Constructivism, for me, is the final piece in the puzzle. The missing link between international relations and all the other social sciences like sociology and anthropology. This theoretical sasquatch is brilliantly used by Finnemore and Sikkynk to explain the socialization of norms on a macro level. They look at how political norms emerge and take root in this world as well as the different factors that help them to flourish or falter.
Back in my first semester here at LUMS, I read about mechanisms of social control in Jack Eller's piece entitled 'Politics: Social Order and Social Control'. The idea of how social control works really had me impressed because it was probably the first time I had ever been presented with a new way to think (thanks to the British education system). Social control is the (often covert) attempt to regulate social behaviour through establishing a system of norms and enforcing such norms through rewards and punishments. Similarly, political discourse is also influenced by norms and ideas.
Norms can broadly be classified in two ways: regulative or constitutive. Regulative norms are the ones that are used to constrain behaviour whereas constitutive norms are the ones which create new regulations and new political actors. Normative shifts and ideational shifts in both these forms are the engine for political and social change. The idea of a norm seems abstract at first but Finnemore and Sikkynk do nothing but strengthen this concept by adding a proper framework for how a norm comes about and what makes it catch. This piece was immensely fun to read because it is possibly the most thought provoking of them all.
To imagine that any change that takes place or any political action that comes about is started by an idea which may or may not spark is thought by many to be counter to the rationalist approach of looking at things rationally as they are. Norm construction cannot be separated from rationalism at all, in my opinion. They are one and the same thing. Norms are as tangible and real as the state or the international system. To separate rationalism from the study of norms would be unjust. Rationalism looks at what "is". It is a common misconception to say that constructivist thought is a part of the "what ought to be" school. However, bringing norms into the paradigm paints a whole new picture. Constructivism and norms tell us about how the "ought" becomes the "is".
So the internalization of norms is the framework for constructivism. It is how the 'construction' itself comes into play. Norm emergence from say, a passionate group will lead to norm cascade if a 'norm tipping' is achieved. This norm cascade is the acceptance of the norms or ideas by states in order to maintain legitimacy. The move to internationalization depends on which states have taken part in the cascade. The norm finally reaches a stage where it is common enough to be taken for granted. This is usually done by institutionalizing the norm into law.
It is fascinating to see the powerful images of social construction at work here. What will be and what won't be influential will be decided by tiny and obscure criterion that are vague at best. The vague nature of the criteria for norm internationalization is a healthy ground for further research and will help us realize the true ontology of the political system and any discourse related to it. It is clear, however, that the massive construction of political society is held together by tiny bricks of norms with ideas as the cement that holds them together.
Back in my first semester here at LUMS, I read about mechanisms of social control in Jack Eller's piece entitled 'Politics: Social Order and Social Control'. The idea of how social control works really had me impressed because it was probably the first time I had ever been presented with a new way to think (thanks to the British education system). Social control is the (often covert) attempt to regulate social behaviour through establishing a system of norms and enforcing such norms through rewards and punishments. Similarly, political discourse is also influenced by norms and ideas.
Norms can broadly be classified in two ways: regulative or constitutive. Regulative norms are the ones that are used to constrain behaviour whereas constitutive norms are the ones which create new regulations and new political actors. Normative shifts and ideational shifts in both these forms are the engine for political and social change. The idea of a norm seems abstract at first but Finnemore and Sikkynk do nothing but strengthen this concept by adding a proper framework for how a norm comes about and what makes it catch. This piece was immensely fun to read because it is possibly the most thought provoking of them all.
To imagine that any change that takes place or any political action that comes about is started by an idea which may or may not spark is thought by many to be counter to the rationalist approach of looking at things rationally as they are. Norm construction cannot be separated from rationalism at all, in my opinion. They are one and the same thing. Norms are as tangible and real as the state or the international system. To separate rationalism from the study of norms would be unjust. Rationalism looks at what "is". It is a common misconception to say that constructivist thought is a part of the "what ought to be" school. However, bringing norms into the paradigm paints a whole new picture. Constructivism and norms tell us about how the "ought" becomes the "is".
So the internalization of norms is the framework for constructivism. It is how the 'construction' itself comes into play. Norm emergence from say, a passionate group will lead to norm cascade if a 'norm tipping' is achieved. This norm cascade is the acceptance of the norms or ideas by states in order to maintain legitimacy. The move to internationalization depends on which states have taken part in the cascade. The norm finally reaches a stage where it is common enough to be taken for granted. This is usually done by institutionalizing the norm into law.
It is fascinating to see the powerful images of social construction at work here. What will be and what won't be influential will be decided by tiny and obscure criterion that are vague at best. The vague nature of the criteria for norm internationalization is a healthy ground for further research and will help us realize the true ontology of the political system and any discourse related to it. It is clear, however, that the massive construction of political society is held together by tiny bricks of norms with ideas as the cement that holds them together.
Fantastic work - your best piece yet! I feel bad that it has taken me so long to get around to reading this. But anyhow, you do a great job of engaging with norms, how they are constructed and how they take hold in practice.
ReplyDeleteGood job and if your final exam is like this piece, you'll do fantastic.