CONSTRUCTIVISM ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: PATH OF PEACE

BETWEEN PARADIGM DEBATES

Adellia

Dwiki Prayoga

Fikriy Abdan Salahuddinsyah

Khairunisa Fahrina

1. Introduction

In the 1980s, International Relations (IR) entered a new phase an academic debate known as
the 'third debate.1 The debate took place around metatheoretical aspects (epistemology and
ontology).2 This phase gives rise to two poles at odds. The first is the 'rationalist-positivist'
mainstream pole, namely: realism, liberalism, Marxism and all its 'relatives'. The rival is the
'reflectivist-postpositivist' camp, namely the postmodernist scientists, poststructuralist,
Frankrut School (critical theory), feminist, postcolonial, normative theory, peace studies,
anthropological approaches and historical sociology.3 This group born to attack the
philosophical foundations of the first group, because by once the theoretical buildings built
on it will collapse automatically. Entering the end of the 80s, a new shift emerged with the
birth of constructivism that claims to mediate between the two radical camps. Constructivism
was born from the womb of the reflectivist camp, postpositivist and permanent carries the
spirit of anti-positivism4 but it has a production orientation and reproduction of sciences
'science' as problem‐solving for humanitarian issues – tasks that are deemed to have been
neglected by deconstructives in the reflective-postpositivist camp. But the science that what
constructivists mean is different from the rationalist-positivist conception. Constructivists
never want to make hegemonic claims about a truth/knowledge, or standardize the path to
truth 5Be constructivism as the third stronghold of the IR debate taken into account. In this
paper, we will first take ideas as a sample of the themes debated by the three genres of
thought. Step this is meant to map instantly where the ontological position is constructivism.
The next part is to continue the discussion on the first to get a comprehensive picture of the
offers ontological constructivism. After that, explore in depth constructivism's
epistemological views. In this section we want to emphasizes the demarcation line between
constructivism and its two rivals. Finally, at the end it is concluded that constructivism is the
latest innovation in HI. But the consequences of constructivist beliefs themselves is that
constructivism was not the pinnacle of the discipline's development. As long as the debate
continues, as long as the possibility arises post-constructivism paradigm persists.

1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
2. Theory

2.1 Definition of constructivism theory.

The constructivists focus is on the predominant discourse in society. This is because

discourse shows and changes interests and beliefs, and sets accepted values, norms of
behavior. constructivism is mainly interested in the main sources and roots of alteration and
this approach has broadly substituted Marxism. Constructivism, especially state identity
theory explained by Alexander Wendt and Peter Katzenstein, has become far from the almost
particularly rationalist mainstream of international relations theory. The constructivist theory,
mainly seen as the most significant challenge to rationalist dominance, argues that the
theoretical framework focusing on the concept of state identity, can provide an important
alternative and option to rational choice theory. State identity is mainly about the non-
material factors such as values, culture, norms, ideas etc, studied by the constructivist
scholars. It provides very important causal links to support the basic arguments of
constructivist theoretical framework.

The post-Cold War era played a significant role in legitimating constructivist approach
because both liberalism and realism were unsuccessful in predicting this event and had
difficulties explaining it. On the contrary, constructivists had an explanation based on ideas
and norms; for example, the idea of “common security,” adopted by Gorbachev.
constructivism theory argues that we live in a period where ancient values and norms are
being challenged, limits and boundaries are fading and matters of identity and culture are
becoming more prominent and outstanding.

Constructivism focuses on how ideas, norms, values, and identities are created and
constructed, how they develop, and how they change the way states comprehend and react to
their situation.Thus, it matters whether the United States adopts or denies its identity as
"global policeman and whether Europeans realize themselves mostly in national or
continental terms. Constructivist approaches are highly varied and do not provide a unified
group of expectations on any of these matters. Constructivism varies itself from neoliberalism
and neorealism by

emphasizing and highlighting the ontological reality of intersubjective knowledge.  It does
not mean that constructivism neglected the material world because intersubjective knowledge
and material world interact affect and influence each other.

According to Constructivism theory, the material world does not completely define how
people, or states, behave. It only limits the chance of interpretation and the intersubjective
world that people can build. Moreover, material body enforcing is restricted to social
structure. Thus, constructivists do not mean the unlimited possibilities of social structure.
However, people have the capability to interpret, as they cannot easily interpret the social
world and their own material world. There is restriction of interpretation of the social world,
that.the  material world changes and is changed by the social world.

1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
2.2 Arguing about 'Ideas'.

The birth of these three genres of thought is basically from agreement and disagreement
among IR scientists on several themes study. One of the central themes being debated is
ideas: how important is the existence of the Idea in the international world? How to do with
other realities that exist in this world? Is it real or no? The concept of this idea appears /
appears as a counter to the concept of reality material (material reality) that has previously
colored the scientific style of IR. Thus, this theme can be used as a shortcut to enter the arena
of debate of the three streams, to then enter the 'house' constructivism. According to Steve
Woolgar, the ontological and epistemological debates about Ideas in the social sciences
produce three kinds of approaches: the reflective, the constitutive, and the mediative. 6 The
first approach sees reality (material) and the Idea as two separate and distinct things. Reality
is everything that can be sensed. There is also an invisible reality eyes, but its existence can
still be felt, discovered and described. Therefore, reality is independent of human
subjectivity. While the idea be in the mind. It does not form social reality, but only a form of
reflection of the material world and the justification of material causes. Though have an
influence, as Robert Keohane says, that influence is minimalistic, only as an intervening
variable. The significance of the idea remains determined by social structures such as the
distribution of economic, military, technological, natural wealth, and so on.7 This approach is
adopted by the group mainstream such as neorealists and institutional neoliber

On the other hand, the second constitutive perspective believes that reality does not exist
another is Ideas, a relational collection of Ideas. What has been considered assomething that
can be sensed, can be scientifically proven, is actually the result of fantasy. What has been
called the state, war, nuclear weapons, the international system, and others, both visible and
invisible, are all effects of ideas/discussions. In Alexander Wendt's language, this
understanding holds that social/international life is “ideas all the way down.” 8 This approach
adopted by poststructuralists-postmodernists. Therefore, the axis of their study is about
ideas/discourse: how discourse is produced and reproduced; how discourse creates
international phenomena; how relation to power; and so forth. Appear then third debate when
this approach was brought to the realm of IR.

The mediative approach takes a moderate position, mediatingthe extremities of the previous
two approaches. This is the position held by the constructivist IR. This approach recognizes
the existence of material reality. However different from the first approach which considers
that material reality as neutral, objective and given, this approach views reality material is
always a social product. The existence was meaningless before assigned a certain meaning.9
For example, as quoted from Guzzini,10 is money. Physically, money is a piece of paper or a
piece of metal with certain sizes, shapes and motifs. However, these material facts can only
become 'money' after being given the meaning that the object is a tool for buying and selling
and is called 'money'. When people stop agreeing about the original function of the object,
then it is no longer money, even though physically it remains as before. So, the truth about a
1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
fact emerges from an intersubjectively shared set of meanings meanings),11 and meaning is
nothing but Ideas.

Thus, constructivists acknowledge the existence of both material facts and ideational. If the
first group believes in material facts as the main thing and Ideas are only reflections of the
social world, constructivists believe that both have the same ontological position. Material
reality is meaningless nothing without Idea (meaning). An idea will only be an 'idea'
otherwise represented in the form of letters or other symbol system, or otherwise physically
realized. The idea of something that can be used to exchange‐ exchanging goods can only be
meaningful after humans design material elements certain as the embodiment of the idea,
which is then named symbolized by the word 'money', and it is then agreed by people other.

The Dichotomy of Ideas‐this material has a big impact when it is included in the scientific
vessel of IR in the third debate era. This dichotomy changes a big theme the field of study
from 'how to create world peace' to 'on what basis the state acts, material factors or Ideas'.
Material factors can be in the form of national interests, both economic and security, or
structural international—which is defined as the distribution of power/material capabilities.
While the ideational factors in the form of identity, norms, discourse, history, morals,
religion, and others. However, this ideo-matter dichotomy ultimately remains leading to the
main IR issues of war and peace. Because knowing the factors what underlies states to act
means knowing why and how they can fight and make peace.

2.3 Constructivism and Bhutan’s national interests.

Constructivism and Bhutan’s national interests Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom located in the
Himalayas. The material structural conditions are reflected in its population of approximately
745,000, a territory that amounts to 38,394 square kilometres, a weak economy and a very
small military. On top of this, Bhutan shares a national border with the two major powers in
Asia: China in the north and India in the south. Bhutan’s location is geographically sensitive
as the country serves as a buffer state between these major powers, which perceive each other
as rivals rather than friends. In addition to this, the Chinese leadership claimed, after it
annexed Tibet in the 1950s, that Bhutan’s territory was also part of its mainland. To date
there remains an ongoing border dispute between Bhutan and China and there have been
reports that the Chinese army has made several incursions into Bhutan. Likewise, India has
had a hand in Bhutan’s foreign policy. Article 2 of the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty (1949)
notes that ‘Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice of India in regard to its external
relations.’ Although this Article was revised in 2007, commentators have reported that India
still holds a degree of influence over Bhutan

From a realist perspective, one would argue that Bhutan is in an unfavourable position as it is
hindered by its geographical location and cannot compete for power with its neighbours. The
preservation of its national sovereignty would likely depend on the outcome of the greater
competition between China and India. A constructivist view, on the other hand, would argue
1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
that these structural conditions do not necessarily constrain Bhutan’s ability to pursue its
national interests since they are not the only conditions that influence state behaviour: the
meaning given to these structural conditions also matters. For example, when Tibet was
annexed by China, Bhutan felt threatened. As a result, it closed its border in the north and
turned to India, its neighbour in the south. From that moment onward, Bhutan perceived
China as a potential threat and India as a friend. To date, Bhutan and India perceive each
other as friends whereas Bhutan has no official relations with China. These social
relationships represent the ideational structure that originated from the meaning given to the
material structure. It is important to note, however, that the social relationships are subject to
change depending on the ideas, beliefs and actions of Bhutan, India and China. For example,
an agreement on the border dispute between China and Bhutan could change how both
countries perceive each other. This change might lead to the establishment of an official
relationship, the nature of which is friendship rather than enmity. A constructivist is well
placed to detect and understand these changes since their object of enquiry focuses on the
social relationships between states.

Bhutan has also developed a distinctive national identity that differentiates it from its larger
neighbours. This identity projects Bhutan as ‘the last surviving independent Mahayana
Buddhist Kingdom in the world’ (Bhutan Vision 2020, 24–25). The usage of the word
‘independent’ refers directly to Bhutan’s national interest – the preservation of its national
sovereignty. Bhutan’s national identity is socially constructed through a Bhutanisation
process that started in the 1980s, when the fourth king of Bhutan introduced the ‘One Nation,
One People’ policy. This policy demanded the observance of a code of conduct known as
Driglam Namzhag. This code of conduct is built upon strict observance of vows – such as
strong kinship loyalty, respect for one’s parents, elders and superiors, and mutual cooperation
between rulers and ruled. It also reinforced the rules for wearing a national dress – the gho for
men and the kira for women. In addition to this, Dzongkha was selected as the national
language of Bhutan. The Driglam Namzhag can be thought of as a regulative norm because
the aim of the policy is to direct and constrain behaviour. For example, although Bhutan’s
national identity suggests that the Bhutanese comprise one homogeneous group, Bhutan is
actually a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual country. There are three main ethnic
groups: the Ngalongs, the Sharchhops and the Lhotshampas, who are of Nepali descent. Of
these, the Ngalongs and the Sharchhops are Buddhists, while the Lhotshampas are mostly
Hindus who speak the Nepali language. The policy had severe consequences for the
Lhotshampas as Nepali was no longer taught in schools and people who could not prove
residence in Bhutan prior to 1958 were classified as non-nationals. Consequently, thousands
of Lhotshampas were expelled from Bhutan in the 1990s. Thus, the code of conduct is used
by the Bhutanese authorities to create cultural unity and to stimulate citizens to reflect upon
their cultural distinctiveness, which is paramount in creating a national identity.

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, a norm needs to go through a lifecycle before it becomes
established. In the case of Bhutan, we can witness the first phase, norm emergence, in the
creation of the Driglam Namzhag by the Bhutanese authorities. The second phase, norm
1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
acceptance, required Bhutanese citizens to accept the Driglam Namzhag, including the
national dress and Dzongkha as the national language. Once this acceptance occurred, norm
internalisation occurs. The completion of this process entails that the behaviour of the
Bhutanese citizens is circumscribed by these norms and practices. This circumscription also
shows the constitutive nature of the Driglam Namzhag, which created new actors – that is,
Bhutanese citizens who act and behave according to specific rules. We can see, for instance,
that these norms and practices are regulated to date. For example, Bhutanese citizens are
obliged to wear the national dress during national events and when they attend school or
work. This regulation is, as explained earlier, important as the behaviour of a state and its
citizens should comply with the norms that are associated with Bhutan’s national identity.
The regulation also signifies that these norms are perceived as something good by the
Bhutanese authorities, which underlines the prescriptive nature of norms.

Members of the Bhutanese elite have also created a second identity, which projects Bhutan as
a leader in advancing a holistic and sustainable development paradigm. This identity is based
on Bhutan’s development philosophy, Gross National Happiness (GNH), which criticises the
well-known Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approach for being solely focused on the
economy of a state. Instead, GNH promotes a balance between material wellbeing and the
spiritual needs of the mind. It is implemented and embedded in Bhutan’s political and
educational systems. Members of the Bhutanese elite have predominantly used the United
Nations as a platform to promote the idea internationally. Subsequently, the United Nations
adopted Resolution 65/309, which states that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental goal
and that the gross domestic product indicator was not designed to, and does not adequately
reflect, the wellbeing of people. Projecting their country as the last surviving independent
Mahayana Buddhist kingdom in the world and as a leader in advancing a holistic and
sustainable development paradigm enables Bhutanese authorities to signal their country’s
status as an independent sovereign state. It also allows Bhutan to increase its international
visibility, which is advantageous when tensions run high with and among its neighbours.

1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
3. Conclusion

Constructivism is often said to simply state the obvious – that actions, interactions and
perceptions shape reality. Indeed, that idea is the source of the name of this theory family.
Our thoughts and actions literally construct international relations. Yet, this seemingly simple
idea, when applied theoretically, has significant implications for how we can understand the
world. The discipline of International Relations benefits from constructivism as it addresses
issues and concepts that are neglected by mainstream theories – especially realism. Doing so,
constructivists offer alternative explanations and insights for events occurring in the social
world. They show, for instance, that it is not only the distribution of material power, wealth
and geographical conditions that can explain state behaviour but also ideas, identities and
norms. Furthermore, their focus on ideational factors shows that reality is not fixed, but rather
subject to change.

So far it is quite clear that constructivism is not a theory, but a genre in the philosophy of
science. It entered IR offering ideas‐ alternative ideas about what the international world
(ontology) is and how way of studying it (epistemology), so that it becomes the newest rival
for rationalism. positivism, a philosophical school embraced by neorealists and neoliberals.
However developments in the 1990s showed the efforts of the proponents of constructivism
in IR to assemble substantive theories. This is what next involves constructivism in the
theoretical debate with neorealism and neoliberalism. Until finally the theoretical similarities
that exist are seen by Fred Chernoff as a veiled confusion between constructivism and para
competitors such as neorealism or neoliberalism. Alexander Wendt, for example, is one of the
great constructivist figures but has the similarity of theoretical orientation with institutional
neoliberal.

The latest criticisms are apparently not directed at one person constructivism, but also the two
predecessors of rationalism—positivism and reflectivism-pospositivism. By Patomäki and
Wight, for example, rationalism‐ postpositivism and reflectivism‐pospositivism is grouped as
anti realism vis‐à‐vis realism (critical/scientific realism), a philosophical school that
developed by Roy Bashkar in his masterpiece‐ A Realist Theory of Science. Constructivism
is considered problematic because it seeks to mediate between two the problematic camp.
What is critical realism and what are the prospects? in the next development of IR? A
separate discussion is needed for answer this question.What is clear, as with rationalism,
positivism and reflectivism-pospositivism, constructivism is a paradigm. Up to this moment,
it is the latest innovation of IR scientists, but not the last.

1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.
4. Bibliography

George, Jim. (1994). Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to

International Relations. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

McGlinchey, S., Walters, R., Cheinpflug, C. (2017). “International Relations Theory”

Creative Commons

International Affair Forum, (2021). “Constructivism In International Relations”. Washington

D.C.

Wæver, Ole. (1996). The Rise and Fall of the Inter‐Paradigm Debate, dalam Steve Smith,
Ken Booth, Marysia Zalewski (Ed.). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1
The term 'third debate' here follows the definition in Yosef Lapid 1989, 235‐54
2
Wæver 1996, 156‐157
3
Smith 2000, 380
4
Hopf 1998, 181
5
Price and Reus‐Smit 1998, 259‐94.