What I admire about Constructivism is it’s ability to fill the gaps in International Relation Theory. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink in International Norm Dynamics and Political Change attempt to bridge the gap between rationalist and constructivist approaches. Rational theories fail to see the ‘socially constructed’ aspect of norms and their impact.They focus on the ‘what is’ and actively avoid ‘ what ought to be.’ This stark divide according to the authors becomes obsolete looking at the contemporary empirical research which shows how ‘what is’ comes from ‘what ought to be.’ To explain the need to understand how this transition takes place and the importance of norm creation, the authors use the women’s movement and laws of warfare.
The emphasis on “The Return to Norms” has a hint of optimism attached. Previously due to the behavioral revolution and the obsession with empiricism studying norms and other ideational phenomena was sidelined. However, the authors acknowledge that there was still some interest in this phenomena, as writers like Morgenthau and the formation of International Organizations, did contribute towards how normative factors limited state exercise of power. Nonetheless, there was no proper theoretical development in this particular area. This return to the norms has opened up an entirely new paradigm to look through the world from yet at the same time it’s not so new.
One of the major contributions of Finnermore and Sikkink is the Life Cycle if norms. The idea that norms develop through a certain linear pattern coincides with “rationality” (The obsession with linear trajectories) The Life Cycle is divided into three parts; Norm Emergence, Norm Cascade and Internationalization.
Norm emergence as the name suggests shows how a norm originates. The two important components of this stage are the norm entrepreneurs and organizational platforms. The norm entrepreneurs are agents that actively try to push these ideas in their community. “They call attention to issues” and construct the path to norm creation. Women’s suffrage was never a concern. The norm was that women could not vote, however through active agents like Susan B Anthony, etc. The issue of women’s voting right first came on to the floor. Secondly, the Organizational platforms are pivotal in order to promote these norms internationally. The second stage known as Norm Cascade which deals with norm acceptance. One of the dominant feature of this particular stage is socialization. How are various norms adopted? What interests do states have an accepting a particular norm? According to the author the acceptance of these norms in different states is due to legitimacy, reputation and esteem. Three critical motives that drive states towards acceptance. And lastly Norm Internalization is the stage where norms become widely accepted and are then ‘taken for granted’. This where the ‘what is’ comes in. There norms are often iterated as habit. The fact that ‘slaves’ were considered inferior had become so intrinsic in the Europeans that this ‘socially constructed phenomena’ was seen as ‘what is.’
The paper contributed a considerable amount to my knowledge of constructivism and has a dose of much needed optimism. However, I feel that norm development is far more complex then the three stages given. It almost reductionist. Furthermore, norm ‘acceptance’ and ‘compliance’ is also taken for granted. Yes some states can be driven to accept these norms as suggested by the authors. However unlike what they believe not all states feel guilty about violating international norms.
Good job Zainab! This post is on par with some of your earlier posts in the class.
ReplyDeleteYou're the first person to argue that the norm development process is reductionist. This is an interesting and compelling point. Although it is easy to conceptualize norm emergence, dispersion, and internalization as a linear process, this may not always be the case. Perhaps more complexity is needed for the model to actually be as explanatory as it wants to be.