Thinkers of international relations continue to create new views on the subject. As is typical in most fields of study, theories have gained significance in explaining the phenomenon surrounding global cooperation. While this is the case, it is imperative to highlight the fact that the opinions that these individuals hold differ depending on perspective. At the center of these dialogues, is the most critical aspect of international relations. At a time when the world is mundane, there are those that believe that this behavior is inconsequential in international relations. Consequently, social constructivism and neorealism models attempt to explain this concept. Thus, this essay demonstrates that social issues matter the most in international relations.
Constructivism Theory
Notably, this thought emerged from the conclusion of the Cold War in the 1990s. Accordingly, existing theories like liberalism and realism could not justify the occurrence of the devastating debacle that brought havoc on the world. However, the constructivist approach holds that the world is a social unit (McGlinchey, Walters and Scheinpflug 2017, p.36). In applying constructivism, theorists argued that the occurrence of the Cold War was because of the actions of individual people, as opposed to nations. Thus, constructivism extends beyond materiality to incorporate personal views and perceptions.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
It would be unfair to explore this theory without going back to one of its founders, Nicholas Onuf. According to Peltonen (2017, p.3), Onuf suggested that a word or the world only makes sense because the human mind can interpret it as a social event and natural occurrence. Of course, this undermines any significance of material reality. Instead, it highlights a real situation whereby humans are in-charge of their social constructions, regardless of whether they choose to live by them.
Peltonen (2017, p. 3) proceeds to explain that constructivism advocates for a specific way of reasoning. Here, the use of logic cannot reliably provide solutions in all contexts. While that is the case, people need to decide on courses of action in life. Similarly, international relations follow this pattern. As Baylis, Smith, and Owen (2017, p.5) note, constructivism invokes elements of agency and structure, which influence each other. By following this logic in international relations, people’s ability to act (agency) is controlled by materials and their social meanings. Primarily, Hollis and Smith (2019, p.1) reiterate that the material world is shaped and influenced by the way human beings act, based on their interpretation thereof. Considering that people are central to the world, the argument that their epistemic and normative perceptions of materials affect the globe could not be further from reality.
The constructivism theory is central to power and politics, which are tenets of international relations. As Jung (2019, p.6) reveals, constructivism brings on board values and norms in international security. As an illustration, humanitarian efforts by the United Nations Security Council and other global agencies are interests derived from normative values (Walling 2013, p.15). Accordingly, constructivism introduces values, ideas, and norms that apply to international relations.
Jung (2018, p.6) proceeds to emphasize that states derive their identities, behavior, and interests from their social nature. Note that identity is a constructivist issue. As nations develop unique identities, so do their preferences and interests. Accordingly, these attributes emerge from social interactions with other countries. Thus, governments act in line with their identity and interests. Usually, a small nation is distinct from a large state. The same applies to the way they behave in the global arena.
Closely linked to identity are social norms. As presented in the constructivist school of thought, these are acceptable behaviors in a given state (Brown, Nardin, and Rengger, 2002). Often, international institutions create and spread norms that exemplify appropriate conduct (Jung 2018, p. 6). While spreading patterns, international also contribute to socialization whereby various cultural identities can interact and pursue their interests.
If anything, international relations are shaped by such social factors as identity, values, preferences, and interests. According to constructivist thought, these concerns arise from the way nations interact. Materials are secondary to their social interpretations (Wiener 2007, p.6).
For example, a nation’s foreign policy and actions depend on the way it perceives other players from a social context. The United States is more cautious about Iran’s nuclear energy than it cares about the United Kingdom. The explanation for this situation is that the U.S. and Iran have an unsustainable view of each other. For the United States, Iran’s nuclear plants represent danger, whereas the UK is a friendly force. Consequently, whatever materials symbolize, socially determines the levels of interactions.
Neorealism Theory
Kenneth Waltz is credited for introducing the neorealism model in international relations. Also known as structural realism, this theory submits that international relations depend on the nature of existing structures as opposed to human actions (McGlinchey, Walters and Scheinpflug 2017, p.17). In this concern, Waltz removed the human character in the issues of international relations. Notably, this model supports the notion that the social aspects are more fundamental than material for global interactions.
According to Baylis, Smith and Owen (2017, p.4), neorealism emerges from realism, especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union following the Civil War. In essence, this view holds that structures determine international politics. The proponents of neorealism contend that powers dominate global politics. Consequently, the presence of these powers created rules and behavior that other nations followed. Thus, Baylis, Smith and Owen (2017, p.4) maintain the potency of supreme countries in controlling international relations.
Notably, the sovereignty of nations, as neorealist propel it, implies that states have the power to act in ways that fulfill their interest. The most evident issue that the model reinforces is that nations have social status. As they struggle for power, countries invoke an age-old phenomenon of survival for the fittest. Of course, it highlights a social case whereby nations strive to outdo each other or become better in the geopolitical context. National interest is akin to a personal desire for something. That is the premise of international relations.
Presently, nations conflict globally. As an instance, China and the United States have a suffocating trade war. While there may be other explanations for this situation, the role of the social factors cannot be ignored. As Baylis, Smith, and Owen (2017, p.4) realized, neorealism creates two central global powers. Now, this two are China and the U.S. The geopolitical structures affect the behavior of these nations. Necessarily, their behavior, a social construct, is expressed in their relationship.
Burchill, Linklater and Devetak (2013, p.13) speak to the effect that neorealism is one of the most debated views of international relations. True to this opinion, George and Devetak (2017, p.4) ideate that global politics are not defined by force but by the different approaches states apply in addressing these issues. In Waltz’s argument, international relations are characteristic of the principles of anarchy and hierarchy. In hierarchical systems, there is clarity in terms of authority, whereas anarchy is a state of lawlessness. Precisely, these situations present a social context in which a supreme authority takes charge of a population and dictates laws and critical policies.
Interestingly, Sullivan (2006, p.119) argues that the forms of power determine how nations relate. In this regard, the power balance that creates equality has a high chance of creating conflict than one that leads to inequality. Such is the reality of international relations. That nations, as structural units hardly pursue equality. When equity emerges in these relations, the possibility of disagreement emerges. Arguably, this echoes the idea that structures influence global politics. As an illustration, the developing nation will not have the guts to challenge a developed one. Thus, there would be peace because of power and control.
Keohane (1986, p.1) notes that theories like neorealism contribute to international relations in practice. Mainly, Waltz and his neorealist perspective explain why the Soviet Union split. Besides, the model recommends the application of strategic alliances and accommodation to gain power in global disputes. Although the union could be political, its mere presence illuminates the notion that social relations are more essential than materialistic exploits. Even in current conflicts, the neorealist thinker recommends the application of socialization approaches. Arguably, these techniques will broker peace and development globally.
References
- Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. 2017. The globalization of world politics. 7th ed. Oxford: OUP.
- Brown, C., Nardin, T., and Rengger, N. 2019. International relations in political thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Burchill, S., Linklater, A., and Devetak, R. 2013. Theories of international relations. 4th ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
- George, J. and Devetak, R. 2017. An introduction to international relations. 3rd ed. Singapore: Cambridge University Press.
- Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Jung, H. 2019. The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present. SAGE Open, 9(1), pp.1-10.
- Keohane, R. (1986). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
- McGlinchey, S., Walters, R. and Scheinpflug, C. 2017. International relations theory. Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing, pp.15-21.
- Peltonen, H. 2017. A tale of two cognitions: The Evolution of Social Constructivism in International Relations. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 60(1), pp.1-18.
- Sullivan, M. 2006. Theories of international relations: transition vs. persistence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Walling, C. 2013. All necessary measures: The United Nations and humanitarian intervention.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Wiener, A. 2007. Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises. SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 1-27.
Stuck on your essay?
