Realism and constructivism in Southeast Asian security studies today: a review essay

Abstract

The post-Cold War debate among positivist and post-positivist theorists of international security -particularly realists, liberals and constructivists -has not diminished. Both realism and constructivism have now been established as the key intellectual competitors in Southeast Asian security studies. Following a brief intellectual history of Southeast Asian security studies, this paper reviews the major works of two political scientists who are leading authorities: Michael Leifer, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a realist; and Amitav Acharya, a professor at York University and a constructivist. This review essay makes the following argument: constructivism is more insightful than balance-ofpower realism, but it is more likely to conform to a sophisticated balanceof-threat theory -a form of 'minimalist' or 'soft' realism -which can help explain the daunting tasks of security-community building.

Is ASEAN powerful? Neo-realist versus constructivist approaches to power in Southeast Asia1

“…5 Peou (2002) makes a similar point about the essential difference between neorealist and constructivist assessments of ASEAN. He suggests that what distinguishes Acharya's work from Michael Leifer's is that:…”

Rescuing constructivism from the constructivists: a critical reading of constructivist interventions in Southeast Asian security

“…Others have tried to define the field of Southeast Asian security in a somewhat similar way, notably by squaring realism off against constructivism as 'the key intellectual competitors in Southeast Asian security studies' (Peou 2002). In this respect, it is tempting but inaccurate to read realism as synonymous with rationalism, since the realism in question for Sorpong Peou (2002) is that of Michael Leifer's, whose work certainly cannot be described as rationalist neo-realist, even if that is implied. Other realist renditions of Southeast Asian security would make better candidates (Betts 1993-94;Buzan and Segal 1994;Friedberg 1993-94).…”

“…Not surprisingly, the constructivist 'turn' in the study of Southeast Asian affairs has provoked a number of rejoinders, fair or otherwise, ranging from the relatively sympathetic (Peou 2002) to empirically rigorous (Khoo 2004;Leifer 2001) to outright dismissive (Jones andSmith 2001, 2002), none of which, however, describes the assessment that this essay seeks to proffer. Instead, the concern here has to do with the appeal by constructivists to a particular methodology that, where the study of Southeast Asian security is concerned, likely reveals more about their specific metaphysical and ontological commitments, which at times contradict one another, than it actually does the lives, histories and customs of the localities under scrutiny.…”

“…Of late, constructivist accounts have been making their mark in the field of Southeast Asian security studies (Acharya 2000(Acharya , 2001Busse 1999;Haacke 2003a, b;Katsumata 2003Katsumata , 2004Narine 2002;Peou 2002). So forceful has their advance been that at least one pundit has taken to describing the field in terms of 'the new constructivist orthodoxy prevalent among many Southeast Asian analysts' (Khoo 2004: 45).…”

ASEAN in the twenty-first century: a sceptical review

“…Most scholars of ASEAN regard liberal institutionalism as seriously limited in explaining ASEAN (Peou, 2002;Kawasaki, 2006;Ruland and Jetschke, 2008). This paper adopts neither a realist nor constructivist perspective-though it may be argued that the theoretical perspectives utilized are variations on both of these theories.…”