “being able to rely on one's own capacity to enforce an agreement, such as arms

control in a world of offensive military advantage, neorealist conceptualizations of anarchy are

most apt” (123). In addition to their need to maintain military strength, Hopf states that another

major defining feature of realism is that, “all units in global politics have only one meaningful

identity, that of self-interested states” (123). He continues to explain that it is each country’s
 Baker 2

interest that influences its basic meaning or goal. Hopf then states, “Given that interests are the

product of identity “great power” implies a particular set of interests different from those implied

by the identity “European Union member,” and that identities are multiple, constructivist logic

precludes acceptance of pregiven interests” (123). From these descriptions, the author gives the

reader a better understanding that neorealism is centered on the idea of a perpetual state anarchy

existing, and because of that world powers should strengthen their militaries in the event of a

conflict breaking out. As a byproduct of this, the nations will subsequently focus on their own

interests, ultimately resulting in each world power’s identity being determined. An example of

realism in international relations in recent history can be seen during the period of the Cold War.

During this period, allies of the NATO alliance and the Warsaw Pact sought to protect each

other's interests from the influence of the opposing countries, this serves as an example for

nations being self-interested or concerned with their well-being(Cold War). Each world power

believed that the necessary method for ensuring the survival of their interests was through

military strength, and it was through this strength where they were able to maintain their status in

international relations.

Similar to neorealism, neoliberalist too believe that a constant state of anarchy exists, but

believe that cooperation in the international community can be obtained because of it. It is

important to note that cooperation in this case most commonly takes form in economic or

military related agreements. Hopf first specifies that “Neoliberalism tells us that states ally

against power” (128). He expands on this point by citing an argument claiming states ally against

threats specifically, but he refutes this by stating that “The latter is the power possessed by a

relatively capable, geographically proximate state with offensive military capabilities and

perceived hostile intentions. Whereas geographical proximity and offensive military capacity can
 Baker 3

be established a priori, perceived intentions threaten tautology”(129). One could observe that

Hopf was explaining that in the light of neoliberalism, countries seek cooperation with others in

the event of a single nation possessing substantial power compared to others. In order to achieve

cooperation within the international community, Hopf states that neoliberalism requires a

widespread system of surveillance to keep nations accountable for their actions and provide

transparency to others. The text states, “By establishing formal mechanisms of surveillance,

institutions enable states to see what other states are doing, again enhancing confidence that a

defection will be seen and a cooperative action will be followed by the same. By creating rules

and procedures for surveillance and sanction, all parties can have greater confidence that

violations will be punished”(130). It is through this method of transparency where neoliberalists

believe states are able to maintain trust between each other, and create an alliance among the

involved nations. An example of neoliberalism in the world today can be seen in the North

American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA, among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In

this trade bloc, the countries trust in each other to not impose any tariffs and in turn promotes

competition with overseas competitors(North American). With neorealism and neoliberalism

theories specified, one can better understand constructivism.

Constructivism, as said by Hopf, “is best defined in relation to the issues it claims to

apprehend”(121). In relation to neorealism and neoliberalism, constructivism differs in that

cooperation or peace is difficult due to cultural or historical differences between nations, but

change can still be achieved due to ever-changing beliefs or interests. When compared to

neorealism or neoliberalism’s outlook on identity, constructivism dismisses the idea that states

only have a single identity or set interest. Instead constructivism acknowledges the prior history

of the country when determining a state’s identity. The author addresses this by stating
 Baker 4

constructivism, “instead assumes that the selves, or identities, of states are a variable; they likely

depend on historical, cultural, political, and social context” (123). Hopf used the U.S. military

intervention in Vietnam as an example of this, explaining how the actions of the United States

intervening in Southeast Asia resulted in countries regarding the U.S. as imperialistic, and

ultimately attributed a new identity being applied to the United States. He expands on this claim

by stating, “In this way, social practices not only reproduce actors through identity, but also

reproduce an intersubjective social structure through social practice”(124). In addition to this,

with respect to neorealism, Hopf summaries, “constructivism assumes that actors and structures

mutually constitute each other; anarchy must be interpreted to have meaning; state interests are

part of the process of identity construction; power is both material and discursive; and change in

world politics is both possible and difficult”(126). Later in his writing, the author states that the

neorealism and neoliberalism theories often fall short of accounting for a nation’s gender

proportion, sexuality, race, and religion when assessing the identity of the given nation, while

constructivism takes such aspects into account. From this information, one could deduce that

similar interests between nations is unimportant when states could have multiple identities and

interests. In addition, constructivists identify power as “both material and discursive, patterned

behavior over time should be understood as a result of material or economic power working in

concert with ideological structures, social practices, institutionalized norms and intersubjective

webs of meaning… constructivist social structures are both enduring and mutable, change in

world politics is considered both difficult and possible”(135). An example of constructivism in

recent years can be seen in the border dispute between Bhutan and China. Although relations

were strained between the two over territory claim, one could recognize that the cause of tension

was based on differing cultures and enduring tensions from the past. But a constructivist would
 Baker 5

recognize that the differing cultures and ideals are subject to change based on the actions and

beliefs of the surrounding nations (Theys).

In conclusion, even though international relation theories such as neorealism and

neoliberalism offer some explanation for why nations interact with each other, constructivism

offers a more detailed explanation that factors in the aspects of a nation’s culture, history, and

beliefs.
 Baker 6

Works Cited

“Cold War | Summary, Causes, History, Years, Timeline, and Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica,

www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War. Accessed 28 April 2022.

“North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).” International Trade Administration |

Trade.Gov, www.trade.gov/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta. Accessed 29

April 2022.

Theys, Sarina. “Introducing Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” E-International

Relations, 6 Aug. 2018,www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-

international-relations-theory/#:%7E:text=For%20example%2C%20an%20agreement%2

0on,is%20friendship%20rather%20than%20enmity.