Hello! Welcome back to our course on geopolitics.
In our last two lessons, we've explored Realism, which sees the world as a stage for power competition, and Liberalism, which finds hope for cooperation in democracy, trade, and institutions. Both theories, in their own way, tend to treat a state's interests—like security or wealth—as a given.
Today, we will delve into a third major perspective, Constructivism, which challenges this very foundation. Constructivism doesn't ask what states want; it asks how they decide what they want. It argues that the international world is not a fixed, material reality but a social one, built from the ideas, norms, and identities that we share.
This lesson addresses the learning outcome: Explain constructivism and illustrate how identity, norms, and perception shape state behavior. We'll see that what states do is often less about a cold calculation of power and more about their sense of self and what they believe is "appropriate" behavior.
1. The Social Construction of Reality
The core idea of constructivism is that much of our world is made real by shared belief. Think about money. A 100-dollar bill is just a piece of paper (a material fact), but because we all believe it has value, it functions as a medium of exchange (a social fact). If we all collectively decided it was worthless, it would be.
Constructivists argue that key concepts in international relations—like sovereignty, anarchy, and even threats—work the same way. They are not objective realities but intersubjective realities, meaning their existence depends on shared understanding among actors.
To begin, let's get a concise overview of the theory and its key claims.
International Relations Today, IR 101 Episode 3: Constructivism
This video from International Relations Today provides an excellent introduction to constructivism, explaining its origins and its core challenge to other IR theories.
Please watch from the beginning to 05:10. Focus on: How constructivism explains phenomena that realism and liberalism struggled with, like the end of the Cold War. The idea that international politics is a 'social construct'. The crucial argument by Alexander Wendt that 'anarchy is what states make of it.'
2. Anarchy, Identity, and Interests
As the video explained, the most famous line in constructivism is Alexander Wendt's "anarchy is what states make of it." This is a direct rebuttal to realism.
- A realist sees anarchy (the absence of a world government) as a fixed structure that forces states into a self-help system where they must compete for power to survive.
- A constructivist argues that anarchy is just an empty vessel. It's the interactions between states that fill it with meaning. If states treat each other with suspicion, they create a "Hobbesian" anarchy of rivalry. If they treat each other as partners, they can create a "Kantian" culture of friendship and cooperation.
This brings us to the most powerful example in the constructivist toolkit, which was also mentioned in the video.
International Relations Today, IR 101 Episode 3: Constructivism
Let's revisit this key example to fully grasp its implications.
Please re-watch the segment from 07:23 to 09:27, which discusses Alexander Wendt's example of British vs. North Korean nuclear weapons.
The example is powerful because it shows that material capabilities (nuclear weapons) have no meaning on their own. Their meaning is constructed through the social relationship between the states. The US and the UK share a friendly identity and history, so UK weapons are not perceived as a threat. The US and North Korea share an enemy identity and history, so North Korean weapons are perceived as a threat.
This leads to the three core concepts that constructivism uses to explain state behavior:
- Identity: A state's sense of self, rooted in its history, culture, and values. Is a state a "post-colonial democracy," a "revolutionary power," or a "guardian of Islamic values"? This identity defines who it is in relation to others.
- Norms: Shared standards of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity. Examples include the norm of state sovereignty, the taboo against using chemical or nuclear weapons, and the principle of diplomatic immunity.
- Interests: Unlike in realism where interests are fixed (survival, power), constructivists argue that interests are shaped by identity and norms. A state's interests are a product of who it thinks it is and what it believes is appropriate action.
This relationship is mutually constitutive, meaning actors and structures shape each other. States' behaviors create and reinforce norms, and those norms, in turn, shape what states consider possible or desirable.
3. Logic of Appropriateness vs. Logic of Consequentialism
How do norms actually influence behavior? Constructivists distinguish between two logics of action.
- Logic of Consequentialism: Actors choose actions based on a rational calculation of expected costs and benefits. This is the primary logic of realism and liberalism. ("What action will best serve my interests?")
- Logic of Appropriateness: Actors choose actions based on what is considered legitimate and proper for their identity. ("How should an actor like me behave in this situation?")
You encounter this in your own field. A software engineer following a logic of consequentialism might just hack together code to make it work quickly. An engineer following a logic of appropriateness would adhere to coding standards, write documentation, and create unit tests—not just because it has a better outcome, but because that's what a "professional developer" is expected to do. It's part of their identity.
International Relations theory made easy (6): Constructivism
This next video provides a fantastic explanation of this concept using everyday examples like queuing at a supermarket and elevator etiquette.
Please watch from 32:28 to 45:23. Pay attention to how the speaker distinguishes between the two logics and uses relatable examples to show the power of social norms in guiding behavior, before extending the concept to international relations (e.g., sovereignty, nuclear non-proliferation).
The video's discussion of the "nuclear taboo" is a classic constructivist argument. Why have nuclear weapons not been used since 1945, even in situations where it might have been militarily advantageous? Constructivists argue it's not just deterrence (a realist argument), but a powerful international norm that has constructed their use as barbaric, uncivilized, and "inappropriate" for any modern state.
4. Case Study: The India-Pakistan Conflict
To illustrate how these concepts work in practice, let's analyze the enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan, a topic of particular relevance to your interest in South Asia. Realism sees a power struggle, and liberalism notes a lack of trade and institutions. Constructivism, however, offers a deeper explanation rooted in identity.
The Case for Constructivism In Analysing the India-Pakistan Conflict
This article by Hassan Hashim, 'The Case for Constructivism In Analysing the India-Pakistan Conflict', provides a detailed application of the theory. It argues that material factors alone cannot explain the conflict's intensity and persistence.
Please read the following sections: The Introduction (the first three paragraphs) to understand why the author believes constructivism is necessary. The section titled 'Role of identity in shaping actors and foreign policies'. Focus on how the competing identities of 'secular India' and 'Muslim Pakistan' have shaped each country's strategic goals and their approach to the nuclear issue. The section titled 'Contestation, Ontological Security and the Enduring India-Pakistan Conflict'. This is the core of the argument. Pay close attention to how the Kashmir dispute is framed not just as a territorial conflict, but as a zero-sum battle over the legitimacy of each state's founding identity.
As the article powerfully argues, the India-Pakistan conflict is so intractable because it is fundamentally about identity.
- Competing Identities: The conflict is a continuation of the ideological battle of Partition. India's identity is tied to secularism, proving that different religions can coexist in one state. Pakistan's identity is based on the Two-Nation Theory, the idea that Hindus and Muslims are distinct nations requiring separate states.
- Kashmir as a Symbol: From this perspective, Kashmir is not just territory (a material asset). It is a symbol.
- For India, holding onto Muslim-majority Kashmir validates its secular identity.
- For Pakistan, the idea of Kashmir's "liberation" is essential to fulfilling the promise of the Two-Nation Theory.
- Constructed Interests: The "interest" in controlling Kashmir is therefore not just strategic, but existential. It's about securing each nation's "ontological security"—the security of being, of knowing who you are. This explains why both sides have pursued policies that seem "irrational" or counter-productive from a purely materialist standpoint.
This framework is also vital for understanding Nepal's geopolitical position. Nepal's interactions with India and China are not just about balancing power (realism) or maximizing trade (liberalism). They are also shaped by competing identities and narratives—India's perception of Nepal within its cultural sphere of influence versus China's projection as a modern, alternative development partner, and Nepal's own assertion of a unique, sovereign identity.
5. A Modern Application: Cyber Warfare
Constructivism isn't just about old rivalries; it's highly relevant to modern technological domains, including cyber warfare—an area that aligns with your background in computer engineering. A cyber-attack is materially just lines of code, but its meaning is socially constructed.
Constructivist Theory in Analyzing Cyberwar Between the United States and China
Let's briefly look at a paper that applies constructivism to the US-China cyber rivalry.
Skim the sections from the paragraph beginning 'According to constructivism, cyberwar is seen as anarchy...' through to the 'Conclusion'. Notice how the conflict is shaped by different perceptions, identities, and norms—such as China's concept of 'cyber sovereignty' versus the US norm of 'internet freedom'.
The key takeaway is that the US-China "cyberwar" is driven by mutual suspicion. Each side interprets the other's actions through a lens of enmity, constructing them as espionage or aggression. The conflict isn't just about technical vulnerabilities; it's about a clash of norms and identities in the digital realm.
Conclusion
Today we've added the third major IR theory to our analytical toolkit. Unlike realism and liberalism, constructivism forces us to look beyond material factors and consider the power of ideas.
Key Takeaways:
- The World is Socially Constructed: Key aspects of international relations, including interests, threats, and even anarchy, are not objective facts but are built from shared beliefs, rules, and practices.
- Identity is Key: A state's identity—its sense of self—is a primary driver of its behavior. Interests are not fixed; they are constructed based on a state's identity.
- Norms and the Logic of Appropriateness: States are guided not only by a "logic of consequentialism" (what pays?) but also by a "logic of appropriateness" (what is the right thing to do for a state like me?).
- Perception Matters: The way states perceive each other (as friend, enemy, or rival) is more important than the objective distribution of power.
So far, we have looked at Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism in isolation. You now have three distinct lenses for viewing the world. In our next lesson, we will put them to the test by using all three to analyze a single geopolitical event, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, to see how each theory provides a different—and incomplete—part of the full picture.