As political scientist Stephen Walt explains,

"No single approach can capture all the complexity of contemporary

world politics. Therefore, we are better off with a diverse array of
competing ideas rather than a single theoretical orthodoxy.
Competition between theories helps reveal their strengths and
weaknesses and spurs subsequent refinements, while revealing flaws
in conventional wisdom."
Material foundations – states are self-centered or egoistic, for liberal,
they cooperate for mutual gains.

It is a critical theory, changing with time and space.

Constructivists, following in the radical tradition because of attention to the sources of change, argue
that the key structures in the states system are not material but instead are intersubjective and social.
The interest of states is not fixed but is malleable and ever changing. While constructivists, like the other
theorists, differ among themselves, they share the common belief that discourse shapes how political
actors define interests, and thus modify their behavior. Constructivism has assumed increasing
importance in twenty-first-century thinking about international relations.

Anarchy
Alexander Wendt – the deep structure of anarchy is cultural or
ideational rather than material. – Constructivists accept that anarchy
is the characteristics conditions of the international system, but argue
that, by itself, it means nothing. For example, an anarchy of friend is
quite different from an anarchy of enemies, but both are possible.
The constructivist approach to IR differs in IR from realism and
liberalism in its assertion that rejects the material foundation of social
interactions (how states behave at the international arena or interact).
It instead claims that social interactions themselves create a shared
understanding that shapes material reality.
The constructivist approach was first articulated by Alexander Wendt
in his classic article “Anarchy is What the State Makes It,” published in
1992.
In it, he advances two central propositions.
First that the structures of human association (like EU, its structure
represents Eurocentrism) are determined by primarily by shared ideas
rather than material forces.
And second that identities and interests of purpose of actors (like
China foreign policy is constructed having influenced by the ‘Century
of Humiliation’, India is now a western ally, whereas Pakistan is being
drifted away from the western camp. Consequently, China and
Pakistan interests converge because of their respective history vis-e-
vis India)) are constructed by those shared ideas rather than given by
nature. Constructivists, in other words, see the world is built through
the social interactions between agents.

These social interactions create shared understanding of the material

reality or structures of daily life. In turn, these structures help
reinforce or weaken new shared understanding.
According to Wendt, Anarchy is not inherent to international system.
Rather, Anarchy (how states behave) is a result of shared behaviors of
states. State constructs an international anarchic system by behaving
as though the system itself is anarchic.
There is an identity and a belief comes out of it.
The dissolution of the USSR was a result of the construct believed by
the leader of the Union (Mikhail Gorbachev) and people in general.
They believed that the US had outpaced the USSR and the USSR had
ceased to be a competitive world power. This belief or construct led to
the sudden fragmentation of the union. People started identified
themselves with the national identity like Azerbaijani or Ukrainian.

At the most basic level, constructivists are arguing that ideas and
identities matter in international relations.
They reject realists’ assertions about the nature of the international
system being a given and self-help and the survival requirements that
flow from that claim. They are also critical of liberal assertions about
the inherent possibility of cooperation and the overriding concern with
protecting human right and establishing a liberal international order.
Instead, constructivist maintains that national identities, foreign
policy goals – indeed all of ir – are shaped by ideas and identity.
Political culture, the nature of government, history, and domestic
politics, can all shapes national identities, which can be unique to
specific countries.

The identity of the US and ir looks very different from the identity of
China or Russia. And as a result, the states behave in ways that are
different. International actors have to believe in the beliefs of ir like
states are the main actors, foreign policy connects states.
Identity and norms emerge in a context of mutually constituted
understanding. North Koreas 8 warheads are regarded as an
existential threat to the US. Not the UK, Russia or India. US is
preoccupied with Iran’s development of nuclear stockpiles.
Explanation of above: Wendt argues that “states act differently
towards enemies than they do towards friends because enemies are
threatening friends are not.”
But he continues, “anarchy and power distribution are insufficient to
tell us which is which. US structural military power has different
significance for Cuba than Canada. So, it depends on the subjective
understandings and expectations. When the US and the USSR decided
that they are no longer an enemy, the cold war was ended.

Such shared understanding plays out at the domestic level as well,

affecting domestic foreign policy and decision-making. China foreign
policy is heavily influenced by the “Century of humiliation.” Officially,
it pursues independent FP of peace, to preserve Chinese
independence, territorial integrity, modernization of construction, no
foreign intervention.
The us, by contrast, has history of manifest destiny, westward
expansion, and viewing itself, in the words of John Winthrop, as a city
upon a hill – a model for the rest of the world.
Therefore, it sees itself as a defender or promoter, albeit rhetorically,
of democracy or liberal order.
Norms in global politics are standards of appropriate behaviours for
specific actors in international relations. How ought to state behave?
They are not necessarily codified like long-standing norms are.
International norms: democracy is the only acceptable form of govt,
human right safeguard, not target the civilians during war. States
generally respect these norms, even when there is a cost associated
with doing so. This is the power of norms in global politics.

Important takeaways: First, identity matters. Beliefs about the

international system help to change the function and structure – and
indeed the reality – of the system. The interests of actors should not be
taken as a given, but should not be viewed as reflections of other
identities and are based on perceptions that can change over time.
As Martha Fennimore argues “interests are not just out there waiting
to be discovered, they are constructed through social interactions.”
Shared understanding that is norms of expected behaviour can shape
or constrain the behaviors in the international system. Constructivist
argues that states generally respect human rights, obey international
convention, refrain from the use of nuclear chemical or biological
weapons. And engage in or refrain from engaging in a host of other
behaviors not because of the threat of retaliation or the power of
international law but simply because that is the behavior that is
expected of them.

Social constructivism: Society makes ideas, beliefs or norms.

Agent oriented constructivism: an agent makes an idea – PM,
personalities, social media, civil society.

Book
Mainstream assumes that states have enduring interests such as
power and wealth, and are constrained in their ability to further those
interests because of material forces such as geography, technology and
power distribution.
Critics counter that social forces such as ideas, knowledge, norms and
rules also influence states’ identities and interests and the very
organization of world politics.
They recognize the importance of international norms and
conceptualize international politics not as a system but as a society.
Constructivist are more attentive to the issues that mattered to
neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists – how identity, norms,
culture, shapes pattern of war and peace. Norms have become
internationalized and institutionalized.
Both believe that ideas and norms constrain material and individual
interests, constructivist believes that ideas and norms define their
interests.
Constructivist includes sociological and critical theories, and argues
that their inclusion is central for understanding the behavior of states
and non-states actors.
Two causes of their meteoric rise
First is the inclusion of sociological and critical theories, and second is
the end of the cold war that bore out not individualism and
materialism but impacts of ideas transformed the organization of
world politics.
Comparison
Though they disagree on various issues, they shared a commitment to
individualism and materialism. They believe that states interests are
hard-wired and unmalleable. Individualism is the view that actors
have fixed interests and that the structure constrains their behaviour.
Materialism that structure like geography, technology and power
distribution constrain interests. Critics counter the above assertion
that social forces such as ideas, knowledge, norms and rules also
influence states’ identities and interests and the very organization of
world politics.

Neorealism: There is an anarchy (the absence of supranational

authority, implying that states must be consumed by security, power
and survival; those states do not and should not have patience for
ethics, norms and other niceties of world politics, and that the balance
of power and international hierarchy tells us just about everything we
need to know about pattern in world politics.
Neoliberalism: Neoliberal institutionalists lightened neorealism’s dark
view of international politics by demonstrating that states cooperate
extensively in order to further their interests, interests that go beyond
security. Because a primary obstacle to cooperation is the absence of
trust, states construct international institutions, that can perform
various trust-enhancing function.
Major difference: Both believe that ideas, norms and identities can
constrain interests, constructivist believes that ideas and norms define
their interests.
Alexander Wendt on the three cultures of anarchy:
Enemy, rival and friend.
The Hobbesian – the war of all against all. Self-help, zero-sum game,
survival, militarism for survival, even other can be erased for my
survival.
The Lockean – rival; other sovereignty, life, liberty and right are
accepted, no conquering of other like in enmities.
The Kantian – friend; disputes will be settled without war, rule of non-
violence, collective security.
It is a social theory and not a substantive theory of international
politics.
Ideas, ideologies, beliefs are not akin to beliefs or psychological states
that reside inside our heads like religion. Instead, these ideas are
social. Our mental maps are shaped by collectively held ideas such as
knowledge, symbols, language, and rules.
Constructivism has commitment to idealism and holism or
structuralism. The core observation is the social construction of
reality. Actors, identities are nurtured socially.
Social Facts: These are socially constructed realities and its existence
is dependent in human agreement like refugees, terrorism, human
rights and sovereignty unlike rocs, flowers, gravity independent to
human.
Practices: Rationalist often speaks of behaviour; actors behave with
fixed preferences (wealth). Constructivist – how states behave, how
things are done, there is a ‘socially meaningful pattern of global
politics.’ Culture gives meaning to practice as being the defender of
liberal order, the US has committed state intervention.
Legitimacy: There are divergent normative environments. A world of
Mahatma Gandhi is different from that of Osama Bin Laden. All actors
crave legitimacy, by following a set of established and worldwide
recognized norms such as women right, sovereignty, peace, morality
Which rule-following states adhere to and attain legitimacy that help
to convince other actors to cooperate with them like Taliban have to
adopt the norms of world politics to acquire legitimacy. So power can
be ideational. Constructivist also examine how actors make their
activities meaningful like Bush assault after 2001 attack,
The Peace of Westphalia helped to establish sovereignty and the norm
of non-interference, over time, this has changed sovereignty is
compromised by international institutionalization of norms, norm
diffusion across states, multilateralism, convergence of domestic
policies with that of international’s, homogenization of world politics.
The scolded neorealists and neoliberalists that they have failed to
explain this global transformation. Now states are ready to
compromise their cultural value and embrace international or
established normative structures (norms) just to acquire legitimacy.
Fist empires were not illegitimate, but not when liberalism and
democracy ideas are prevalent, they became obsolete and illegitimate,
thus ideas evolve, and this evolution generates new structures in world
politics.

They follow new established rules not because they are superior but
because they bring resources. States change their legislation and
norms to join EU, and bring reforms, because of EU’s symbolic values
because the symbolic values have material benefits. They jump into
the bandwagon just to acquire legitimacy that they are part of the
wider ‘club.’ ‘Western model’ is taken as ‘gold standard’ for peace and
prosperity.
Socialization – like professional and experts of Pakistan will learn
from the US and will mimic it in Pakistan. Diffusion

Why all states not follow the same norms?

Because of ‘Cultural match.’ International norms vary from local
culture.
Institutional isomorphism – homogeneity of structure; when interest
converges, states embrace similar values thus internationalization
happens.

Conclusions:
Ideas can shape how the world works. The world is not devoid of ideas.
It offers no predictions about enduring regularities or tendencies in
world politics. Instead, it suggests how to investigate them
Constructivists espouse idealism, holism. Also embrace the social
construction of reality, the existence and importance of social facts,
the constitution of actors’ identities, interests, and subjectivities; and
the importance of recovering the meaning that actors give to their
activities.