Why does one country regard another as an ally, while treating a third as a threat? Military strength offers part of the answer. Geography and economic interests matter too. But understanding international politics also means understanding identity, historical memory and the meanings attached to power.
This is where constructivism becomes useful. It asks how the relationships, expectations and shared beliefs of societies shape the world in which states act.
What is constructivism?
Constructivism is an approach to International Relations built around the argument that important features of world politics are socially constructed.
That phrase can sound abstract. Consider money: a banknote has purchasing power because institutions and communities recognise its value. Its consequences are real, even though its significance depends on social agreement.
International politics contains similar arrangements. Sovereignty, diplomatic recognition and the distinction between friend and enemy depend on shared understandings, sustained through practice.
Constructivism therefore asks where political interests come from. How does a country develop its understanding of security? Why does it consider some ambitions legitimate and others unacceptable? How do interactions with other countries reinforce or change those beliefs?
“Anarchy is what states make of it”
Alexander Wendt expressed a central constructivist argument in the title of his influential 1992 article: “Anarchy is what states make of it.”
In International Relations, anarchy means the absence of a supreme authority above states. It does not simply mean chaos.
Wendt questioned whether this condition necessarily produces competitive power politics. States can develop different relationships through interaction and learning. Expectations of hostility encourage defensive behaviour, which can deepen mistrust; different practices can sustain cooperation. His argument makes the character of international relationships central to understanding how anarchy operates. Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is what states make of it.
Imagine two neighbouring countries with comparable armed forces. If each interprets the other’s exercises as preparation for invasion, even defensive measures can become alarming. If they establish credible communication and habits of cooperation, the same capabilities may acquire a different meaning.
This hypothetical example illustrates the constructivist question: how did those countries come to understand each other that way?
Identity helps shape national interests
Political debate often invokes “the national interest” as though its meaning were obvious. Yet deciding what belongs within that interest already involves judgements about identity.
A country that understands itself as a neutral mediator may approach a conflict differently from one that regards itself as a regional protector. Leaders must also persuade domestic audiences that their policies fit the country’s history, responsibilities and aspirations.
A constructivist analysis would investigate these claims rather than accepting them at face value. It would examine speeches, education, diplomatic practice and public debate, looking for evidence that particular identities influenced decisions.
For readers in Britain, this provides a useful way to approach arguments about sovereignty and international responsibility: what image of the country does each argument assume, and what policies does that image make appealing?
How international norms develop
Norms are shared expectations about appropriate behaviour. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink proposed an influential model explaining how they develop:
- Emergence: advocates promote a new standard.
- Cascade: adoption spreads as more actors accept it.
- Internalisation: the standard becomes widely taken for granted.
Their research also emphasises that persuasion and strategic calculation can operate together. Supporting a norm need not be an entirely selfless act. Finnemore and Sikkink, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.
However, ideas do not travel unchanged. Amitav Acharya’s research on Asian regionalism shows how local actors adapt international norms to existing beliefs and institutions. Communities receiving an idea help determine what it becomes. Acharya, How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter?.
That makes constructivism particularly useful for asking whose values shape international expectations—and whose interpretations receive recognition.
How does it compare with realism and liberalism?
As a broad introductory comparison, realism directs attention towards power, survival and strategic competition. Liberalism examines cooperation through institutions, interdependence and domestic politics. Constructivism investigates how identities and shared meanings shape interests and relationships.
These traditions contain considerable internal disagreement. A useful analysis can also draw on several approaches.
When studying an alliance, for example, we might examine its military advantages, its institutional arrangements and the shared identity that helps sustain it. Each question reveals something different.
What are its limitations?
Constructivist explanations require evidence. A leader’s speech may express a sincere belief, justify an existing decision or seek to manipulate an audience. Those possibilities must be distinguished.
There is also a danger of explaining events retrospectively without specifying what would count against the explanation. Claims about identity become more convincing when researchers trace how beliefs affected particular choices and consider competing accounts.
Nor does constructivism promise peaceful change. Shared ideas can support exclusion, nationalism and hostility as readily as cooperation.
Its value lies in making apparently settled arrangements open to investigation. When politicians describe a rivalry as inevitable or a national interest as permanent, constructivism encourages us to ask how that understanding developed, how it is maintained and what could change it.
World politics involves weapons, wealth and territory. It also involves people interpreting those things—and acting on the meanings they give them.
Leave a Reply