The Middle Ground

The Middle Ground 

I discussed in a previous blog post the problems I had with realist theory: namely its inability to recognise the importance of internal politics on external activities, and the issues of using the state as the referent object. In that I argued for a comprise between post-positivist theory and realism, that altered the referent object. However, whilst going through the readings this week and indeed various YouTube videos, I have found that comprise in Constructivism. This theory, at least non-realist dominated Constructivism, offers a compromise between positivist and post-positivist theory, through acknowledgment that the referent object cannot be singular in nature, and that study of just one, limits general understanding.

Constructivists understand that the functions of government or even government itself are social constructs and thus liable to change or removal. Elucidating on this, we can explore how Constructivists and Realists would approach a game of chess. Straight positivist theories analyse chess through the study of moves on a board, whereas constructivists want to understand the underlying rules of the game before they analyse the individual moves. This is better understood through the lens of the example. Take collapse of the USSR: people woke up one morning in 1989 and decided that maybe they could cross the Berlin wall; the guards decided maybe they did not have to shoot them for crossing; the government decided maybe the guards not shooting was not an issue, and so on. The USSRs collapse was in essence, due to the collective decision not to believe pre-existing social constructs (1).

Now we have placed constructivism, how can we explore its modern relevance. A look at Iraq, as we have done in the previous entries, further explains and explores the theory. The Iraq War in 2003 is a good example of comparison between Realism and Constructivism. Academics generally did not support the war but for differing reasons, Realists argued the implications of a lack of an ‘endgame’ ultimately doomed the unwarranted expedition as there was no benefit to the national interest. However, the Constructivist theory is based upon the existing international norms, the War in Iraq violated those international norms. Constructivism does not provide answers, nor does it explain what you should or should not do, it is not as absolutist on an issue that is too large for a single theory to define.

Constructivism is thus an important theory that does not rely on absolutist beliefs and instead is more fluid and adaptable in its approaches to understanding the international order. The ability to study the individual and state as referent objects rather than just one elevates it above the orthodox positivist theories, but still allows for answers, something other post-positivist theories do not.