Constructivism in Politics

 

Constructivism in Politics

Introduction

The origins of constructivism within politics arise from the precept that there is a reason why people do one thing in a precise way and not any other. Essentially, the concept sets out a set of ideas, beliefs and practices behind the way that people do things and how this has an influence on interpretation and perception of the world. The model of constructivism is especially important because politics as a whole is a social construct where the influences arising from various individuals and groups come together to define the aggregate outcome in the overall underpinnings that arise in the wider society. Ruggie, (1998) denotes the model as the force and tool that holds and keeps the world together. The constructivist argument also offers the most rational choice while trying to understand the different elements and potentially prevailing obstacles in the existing understanding and interpretation of politics as a concept ad activity within society. Consequently, it is the intention of this evaluation to understanding the ontological and epistemological interpretations on the constructivist view, its benefits in understanding politics and the potential limitations that arise from the adoption of this view.

Ontological and Epistemological Underpinnings

Parsons, (2018) provides an interrogative and interpretive vow on the development of constructivism as an argument in the realm of politics. The application of this model illustrates how complex the realm of politics can be, especially in understanding and its subsequent interpretation. For instance, while the constructivist approach seeks to offer an understanding of politics from the rational and single direction model of argument, the epistemological underpinnings behind its development also illustrate the presence of varied views and claims. For instance, despite the sociological foundation as the basic view, it is also illustrated that other models and concepts also offer insight into the development of this view. For instance, there is an emerging influence from science, causality and reality that all tend to have a definitive influence on definition and understanding.

Berger and Luckman, (1967) also allude to the shared influences and how they define the modern social construction of reality. Essentially, the foundations of the constructivist approach derive from the foundations of sociology and knowledge in creating an outline for social interaction and the course of everyday life. Essentially, the basis of this theoretical model has adopted and uses society as the foundation and basis of interaction whose influence goes on to define the wider outcome and understanding of social interaction and everyday life. The foundation of society as a source of objective reality goes on to inform each of the other multiple levels in social organization, thinking and the subsequent development of reality. The established reality is subsequently internalized and adopted as the basis of social structure and as the foundation of political thinking within the community.

A breakdown of constructivism as an approach also indicates the presence of multiple levels and different varieties within the larger realm of constructivism. The epistemological view has specially developed in the present and now includes modern and post-modern views. The post-modern view offers an interpretative aspect to the wider and larger model that is the concept of constructivism (Berger and Luckman, 1967). Additionally, the sociological foundation in the model has also paved the way to the development of other schools of thought that include comparative and idealist literature, in addition to the hegemony theory and the poststructuralist views. Altogether, the different views aggregate and create a shared model or concept that is important in the method level where process thinking plays a major role in comparison and other related interactions that tend to emerge.

Hoffman, (2017) extends the understanding of constructivism as a sociologically grounded model in interpreting and understanding the contested realm of international relations. The role of constructivism within politics seeks to establish a rational and largely understandable view towards governance where the different parties are liable to compliance according to the existing and established guidelines that are in place. The application of this view informed the decision to impose consequentialist sanctions on Iraq. The United Nations outlined the desired guidelines which the country ought to have followed in its practice and conduct. Lack of compliance with these guidelines as established exposed the country to a series of critical consequences that would inevitably affect the standing of the country. Consequently, it was in the interest of the country to pursue a clearer understanding of these values and chart the right path of compliance and mutual understanding.

The modern relevance and application of the constructive model are especially rising with the course of integration and globalization. Hay and Rosamond, (2002) illustrate how the rise in globalization proliferates with the informal discourse in social sciences. Globalization especially creates a new set of challenges that would affect the mode of governance and the overall role of idealistic institutions in the present. The role of this theoretical model creates a potential positive influence and benefit in the wider realm of social discourse, especially in the present. The application of this model especially illustrates both theoretical and practical relevance in the presence of structures for social construction and conception of political action.

Strengths and weaknesses

The main strength of the constructivist view in the interpretation and understanding of politics and society, in general, is that it has a factual foundation and solid basis. Essentially, the material basis of this theory and approach is natural and grounded on the presence of material facts. Additionally, the sociological underpinning of the theory also shares the same foundation as politics. It is more elaborate and simpler to understand the relationship that it bears and the explanation that it seeks to develop in words and language. Additionally, other famous theories in sociology such as Marx Weber share the same precepts and understanding about the application of these concepts and their overall role in discerning the wider realm of politics and governance (Wendt, 1992). Such relationships have made it simpler and easier to follow through and establish the core foundation of constructivism as an argument and its influence within politics.

Finnemore and Sikkink, (2001) also indicate that the early application and subsequent adoption of constructivist thought in politics emerged through observation of the gains that it creates in the comparative political growth. The approach resonates with the need to understand the basis of human consciousness within social life. Consequently, it is largely hard to reduce the precepts of debate on this issue into individual factors. Research on the model has also exploded, especially in the recent past due to the rising interest in the application of the constructivist view in the development and sustenance of theoretical arguments around the concept of governance its relationship with power (Guzzini, 2005).  The author especially alludes to the fundamental nature of constructivism as a view that is concerned with the development of a clear understanding of human consciousness and its application in international life. Subsequently, the constructivist view is most ideal and effective in its application on the politics of governance and international relations today.

However, the basis of constructivism as a view has some distinctive elements, while there are components that are somewhat subtle and less clear. Other scholars such as Hume and Wendt have since pointed out that the non-interpretive models such as realism end up creating a convoluted argument about the understanding of politics and society (Wendt, 1992; Guzzini and Leander, 2006). Particularly, the presence of a clear view and interpretation from individuals does not necessarily mean that the rest of society also share the same uniform perspective on the same issue. Subsequently, the basis of constructivism as a model often ends up with multiple views and arguments on the same shared issue. Altogether, the absence of a single and shared standard construct makes it hard to establish a common and single view about constructivism in its use and application on the interpretation of politics and society. The merits of simplicity in both concept and interpretation and often lost in the process.

The ongoing conflict in Iraq demonstrates the potential challenges that arise with the application of the constructivist approach towards a normative community. Essentially, it was desired that the consequences as adopted would prompt the nation to seek a means of compliance to established guidelines in international law. However, the reality that prevailed points out the challenge in seeking compliance while overlooking the potential of rejection and contestation.  Despite the established guidelines for compliance as established under the United Nations Security Council, it is now evident that there are inherent gaps in establishing and imposing these guidelines in mainstream society. For instance, the politics of sanctions and compliance remain largely unclear and hard to impose across the different nations and regions globally. Largely, it is also hard to establish a uniform set of guidelines based on the diversity in individual thinking that is already existent.  Kurki and Sinclair, (2010) indicate that this shortfall in the model becomes evident because of the way that it fails to interrogate and understand the potential and overall scale in social structure and world politics.

Wiener, (2007) alludes to the complexities, the puzzles and promises that would arise from an application of constructivist thought in international relations. Largely, that author notes that epistemological overlap is one of the evident and most prevalent influences that tend to arise from an application of this body of thought in reasoning and thinking. Other consecutive debates emerge from lack of deliberation and proper debate on the prevalent issues or any of the others that would tend to emerge in the process. Largely, it becomes complex and untenable to manage and sustain the multiple debates that arise and maintain them in their rightful place while still devising and providing the right tools for interpretation and formative evaluation. Some of the main challenges that are illustrated in the realm of constructivism emerge from the weaknesses that the author notes in this evaluation.

Conclusion

There is an analogous puzzle that remains in what Ruggie, (1998) interrogated regarding the realm of international relations and world politics. The advent of constructivism as a model sets out to identify and respond to some of these questions around the role of social ideals and the development of independent thinking within the existing systems. Subsequently, knowledge at this level escalates and tends to include the involvement of these systems in wider politics. The constructivist model has proved effective in responding to the different questions around governance and structure within the community. The major strengths of the model lie in its ability to devise and provide effective and single frame responses to these questions. However, the ambiguity surrounding the overall scope and overall application of the model has also posed challenges in its effectiveness. Aggregately, the model has created value and helped to respond to various questions around the modern rise in the realm of international relations and world governance.

 

 

References

‌ Parsons, C. (2018) Constructivism and Interpretive Theory. In V. Lowndes, D. Marsh and G. Stoker, eds., Theory and Methods in Political Science, 4th Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 75–91.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality, London: Allen Lane, pp. 19-34.

Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. (2001). ‘Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics’ Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 4, pp. 391-416

Guzzini, S., & Leander, A., eds. (2006). Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics.

Guzzini, S., (2005). ‘The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis,’ Millennium, Vol. 33, pp. 495-521.

Hay, C., & Rosamond, B. (2002). Globalization, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110120192

Hoffman, M. (2017). Norm Constructivism: Contesting International Legal Norms. In Pestuge Illiani. https://pestuge.iliauni.edu.ge/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Matthew-J.-Hoffmann-Norm-Constructivism.-Contesting-International-Legal-Norms-In-Jennifer-Sterling-Folker-Making-Sense-of-International-Relations-Theory.pdf

Kurki, M, & Sinclair, A., (2010). “Hidden in Plain Sight: Constructivist Treatment of Social Context and Its Limitations,” International Politics, Vol. 47: 1, pp. 1-25.

Ruggie, J. (1998). ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,’ in Constructing the World Polity

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391–425.

Wiener, A. (2006). Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939758