More significantly, the meaning of material capabilities in terms of power is constructed on the basis of social interactions and shared understandings, that is, the latter give meaning to the former. Scot Burchill and others (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005), 193. [49]. Fred Chernoff, Theory and Metatheory in International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008), 68. [12] Wendt goes further than this – arguing that because the way in which anarchy constrains states depends on the way in which states conceive of anarchy, and conceive of their own identities and interests, anarchy is not necessarily even a self-help system. They argue that "mainstream" constructivism has abandoned many of the most important insights from linguistic turn and social-constructionist theory in the pursuit of respectability as a "scientific" approach to international relations. [46]. Constructivism, particularly in the formative work of Wendt, challenges this assumption by showing that the causal powers attributed to "structure" by neorealists are in fact not "given", but rest on the way in which structure is constructed by social practice. [17]. E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. So constructivists do not take anarchy for granted and ascribe the condition of a group of states to the inescapable requirements of anarchy, but what matters for them is to examine how states’ identities and interests are constructed as well as the role their certain international interactions play in this regard. [23]. [13] Neorealist conclusions, as such, depend entirely on unspoken and unquestioned assumptions about the way in which the meaning of social institutions are constructed by actors. Generally speaking, however, debates and developments within constructivism have remained largely unaffected by the events of 11 September 2001 and the international environment created after them as “an innovative constructivist response to the post-9/11 world” has hardly been observed. Notable examples of constructivist work in this area include Kathleen R. McNamara's study of European Monetary Union[25] and Mark Blyth's analysis of the rise of Reaganomics in the United States. Central to constructivist arguments are such core concepts as “discourses,” “norms,” “identity,” and “socialization” that are frequently used in contemporary discussions over various issues of international concern including “globalization, international human rights, security policy, and more.”[7], Such a theoretical event was prompted by a few major developments: (1) the challenging persuasion of critical theorists by leading rationalists to move beyond meta-theoretical critique of rationalism and produce substantive theories of international relations; (2) the failure of neorealists and neoliberals to predict the end of the Cold War and the consequent challenge to explanatory and analytical capacities of their theories; (3) the emergence of a new generation of critical theory-inclined scholars who moved to explore the untapped potentials of theoretical and conceptual scholarship in international relations theory; and (4) the enthusiasm shown by disappointed rational choice-oriented theorists in IR to welcome alternative constructivist perspectives. Constructivism in International Relations emerges in the 1990s (see: Jeffrey Checkel). Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” in Theories of War and Peace, ed. ),[40] consider the implications of a posthuman understanding of IR,[41] explore the infrastructures of world politics,[42] and consider the effects of technological agency. “Technological agency in the co-constitution of legal expertise and the US drone program.”, English school of international relations theory,, "TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics", "We have never been civilized: Torture and the Materiality of World Political Binaries. [6], The notion that international relations are not only affected by power politics, but also by ideas, is shared by writers who describe themselves as constructivist theorists. (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 52. In a challenging article, for example, Kratochwil, an interpretive constructivist, points to Wendt’s “radical compromises” and censures his theoretical “magnum opus” for running “into heavy weather despite his tranquil exposition of the explosive issues involved,” and significantly, for its real likelihood to turn into a “new orthodoxy”: In a way, I am more worried that, instead of remaining a provocative and fruitful new departure, true to its constructivist premises, the ‘reasonable middle ground’ that emerges from Wendt’s engagement with unreconstituted Waltzian realists, with somehow disoriented political scientists of the mainstream, and with rational choice believers, might actually succeed in becoming the new orthodoxy. Constructivism has therefore often been conflated with critical theory. (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 52. Such anarchy, Neorealists argue, forces States to act in certain ways, specifically, they can rely on no-one but themselves for security (they have to self-help). Critics charged that “constructivism had provided little in the way of substantive knowledge, or even hypotheses, about the behavior of states or state systems.”[6] It was in the middle of 1990s that the alternative works of some IR theorists helped to develop and present constructivism as a substantive theory of international behaviour. 209-11. [27]. (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 62. This is a contentious issue within segments of the IR community as some constructivists challenge Wendt on some of these assumptions (see, for example, exchanges in Review of International Studies, vol. He served as the Editorial Assistant of the quarterly Cooperation and Conflict for three years from 2013 to 2016 and is currently a Research Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University. Fred Chernoff, Theory and Metatheory in International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008), 69. In international political economy, the application of constructivism has been less frequent. Michael E. Brown and others (Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 1998), 416-18. As constructivists reject neorealism's conclusions about the determining effect of anarchy on the behavior of international actors, and move away from neorealism's underlying materialism, they create the necessary room for the identities and interests of international actors to take a central place in theorising international relations.