The central issue in the post-Cold War world is the emergence of new matters on the global political agenda, particularly linked to variables of identity and interest, as well as the nature of actors and the ontology of analysis. In light of these changes, the concept of security has also evolved, acquiring multiple meanings depending on the theories explaining global politics. Among these, constructivist theory has provided a unique interpretation of security, tied to specific analytical frameworks that focus on identity, intersubjectivity, and other key concepts.
The Historical Roots of Constructivist Theory:
The origins of constructivist theory date back to the 18th century, found in the writings of the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico. It is, therefore, an old idea in the history of political thought. However, it only emerged as an independent theory in the field of international relations with the writings of Alexander Wendt and Nicolas Onuf. Constructivism arose as a reaction to realism and neoliberalism, which had failed to construct a framework for the international system or explain normative aspects. Nicolas Onuf was the first to use the term “constructivism” and is credited with initiating the discussion in international relations with his book “A World of Our Making” in 1989. In it, he criticized the ideas and assumptions of realism and neoliberalism. Alexander Wendt’s contributions, especially his 1992 study “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” were also foundational in the development of constructivist thought. Wendt is often called the father of constructivism because his writings deeply expressed the essence of this theory.
The Epistemological Foundations of Constructivist Analysis in Security Studies:
Intersubjectivity in Constructivism:
Intersubjectivity is understood as the shared ideas formed by identities, interests, and actors. These ideas exist among individuals in the form of “we believe…” Language, for example, is intersubjective, as it derives its meanings from its users and is reproduced through their practices. These practices are shaped by the rules embedded in language. Adler defines intersubjectivity as encompassing material things, subjective ideas, and intersubjective concepts—social facts that cannot be understood without material objects and subjective ideas. Without shared meanings, objects would merely be recognized as physical entities, like pieces of metal. Therefore, the focus is on human interaction, with the understanding that truth is social. What we see in ourselves or others has evolved through interaction. Constructivism posits that the construction of social reality is subject to a continuous learning process, which creates connections between the origins of social reality and its future developments, a process known as cognitive evolution. This represents a pathway of internal and external innovation and diffusion that generates intersubjective understanding.
Discourse Analysis Technique:
Constructivism employed the scientific behavioral method to address certain issues such as the beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes of actors. Thus, the ideal method, which focuses on the role of ideas in social life, plays a role opposite to that of material factors. Constructivism sought to combine the scientific approach in conducting social research with the advantages of methods based on symbolic interactionism and psychology to analyze and understand social and human behaviors. Among the most important of these methods is discourse analysis, particularly regarding identity—whether official discourse or societal discourse, which expresses the values and beliefs that shape collective identities of individuals. Constructivism worked to replace the realist discourse with a social discourse emphasizing peace and security. It focused on the dominant discourse within society, which played an active role in understanding the behaviors of states.
Foundations of Ontological Analysis of Constructivism in Security Studies
1. Constructivism and the Actor Problem
Constructivists do not reject the material aspect of the various phenomena that shape international relations but rather focus on structures to understand the behaviors of different actors and how these behaviors are perceived and understood. Constructivists start with the following question: Should social phenomena, including international politics, be explained by referencing the actions and motivations of individuals, or by returning to society and its structure? Neorealists believe that international political actions stem from Hobbesian anarchy and the dominance of selfish behavior, thus explaining state behavior through the structure of the international system. In contrast, constructivists see the relationship between structures and actors as reciprocal: structures contribute to shaping actors, and actors work to reshape structures. This interactive relationship assumes that structures are the product of social practices involving the activities of various actors.
2. Identity and Interests in World Politics
The concepts of identity and interest are among the most important analytical tools for constructivists. From their perspective, every state has a socially constructed identity shaped by the norms, values, and institutional ideas of the social environment in which states interact. “Identities are nothing more than social relationships that change over time and context… and because of this, they are not fixed traits of individuals or groups. Individuals produce and reproduce their identities more than having them created alongside them.” States possess an institutional identity through which they generate their main objectives, such as security, stability, or economic development. Achieving these goals depends on the state’s social identity, that is, how it perceives itself compared to other states in the international community. Consequently, states build their national interests based on these identities. It is important to understand the true meaning of institutions for constructivists, who view institutions as stable entities composed of identities and interests. They are cognitive entities or given knowledge inseparable from the actors’ ideas about how the world works. Based on this vision, institutions represent the internal assimilation of new identities and interests, not something external that only influences behavior.
3. Anarchy
Constructivist theory does not accept the realist assumption of international system anarchy as a given; instead, it problematizes it. Anarchy is not predetermined but subject to discussion because states define the structure based on values and behavior. International anarchy and the pursuit of power are creations of decision-makers, not objective realities—they are self-constructed. Constructivism emphasizes the use of security and anarchy to serve other interests. Since identities are formed from multiple sources and are not self-contained, and because they form the basis of national interests, even though national interests are often linked to security requirements, they cannot be determined through a selfish approach. The international anarchy in which states live and operate, and which refines their identities and thus their interests, is nothing more than what states create. It is not necessarily synonymous with war, as realists claim. Wendt distinguishes between three types of anarchy: when states view each other as enemies, the international structure creates Hobbesian anarchy; when they see each other as competitors, it forms a Lockean anarchy; and when they view each other as friends, it creates a Kantian anarchy. Wendt argues that this Hobbesian culture, which defines national interest in an exclusive and selfish manner through power relations, no longer exists in today’s world, except in some exceptional or situational cases. Accordingly, the world has evolved toward a Lockean, and even Kantian, culture.
Thus, it can be said that constructivists are optimistic about the nature of the international system, believing that there is no eternal conflict or competition between great powers for dominance. Constructivism adopts a cooperative view, different from that based on the idea of collective security. It envisions a non-confrontational approach to international politics in a state of anarchy. This anarchy is a structured mix resulting from the practices of actors, depending on their interests and identities. They contribute to forming, producing, transforming, or changing this structure. Hence, Wendt states, “Anarchy is what states make of it.”
Security as a Social Construct
Constructivists approach the concept of security, like other concepts, by examining the different historical and social contexts in which the process of social interaction between actors plays a crucial role in shaping this concept. By focusing on ideal or non-material factors—identity, norms, and culture—in constructing and practicing security, constructivists offer new analytical elements that diverge from traditional and abstract analyses of security, particularly liberal and realist ones. Ted Hopf points out the impossibility of making a universal and abstract claim about the source of threats in global politics. For Hopf, political leaders classify states as either enemies or friends based on the concept of identity. Wendt, by linking the triad of identity, self-help, and anarchy, argues that identity forms the basis of states’ interests and behaviors. Self-help represents one of the structures of identity and interests, produced by the anarchic nature of the international system. Therefore, “security concepts vary according to how and to what extent the self defines the other.”
References
- The book chapter “Constructivist theories” by Columba Peoples and Nick Vaughan-Williams in “Critical Security Studies: An Introduction” provides an overview of constructivist theories and their application to security studies.
- The article “A Constructivist Vision of Security” by Andrzej Urbanek offers a systematic review of constructivist approaches to security, including conventional and critical constructivism.
- The chapter “Constructivism and securitization studies” by Thierry Balzacq in “The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies” examines the relationship between constructivism and securitization theory.
- The article “The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructivist View” by Yu-tai Tsai explores how constructivism can be applied to understand human security.
- The Oxford Bibliographies entry on “Securitization” provides a comprehensive overview of key works on securitization theory, which is closely linked to constructivist approaches.
- The Oxford Research Encyclopedia article on “Realism and Security” has a section on social constructivism that outlines how constructivists have challenged realist explanations of security.
- The book “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde is considered a foundational text for constructivist approaches to security studies.
