In the last two decades, the ―fourth debate‖ in International Relations (IR) theory between constructivism and rationalism has become more important as constructivists have built on epistemological challenges rooted in sociological perspectives emphasizing shared norms and values. As Wiener noted the ―fourth debate‖ could emerge from its battle-ridden disciplinary context since third debaters, namely rationalists and reflectivists, kept with the
practice of binary positioning as the dominant disciplinary practice in the 1980s.27 However,
constructivists managed to break with the traditional battlefield behaviour and became widely accepted in the IR community in the 1990s. As a result, the ―fourth debate‖, in Wiener‘s view, resembled an actual conversation characterized by a more encompassing discussion between different theoretical positions in the discipline compared with the hostile debating
style of earlier debates.28At this point a good question to ask is how constructivism achieved
much greater popularity and recognition among IR scholars compared to previous approaches which challenged mainstream rationalist theories? In other words, what distinguished
constructivists from reflectivist scholars and how did constructivism become so important in the ―fourth debate‖?
Emanuel Adler identified two main differences between constructivism and
reflectivist approaches. First of all, unlike reflectivist approaches29, constructivism does not
reject the existence of a world independent from our thoughts.30 It recognizes the world of
27 Wiener, A. (2006), ‘Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises’,
Constitutionalism Webpapers, No.5, p.2
28
Ibid.
29
See for example Smith, S. (1996), ‘Positivism and Beyond’, in Smith, Booth and Zalewski, International
Theory: Positivism & Beyond, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), and Linklater, A. (1989), Beyond Realism and Marxism : Crtitical Theory and International Relations, (London: Macmillan)
30
Adler, E. (1997) "Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,"
23 brute facts. What constructivists oppose is the view that phenomena can constitute
themselves as objects of knowledge independently of discursive practices. According to them, socially meaningful objects or events are always the result of an interpretive construction of the world out there. Put differently, the knowledge of reality is socially constructed. Nevertheless, the principles of knowledge construction are not totally internal to
discourse, but socially constituted through practices.31
While recognizing the existence of brute facts, constructivists distinguish between the natural and social world and emphasize the ‗social facts‘ that do not exist in the physical world. In the words of linguistic philosopher John Searle social facts ‗depend on human
agreement that they exist and typically require human institutions for their existence‘.32
Social facts include money, property rights or marriage in contrast to material facts which exist in the physical world whether or not there is agreement that they do such as rocks and
trees.33 Constructivists stressed that many concepts of world politics are social facts since
they exist only by virtue of human acts of creation which happen in a cultural, historical, and political context of meaning. For instance, one of the most important concepts of world politics, sovereignty is a social fact whose existence requires a shared understanding and acceptance of the concept. Similarly, the boundaries which divide states exist only by virtue of human agreement.
Secondly, constructivist and reflectivist approaches differ in their objectives of enquiry. Due to their ontological position, reflectivist scholars may abandon the search for causes and objective truths. Their main aim of inquiry is emancipation from oppressing
discourses, power structures and ideologies and theories.34 On the other hand, constructivists
do want to know how norms constitute the security identities and interests of international
31
Guzzini, S. (2000), ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of
International Relations, Vol.6, No.2, p.160
32
Searle, J. (1995), ‘The Construction of Social Reality’, (London: The Penguin Press) p.2
33
Ruggie, J.G (1998), “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge”, International Organization, Vol.52, No:4, p.856
34 See Campbell, D. (1996), ‘Violent Performances: Identity, Sovereignty, Responsibility’, in Yosef Lapid and
24
and transnational actors in particular cases.35This does not meant that constructivists are not
interested in progress in International Relations. However, they believe that progress is not only based on what theorists say. It requires a re-definition of actors‘ identities and interests as well. In brief, constructivism is not an expression of frustration. It is a working research program which is interested in providing a more complete explanation of world politics.
Another important difference between reflectivist approaches and constructivism is in regards to their relationship with mainstream theories. Reflectivist scholars have tended to resist dialogue with rationalists and tend to undermine the actual insights produced by
rationalist approaches such as neo-realism.36 As Sorensen put it ‗de-constructing any theory
can produce helpful insights. The problem only comes in when this is taken to the extreme where everything in the criticized theory is rejected and the possibility of any cross-
fertilization between theoretical traditions is denied‘. 37
Despite their weaknesses, rationalist approaches have produced valuable insights about world politics, notably about anarchy, and is quite helpful in exploring specific aspects of world politics from a particular point of view. In line with this view, most constructivists have a productive way of holding on to the
insights produced by rationalist approaches including neo-realism. A core constructivist research concern is what happens before the rationalist model kicks in. Constructivism is more of an approach which provides an ontology differing from rationalist approaches and its central theme is the impact of the ideational factors on the material factors. Indeed, many rationalists and constructivists claim that no great epistemological or methodological
differences divide them.38
35
Adler, E. (1997) "Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,"
European Journal of International Relations Vol. 3, No 3, p.333-34
36
See Smith, S. (1996), ‘Positivism and Beyond’, in Smith, Booth and Zalewski, International Theory: Positivism
& Beyond, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), Smith, S. (1997), ‘Epistemology, Postmodernism and
International Relations Theory: A Reply to Østerud’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol.34, No.3, Smith. S. (1999), ‘Social Constructivisms & European Studies: A Reflectivist Critique’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.6/4
37
Sørensen, G. (1998), ‘IR Theory After the Cold War’, Review of International Studies, Vol.24, No.5, p. 87
38
See Wendt, A. (1998), ‘On Constitution and Causation in International Relations’, Review of International
Studies, 24 (special issue), p.116, and Katzenstein, P., Keohane, R., Krasner, S. (1998), “International
25