Abstract:Constructivism appears to have taken a place in the literature on international relations (IR) theory in direct opposition to realism. Constructivists who claim their methodology is incompatible with realism focus on the association between realism and both materialism and rationalism. Realists who claim their paradigm is incompatible with constructivism focus for the most part on a perceived tendency for constructivists to be idealists or utopians. Neither argument, however, holds up. This essay examines cons… Show more
“…This has resonance for the study of bilateral relationships in general. Moreover, it also appears to be in accordance with the idea of “realist constructivism” elucidated by Barkin (Barkin ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…As Wendt has famously written “anarchy is what you make of it” (Wendt , 395). Contrary to realism “Constructivists see the facts of international politics as not reflective of an objective, material reality but an intersubjective, or social, reality (Barkin , 326). Moreover, Wendt has stated A fundamental principle of constructivist social theory is that people act towards objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them.…”
Section: Theories Of Cuban and Russian Foreign Policiesmentioning
“…This has resonance for the study of bilateral relationships in general. Moreover, it also appears to be in accordance with the idea of “realist constructivism” elucidated by Barkin (Barkin ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…As Wendt has famously written “anarchy is what you make of it” (Wendt , 395). Contrary to realism “Constructivists see the facts of international politics as not reflective of an objective, material reality but an intersubjective, or social, reality (Barkin , 326). Moreover, Wendt has stated A fundamental principle of constructivist social theory is that people act towards objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them.…”
Section: Theories Of Cuban and Russian Foreign Policiesmentioning
“…13 Some scholars have argued persuasively that constructivism is not a paradigm in the same way that realism, liberalism, and Marxism are (Waever 1998). Others maintain that constructivism is compatible with either realism or liberalism (Barkin 2003(Barkin , 2010. We chose to adopt the language most often used in the discipline to describe the four major theoretical paradigms.…”
Section: Paradigm Wars and The Study Of International Relationsmentioning
Using two new data sources to describe trends in the international relations (IR) discipline since 1980-a database of every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field and three surveys of IR faculty at US colleges and universities-we explore the extent of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological diversity in the American study of IR and the relationship between IR scholarship and the policy-making community in the United States. We find, first, that there is considerable and increasing theoretical diversity. Although US scholars believe and teach their students that the major paradigms-realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism-define and divide the discipline, most peer-reviewed research does not advance a theoretical argument from one of these theoretical traditions. There is no evidence, moreover, that realism and its focus on power relations among states dominate, or since 1980 ever has dominated, the literature. Second, although three times as many IR scholars report using qualitative methods as their primary approach, more articles published in the top journals currently employ quantitative tools than any other methodological approach. Third, there exists little epistemological diversity in the field: American IR scholars share a strong and growing commitment to positivism. Finally, there is a disjuncture between what American scholars of IR think about the value of producing policy-relevant work and the actual research they generate: few articles in top journals offer explicit policy advice, but scholars believe that their work is both prescriptive and useful to policymakers.
“…The project asks how the EU reconciled increasing illiberalism in Turkey with the need to maintain cooperation over the migration issue. Realist constructivism (Barkin, 2003(Barkin, , 2010 assesses the extent to which the EU adhered to its own standards of liberal democracy. The research question, therefore, is to what extent do the EU deals on migration and its policy towards Turkey have been shaped by interests or normative concerns at different stages of this process.…”
The EU's reaction to the migration crisis of 2015–16 was to shower the Turkish government with gifts to secure their cooperation on the Aegean crossing. This led to accusations of realpolitik after Brussels made concessions to Turkey despite Ankara's liberal democratic deficit. This article examines EU policy before, during and after the migration crisis to argue that the situation is more nuanced than this suggests. Turkey–EU accession had been in a state of containment for nearly a decade before the migration issue. Brussels' reaction to it raised questions about the EU's liberal identity but Brussels backtracked quickly once the extent of illiberality following the attempted coup d'état emerged. Turkey–EU relations then returned to a pre‐migration state of containment whereby Turkey remains a candidate but progress towards accession depends on their liberal progress. Using realist constructivism, it concludes the EU's liberal democratic standards remain, but the liberal bar is pliable according to circumstances.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
