International Studies Paper(Graduate students)

IAFF 6101 Interna-onal Affairs Cornerstone

Lecture 4: Construc.vism September 20, 2016

Today’s Class •  Review Liberalism

•  Introduc.on to Construc.vism

•  Structural Construc.vism

•  Norms and Construc.vism –  Effects of Norms –  Causes of Norms

•  Iden.ty and Status Concerns

Neoliberal Ins-tu-onalism •  Primarily a structural theory

–  Keohane emphasized that neoliberalism is built on the same core assump.ons as structural realism •  Anarchy, states, ra.onal unitary actors

•  Different conclusions –  Significant coopera.on is possible under anarchy –  Interna.onal ins.tu.ons are the key

•  Ins.tu.ons: “persistent and connected sets of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain ac.vity, and shape expecta.ons” (Keohane 1989, 3)

•  Key func.on of ins.tu.ons = informa.on and monitoring

Economic Interdependence Theories

Interna.onal commerce and trade è Fewer incen.ves for conflict and war

•  No single theory, but rather a lot of poten.al causal mechanisms linking interdependence and peace –  Opportunity costs –  Crea.on of domes.c cons.tuencies opposed to war –  Signaling mechanism –  Globaliza.on of produc.on reduces benefits of conquest –  Middle ground: expecta.ons about future trade

Democra-c Peace Theories

Stable, mature democracies do not fight wars against each other

•  Again, no single theory, but lots of theories o  Costs

o  Norms •  Respect for individual rights/autonomy •  Non-violent conflict resolu.on

o  Ins.tu.ons •  Public/group constraint •  Slow mobiliza.on/surprise a_ack •  Democra.c war-figh.ng

Liberal Theories and Levels of Analysis

1st Image 2nd Image 3rd Image

Liberalism Democra.c Peace Interdependence

Ins.tu.onalism Interdependence

3 Philosophical Tradi-ons

•  Construc.vism – Emphasizes role of ideas and iden.ty – as opposed to material power and interests

– Norms of appropriate behavior

Ra-onal Choice Theory

•  Desire (interest) + Belief (idea) è Ac.on

•  Hunger + Belief that hunger can be sa.ated è Go to 7/11

•  Desire/interest = Key driver of behavior

Realism Example

•  Anarchy

•  States = main actors = like units

•  States want to survive

•  Interests = fixed and unchanging (exogenous) = maximize security

•  Iden.ty nowhere to be found

Neoliberalism Example

•  Anarchy

•  States = main actors

•  States want to survive

•  Interests = fixed and unchanging (exogenous) = maximize absolute gains from coopera.on

•  Coopera.on does not change state interests or iden..es

The Construc-vist Take

•  Few interests actually based in material needs; most are learned/socialized into us

•  Most interests are in fact ideas – ideas about how to meet needs –  Most ideas about how to meet needs dictated by iden.ty

•  “Rela.vely stable, role-specific understandings and expecta.ons about self” (Wendt 1992, 397)

–  Iden..es = basis of interests

•  Iden.ty è Interests/Desires è Belief/Idea è Ac.on

The Construc-vist Take, Pt. 2

•  Iden..es have norms associated with them – prescrip.ons for behavior – Example: “civilized” states don’t use weapons that cause superfluous harm, like Dum Dum bullets

•  Iden.ty è Norms è Interests/Desires è Belief/Idea è Ac.on

The Construc-vist Take, Pt. 2

•  Our views of others’ iden..es also affect our behavior – Example: Policeman, President Knapp

Wendt vs. Waltz

•  Waltz: Anarchy has a single logic, forces states to compete, rely on self-help

•  Wendt: Self-help does not flow from anarchy

Wendt vs. Waltz

•  Waltz: Anarchy has a single logic, forces states to compete, rely on self-help

•  Wendt: Self-help does not flow from anarchy

•  First encounter – Aliens –  Not ra.onal to assume the worst just because you don’t have 100%

certainty about inten.ons

•  Same goes for first encounters in the state of nature

•  “Predators” (i.e., greedy states) can generate self-help and compe..on – but this is not an inevitable product of anarchy

Wendt and Structure

•  Waltz’s concep.on of structure = underspecified

•  Adds iden.ty and interests: knowledge and ideas that states have about each other

•  Material capabili.es don’t speak for themselves – given meaning by ideas – North Korean (enemy) nukes vs. Bri.sh (friend) nukes

Different Kinds of Anarchies

•  Anarchy of “enemies” looks very different from anarchy of “friends”

•  Hobbesian/Compe..ve: Self-help (Realism) •  Lockean/Individualis.c: Self-help (Neoliberal) •  Kan.an/Coopera.ve: NOT Self-help – Collec.ve security – A world of all liberal democracies?

Structural Change

•  Prospects for change: not easy, but possible

•  Big example = Gorbachev – Transforma.ve prac.ces

•  Try to convince West that Soviet iden.ty was changing – Try to persuade West to adopt more coopera.ve stance •  “Altercas.ng”

Structural vs. other Construc-visms

•  Wendt = structural (3rd image) construc.vist – Interac-on è Iden.ty è Interests è Behavior

•  Leaves open the possibility that things inside states are more important driver of iden..es and interests than interac.on between states

•  Hard to put into prac.ce

Norms

•  Shared expecta.ons about behavior

•  Standards of right and wrong

•  Prescrip.ons or proscrip.ons for behavior, for actors with certain iden.ty

Norma-ve Effects, 1

•  Regula-ve – Viola.ng norms imposes a cost – S.ll follows logic of consequences – Only type of norma.ve effect you can have in realism or neoliberalism

Norma-ve Effects, 2

•  Substan-ve/cons-tu-ve – norm has taken- for-granted character, cons.tutes iden.ty – “This is just wrong” – “We don’t do things like this” – Logic of appropriateness

•  Norm è Iden.ty è Interest è Behavior

Norma-ve Effects, 3

•  Permissive – norm against one thing creates more permissive environment for another thing

Effects of Norms: Tannenwald

•  “Taboo” against the use of nuclear weapons

•  Reasons for doubt? – Wars of choice – low interests engaged – U.S./NATO first use doctrine in Europe – Li_le evidence of taboo among public

Origins of Norms

•  Power + Principle –  Norm vs. assassina.on (Ward Thomas) –  Convergence of principle with interests of powerful states –  Leaders not appropriate targets –  Norm under stress?

•  Graoing –  Norm adopted against the wishes of powerful states (Richard Price)

–  Graoing of effects of weapons onto norm against “indiscriminateness”

–  Appeal to “civilized” iden..es vs. “barbarism” •  Chemical weapons post-WW1 •  Land mines – highlights role of individuals

Status Seeking

•  What’s the problem for China and Russia? –  They seek recogni.on as great powers –  Goal = “to restore both countries’ great power status” (p. 66)

•  In other words, they have an “iden.ty crisis” –  Either they used to be GPs and seek to restore that status… –  …or they self-iden.fy as GPs and seek recogni.on of that status

•  Iden.ty/status is understood as posi.onal –  There is a hierarchy, and you want to move up in the world

Why Seek Status?

•  Individuals (states) desire self-esteem

•  Individuals (states) derive self-esteem from group membership

•  Individuals (states) want their group to have a posi.ve iden.ty

•  Posi.ve iden.ty is obtained via comparison to others

Status-Seeking Strategies •  Social mobility

–  Seek acceptance into the elite group by imita.ng its norms, prac.ces, joining its ins.tu.ons

–  Only possible if boundaries are permeable

•  Social compe..on –  Compete with leader(s) in area on which its superiority rests (e.g., arms race) –  When boundaries are impermeable

•  Social crea.vity –  Don’t try to change exis.ng hierarchy, but seek pres.ge in a different area

altogether •  Turn a nega.ve into a posi.ve •  Find a new dimension on which you are superior

–  Has to be recognized as valid by dominant group •  If not recognized, compe..on ensues

China and Status

•  Compe..ve up to mid-1990s

•  Social crea.vity – Responsible great power – Recognized by U.S.: “responsible stakeholder”

•  What about now?

Russia and Status •  Social mobility into mid-1990s

•  Social compe..on, 1996-1999 –  NATO expansion –  But too weak to ma_er – “Zaire with permafrost”

•  Social crea.vity, 1999- –  9/11: Pu.n cooperates with U.S. –  But not recognized by U.S. as an equal

•  Return to social compe..on, mid-2000s