Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing, or Rereading

Abstract

oes realism have nothing to say about change in the actors, identities, social practices, and institutions that constitute the present or any future global order? Constructivism has given renewed impetus to this perspective on realism due to its almost universal characterization as a challenge to realism's emphasis on structure at the expense of history. 1 Because the reintroduction of "change" as an analytical concept into international relations (IR) theorizing proper is the constructivist goal, many constructivists believe realism is the very antithesis of constructivist theorizing. If the widely accepted claim that realism is incapable of accounting for dynamism in global politics is correct, it is hard to fathom how realism has managed to survive so long as a general theoretical category, let alone dominate the field, as its critics continue to claim.Realists have been just as content to ignore the development of constructivism on the grounds that it is a passing fad. Yosef Lapid's and Friedrich Kratochwil's review of initial realist reactions to the constructivist challenge confirms a realist penchant for elaboration and revision rather than "reconstruction," which involves "significant changes in theoretical cores without an intention . . . to sever all links with the established theoretical tradition." 2 Beyond a 1 In this context, the term "constructivism" includes what John Gerard Ruggie has termed in

Nonproliferation and Norm Discourse: An Agentic Constructivist Model of U.S. Nuclear Export Policy Changes

“…This approach reflects relativist ontological assumptions, viewing knowledge and “truth” as constructed (not created, or discovered). In such an environment, the relationship between actors as well as their negotiations helps to define the social construction of international commitments, while factors such as institutions or geopolitical dynamics can be seen as relatively less significant (Sterling‐Folker ; Wiener ). And because norms are supported by shared meanings, they rely on layers of consensus building on standards, which in turn become regulative and constitutive (Finnemore and Sikkink , 896; March and Olsen 1989).…”

The 1965 coup and reformasi 1998: two critical moments in Indonesia-Malaysia relations during and after the Cold War

“…However, it needs to be emphasized that the role of domestic politics gives an impact to states foreign relations. Because, according to Robert Jervis, “a country’s foreign policy reflects the nature of its domestic regime (Jervis 2006; Zakaria 1992; Sterling-Folker 2002). ” The behaviours of Sukarno and Suharto during their administration corresponded with their foreign policies and of course with this theory.…”

Gramsci for the Twenty-first Century: Dialectics and Translatability

“…One useful way of assessing what Gramsci has to offer International Relations (IR) is by placing neo‐Gramscian approaches within the on‐going debate on the compatibility of IR’s main competing paradigms: realism and constructivism. The Spring 2004 issue of the International Studies Review featured a forum on the possibility of a middle ground between constructivism and realism (Jackson and Nexon 2004) building on the arguments put forward by Samuel Barkin (2003) and Jennifer Sterling‐Folker (2002) in previous issues of the same journal. The main debate between these two approaches to IR revolves around the question whether relations among states are predetermined by the structural constraints of the international system or part and parcel of a socially constructed reality, which is simultaneously shaped and reshaped through social practice.…”

“…This is of course a gross oversimplification of either approach, but attempts to find a common ground between realism and constructivism are usually attempts to come to theory that accounts for both. Neither Jennifer Sterling‐Folker (2002) nor Samuel Barkin (2003) in their analysis of the compatibility of realism and constructivism include postmodern variants of constructivism. Instead, they look for what realism is lacking in conventional constructivism and vice versa.…”