The book "Social theory of International Politics" by Alexander Wendt talks about how constructivism can be applied to the study of international relations. Constructivism refers to how individuals perceive the understanding of the world around them through the experiences that they have and reflecting on those experiences. For this he, he uses four sociological ideas and applies it on international politics. He talks about the states and some non-state actors as key players in the international arena.
He combined materialists with idealists and individualists with holist to explain the constructed behavior of states.The author points out that through this lens, although we need to identify how the actors are socially constructed, the actors to study and where they are constructed is not clear. His idea of not being on any of the extremist views is not really helpful. However, his claim that it can be applied to anywhere is true, as he shows it as well. He gives the example of the water molecule and master and slave interaction.
In my view point, this makes his way of theorizing ontology about international politics weaker and so broad that it can incorporate every situation. Having said all this, we can not stop from appreciating him for his effort which allows us to think about international politics in a different way. He gives due credit to what he think are valid points of the other theories of International Relations.
But by having such an all-inclusive framework, isn't he actually enhancing IR? And isn't he just just reviving a deep, historical tradition in the social sciences that favor ideas over material concerns?
ReplyDelete