International Relations Theories

[the Left™]

For a project im working on I have to debate the merits of liberalism, realism, or constructivism. I have to argue what I think is the driving force of international relations. I understand the first two but I have no idea what constructivism in IR means, and how it relates to Marxism(as it is argued in the question).

Can someone help me with what constructivism in international relations theory is and what makes it the closest to a Marxist or more radical perspectice(which I could then adopt and argue)?

[Victoire]

Constructivism places main emphasis on the socially constructed nature of IR and sees IR as socially and historically contingent, and not as a result of some inherent human nature (as Realism and Liberalism do). However, the school of constructivism lacks a coherent theoretical framework and constructivist notions are adopted by almost all school of IR.

Therefore it also shares some features with Marxism (the socially and historically contingent part), however the main problem with constructivism is the lack of explanation were ideas come from. Marxism explains this through the approach of historical materialism. However, there are quite some variations of Marxism within IR, where some but more emphasis on materialism (orthodox-Marxism) and others credit more agency to ideas (neo-Gramscianism)

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Constructivism places main emphasis on the socially constructed nature of IR and sees IR as socially and historically contingent, and not as a result of some inherent human nature (as Realism and Liberalism do). However, the school of constructivism lacks a coherent theoretical framework and constructivist notions are adopted by almost all school of IR.

Therefore it also shares some features with Marxism (the socially and historically contingent part), however the main problem with constructivism is the lack of explanation were ideas come from. Marxism explains this through the approach of historical materialism. However, there are quite some variations of Marxism within IR, where some but more emphasis on materialism (orthodox-Marxism) and others credit more agency to ideas (neo-Gramscianism)

This. I would also add that constructivist are the middle ground when it comes to international institutions, since they aren't vapid pseudo-nationalists like realists or inane liberal internationalist imperialists. But yes, Constructivisms main contribution to IR theory is the idea that norms, law, and institutions are socially and historically constructed.

[Kiev Communard]

I would recommend the following book on that issue - Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=zc_gmjgkNWEC&pg=PA42&dq=Constructivism+and+Marxism+in+International+Rel ations&hl=ru&ei=tqkMTs_HLYrLtAaxrvT9Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Constructivism%20and%20Marxism%20in%20Internatio nal%20Relations&f=false)(p. 42-47) for more detailed discussion of the interrelationship between Constructivism and Marxism.

[maskerade]

false trichotomy. constructivism = pretty much that international relations can be made on things other than national interests, like similar culture/language (European Union, the Commonwealth etc).

If you want some academic marxism (sell out marxism), check out world systems theory or critical security/theory

[Victoire]

That's a bit of an overgeneralization to call all academic Marxism, 'sell-out' Marxism. To be honest, the theories you mentioned, World Systems Theory (WST) and Critical Theory, are usually seen as theories that diverge quite far from basic Marxist theorizing. WST looks more at long-term trade patterns between the global north and south, instead of classes, whereas Critical Theory is influenced by indeed Marx, but also incooperates many other theoretical insights. Critical Theory should there for be seen as a seperate school of thought seperate from Marxism.

Contemporary Marxist academic theorizing is now mainly focussed on the formation or existence of a transnational capitalist class (TCC) and how this influences inter-state relations, as for instance inter-imperialist competition. For the two sides of the debate you should read some of Robinson (TCC) and Callinicos (more orthodox).

[Armchair War Criminal]

The earliest realist theorists talked about "human nature," yeah, but it's more common to ascribe competition to the "anarchic" structure of the international system itself. Realists aren't necessarily nationalists, either - in itself it's a descriptive theory, not a normative one.


false trichotomy. constructivism = pretty much that international relations can be made on things other than national interests, like similar culture/language (European Union, the Commonwealth etc). Certain constructivists do indeed make note of such things, but this is only characteristic of liberalism.


WST looks more at long-term trade patterns between the global north and south, instead of classes...WST is very much interested in class conflict, even domestic class conflict; it just rejects the idea that class structures are internal to nations.