Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations

Audie Klotz, Cecelia M. Lynch

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317459255
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Politique et relations internationales
• Sous-sujet: Politique

Constructivism's basic premise - that individuals and groups are shaped by their world but can also change it - may seem intuitively true. Yet this process-oriented approach can be more difficult to apply than structural or rational choice frameworks. Based on their own experiences and exemplars from the IR literature, well-known authors Audie Klotz and Cecelia Lynch lay out concepts and tools for anyone seeking to apply the constructivist approach in research. Written in jargon-free prose and relevant across the social sciences, this book is essential for anyone trying to sort out appropriate methods for empirical research.

Chapter One Constructivism

DOI: 10.4324/9781315700571-1

The end of the Cold War shattered stable antagonisms and alliances, both in the practice of world politics and in the study of International Relations (IR). This destabilization widened the political and intellectual spaces—and increased the need—for scholars to ask questions about the cultural bases of conflict, alternative conceptions of national identity, the ethics of intervention, and many other issues. Many practitioners and researchers now accept the “constructivist” view that individuals and groups are not only shaped by their world but can also change it. People can—but do not always —set into motion new normative, cultural, economic, social, or political practices that alter conventional wisdoms and standard operating procedures.

The IR community’s embrace of constructivism built upon the work of pioneering theorists who contested the central premises of dominant structuralist (Realist, Liberal, and Marxist) frameworks by insisting that interpretations produce social reality (Ashley 1984; Wendt 1987; Wendt and Duvall 1989; Kratochwil 1989; Onuf 1989). Constructivists stress that both structural continuities and processes of change are based on agency. Agency, in turn, is influenced by social, spatial, and historical context. Rather than granting ontological priority to either structure or agency, constructivists view both as “mutually constituted.” Thus they also reject the individualism inherent in rationalist theories of choice, which take for granted the nature of actors’ interests and identities. The constructivist agenda in IR has flourished due to sustained attention to the implications of these ontological and epistemological concerns.

Taking seriously the principle that social reality is produced through meaningful action, however, leads to its own research challenges. Perhaps due to a (misplaced) tendency to equate all work on “ideas” with constructivism, researchers often seem unsure what concepts and methods to apply. Our students and colleagues inevitably ask: How do I do constructivist research? What kinds of processes are constitutive? Where do I find appropriate evidence? We sympathize with this uncertainty, because we asked the same questions in our own early work. Back in the late 1980s, few models demonstrated how to apply meta-theoretical insights to the policy changes that interested us, specifically, global responses to racial discrimination (Klotz 1995) and the roles of peace movements (Lynch 1999a).

This book is designed for those who want to apply constructivist insights but seek guidance on the “how,” “what,” and “where” questions of empirical research. By using examples from the now numerous empirical studies that draw upon sociology, jurisprudence, philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, cultural studies, history, and other approaches, we draw attention to diverse, and sometimes implicit, methodological issues. We emphasize concepts and tools that help researchers to examine, interpret, and analyze both continuity and change. Our aim is to glean strategies for designing research projects rather than to advocate any single model or set of methods. While we presume that our readers have been introduced to the meta-theoretical debates (e.g., Ruggie 1998; Guzzini 2000; Adler 2002; Ba and Hoffmann 2003), we also include an appendix of annotated Suggested Readings for those who wish to explore constructivism’s interdisciplinary heritage.

While the constructivist label has allowed our work to find a home in the field, we also acknowledge the inherent problem of referring to all these voices as a single “-ism.” The term means many things to its various practitioners, despite the common focus on capturing processes of mutual constitution. Even the two of us define concepts and use tools differently, while researching similar questions about transnational social movements and international norms. Because boundaries remain inherently fluid, we remain especially wary of attempts to separate “mainstream” causal analysis from “radical” postmodernism (cf., Checkel 1997; Campbell 1998a; Hopf 1998). Such divisions overlook commonalities, leading researchers to miss opportunities to learn from each other. Therefore, we embrace boundary-crossing efforts, such as critical social theory and feminism (Price and Reus-Smit 1998; Ackerly and True 2001; Locher and Prügl 2001), along with many other interjections. Indeed, we discuss some scholars who may avoid using the label themselves if, in our view, their approaches explore processes of mutual constitution.

One way to delve more productively into these differences is to contrast the methodological implications of alternative social, rationalist, materialist, and psychological ontologies rather than engage in the disciplinary war of paradigms. We find that perpetuating divisions between Realists, Liberals, and Marxists papers over commonalities across rival schools, downplays intra-paradigm differences, and does little to illuminate the constructivist ontological challenge to all three perspectives. In order to improve disciplinary understandings of nuclear proliferation, divisions between rich and poor, the nature of security, and the role of transnational actors, among other shared concerns, researchers should grapple head-on with often-vociferous disagreements rather than finding shelter in intellectual camps. Indeed, labels such as “liberal constructivist” and “realist constructivist” are gaining popularity, offering the potential for creative synergies (Risse 2002; Barkin 2003; Forum 2004).

Bridge-building requires openness to the terminologies used in alternative schools of thought. Sophisticated language expresses nuances but also risks turning into jargon. Not everyone, for example, shares our preference for the term “intersubjectivity” (which we discuss in the next section). Our goal is to demonstrate the benefits of tacking back and forth between terminologies without overly simplifying subtle theoretical points. We demonstrate how similar research problems can be explored with various methods and draw out some of the stakes involved in framing questions in different ways. Productive tensions exist that we cannot resolve here; we acknowledge these openly and offer some strategies for addressing them.

To keep the volume concise and accessible, we avoid extensive citations and often synthesize multiple works into general claims. References to “some” or “other” constructivists represent our own (contestable) readings of the growing literature. Despite our intention to be inclusive and balanced, some people and topics inevitably get more attention than others. Indeed, no one could present a comprehensive survey. Often we select examples that we have used effectively in our own teaching. Other studies may not be as explicit in their choice of methods, or they might cover a different topic than those we have chosen to highlight. Because our aim is to demonstrate the utility of methods for capturing specific constructivist insights, we primarily emphasize contributions rather than any shortcomings. We leave it to other researchers to extend these applications and demarcate their limitations.

The remainder of this chapter summarizes key themes in constructivist research and clarifies terminology used in the subsequent chapters. We set out a core vocabulary and conceptual terrain in four steps: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and validity. The next two chapters highlight six methods used in empirical work, concentrating on issues of structure in Chapter 2 and agency in Chapter 3. In such a survey, we cannot provide a thorough account of the origins and potential uses of every technique. Instead, we highlight how each tool can capture some key aspects of mutual constitution. (Citations along the way and the appendix of Suggested Readings provide references to more detailed guidelines for using these tools.) In order to assess the stakes involved in choosing between these methodologies, we then concentrate on two core issues of research design: defining concepts in chapter 4, and selecting cases in Chapter 5. From this cumulative assessment across chapters, readers should be able to identify the particular techniques most appropriate for their own research questions.

Ontology: How Do Researchers Conceptualize What They Study?

People live within and interact through overlapping social (ethnic, national, ideological, gendered, cultural, religious, and other) groupings, including states. Such collectivities, including leaders within them, act in ways that create, perpetuate, and alter the environments in which they live. If people did not reinforce dominant meanings, sometimes expressed as historical “facts” or unavoidable “reality,” structures would not exist. The use of language about ethnicity, for instance, tends to encourage the pursuit of collective goals based on race or religion while often devaluing those that stress gender or class distinctions. But religious beliefs and the boundaries of membership within ethnic groups do evolve over time. And neither gender nor class is a static category. These instabilities and ambiguities offer opportunities to redefine routine practices. For instance, women, embracing multiple identities, might mobilize for equal rights within a religious or ethnic group and, as an unintended consequence, improve their economic condition.

Constructivists characterize this interactive relationship between what people do and how societies shape their actions as the “mutual constitution” of structures and agents. Yet the simultaneity of this interaction creates difficulties for capturing both the self-reinforcing nature of structures and the ways in which people sometimes overturn social order. People consciously and unintentionally replicate and challenge institutionalized routines and prevailing assumptions. We do not aspire to resolve long-standing philosophical issues at the heart of this “agent structure debate” (Forum 2006). Rather, we seek strategies for untangling various mechanisms of mutual constitution in empirical research. The first step in tackling this challenge, in our view, is to recognize that constructivist ontology relies on three components: intersubjectivity, context, and power. We elaborate on the significance of each of these core concepts before turning to their epistemological implications.

Intersubjectivity

In the constructivist view, intersubjective understandings comprise structures and agents. These norms, rules, meanings, languages, cultures, and ideologies are social phenomena that create identities and guide actions. More than one person needs to accept these social phenomena in order for them to exist, and people define themselves in reference to them. Intersubjective understandings are more than aggregated beliefs of individuals. Money, for example, requires shared acceptance that tokens can be exchanged for goods, which in turn requires general agreement among buyers and sellers on what coins, papers, or entries into a computer spreadsheet are worth. Corporations, in turn, would not exist without the concept of profit, defined in terms of money. Domestic and international laws, such as trade regimes, also depend on such a monetary system. Rules and norms establish the habitual practices and procedures that we know as capitalism. The world economy shapes how people see the world, the goals they wish to accomplish, and the actions they take.

Particular meanings become stable over time, creating social orders that constructivists call structures or institutions. Rules and norms set expectations about how the world works, what types of behavior are legitimate, and which interests or identities are possible. World leaders generally acknowledge norms of warfare, for example, even when they dispute their application to specific situations. In denying the applicability of the prohibition against aggressive war, for instance, Iraq argued that its 1990 invasion of Kuwait sought to overturn a historical injustice by former imperial powers. That an international coalition intervened illustrates the potential pitfalls of unpersuasive justifications. When the United States framed its 2003 attack on Iraq as a case of pre-emptive self-defense rather than aggression, the United Nations did not accept this interpretation. The United States, consequently, was unable to build a coalition comparable to that of the first Persian Gulf war. Its officials subsequently sought to frame its invasion of Iraq in the context of a broader war on terrorism, an interpretation that was also unpersuasive for most countries.

Meanings, such as a particular definition of terrorism, provide the basis for social orders, but they can also be contested. Though some practices inevitably dominate others at particular moments, even the most stable structures evolve. Indeed, as we discuss further below, researchers debate which labels to use for intersubjective phenomena in part because some terms, such as “norms,” emphasize stability and imply broad acceptance whereas others, such as “representations,” privilege potentially more fluid depictions and suggest greater contestation. For the moment, we set aside those debates and use all of these terms somewhat interchangeably, in order to concentrate on the implications of this ontological focus on contested and evolving meanings.

Context

Because intersubjective understandings vary across regions, over time, and within hierarchies, constructivists situate research questions within spatial, historical, and social contexts. To understand how shifts in meaning affect people living in particular regions and eras—and to gauge the potential for people to transform standard practices—researchers need to avoid reified, essentialized, or static notions of culture which preclude the possibility of change. For example, one might characterize contemporary capitalism as an ideology that includes a concept of money based on exchange rates, rather than gold, and the legitimacy of wage labor, rather than indentured servitude. Yet capitalism, like any ideology, manifests itself differently over time. Not surprisingly, therefore, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank propagated certain fiscal, monetary, trade, and welfare policies in the second half of the twentieth century that are now seen as less legitimate. Accepted desires and behaviors in one period or society may be derided at other times, in other places, or by people in other social settings. For instance, the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade morphed into the World Trade Organization, an idea shot down as too radical half a century earlier when proposed in the form of an International Trade Organization.

These changes need not follow a linear or teleological path. Prevailing practices, such as the current global market system and liberal financial institutions, spread unevenly across time and space. So do challenges to them, such as protests against globalization. The activities of contemporary environmental, human rights, and feminist groups may alter practices or institutions in some places but their efforts may be limited or blocked elsewhere. As a result, wage labor prevails around the globe, but not all forms of slavery or servitude have been eliminated. Similarly, protestant princes undermined the influence of the Catholic Church but the Vatican continues to play a significant role in many regions of the world, and anti-colonial movements gained formal independence for national territories but did not necessarily achieve economic or political autonomy.

In keeping with constructivism’s emphasis on intersubjectivity, evaluations of the successes or failures of these groups take into account whether people altered their thinking about their own place in the world, as well as the legitimate role of other actors, such as governments and corporations. These assessments, furthermore, will be informed by the researchers’ own normative views, because analysts live in a particular spatial location and social setting within the contemporary liberal capitalist order. This relationship between researcher and interpretation underscores the discursive rather than material conception of power that underpins the analysis of meaning within particular spatial, historical, and social contexts.

Power

Because multiple meanings coexist, often in tension with one another, constructivists ask how and why certain practices prevail in particular contexts. Dominant intersubjective understandings, such as those that defined American and Soviet as enemies rather than allies during the Cold War, are characterized as powerful because they constitute people’s identities and interests, as well as frame interpretations of behavior. The habitual actions that emanate from these interpretations are often referred to as “practices,” and the combination of language and techniques employed to maintain them as “discourses.” Despite the emphasis on dominant understandings, this is not simply a substitution of language for material resources such as nuclear warheads. All people exercise some degree of power, because their practices either reinforce or undermine meanings. For example, European peace and human rights groups contributed to the end of the Cold War by articulating continent-wide interests rather than reiterating enmity and reinscribing spheres of influence. Mikhail Gorbachev took up and modified these new articulations in ways that resulted in the unintended (for him) break-up of the Soviet Union.

Since power operates through relationships rather than possession of capabilities, constructivists analyze processes and interactions. One might view the Cold War as an ideological conflict between capitalism and communism, which created a bipolar system through escalating military spending. Arms control treaties, such as the US-Soviet anti-ballisti...

Table des matières

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Other
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Constructivism
• Chapter 2: Structure
• Chapter 3: Agency
• Chapter 4: Identities
• Chapter 5: Interests
• Chapter 6: Conclusions
• Appendix: Suggested Readings
• References
• Index
• About the Authors