Session 18 - Norm Dynamics and Political Change

Finnemore and Sikkink, in their article on norm dynamics and political change, first explain that the study of norms disappeared from the IR arena when there was a shift in preference towards behaviourism and empiricism. Non-measurement of norms and ideas was the main reason that normative research was sidelined during the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, in my opinion, normative research is rich with ideas of human motivation and social explanation, which can aid in a deeper understanding of politics. But the main problem with constructivist theories, as the author’s state, is that like realist theories, they can only explain stability and not change.

Finnemore and Sikkink also outline the various stages of a norm cycle. In the first stage of the norm cycle, norms emerge due to persuasion by norm entrepreneurs. The authors mention the women’s rights movements across the globe as an example of norm emergence – when activists began to bring women’s issues to the forefront.  In the second stage of the cycle, states begin to accept norms for varying motivations. The most common motivations are usually conformity, desire to enhance international legitimacy and desire of the state leader to enhance self – esteem. The second stage of norm cascade can be applied to the Pakistani context. In 1953, Pakistan joined the UN Convention on the Political Rights of Women. Under Ayub Khan, during the 1950’s, many laws which ensured the rights of women within the family were passed. However, one of the major motives behind reforming the legal framework of Pakistan, specifically with regards to women, was to gain recognition by the international community. Thus, Pakistan began to accept the norms that were trending worldwide. In the third stage of the cycle, the authors state that the norms become internalised to the extent that they are taken for granted and no longer spoken about. It seems safe to say that the norm of women’s rights has not reached the third stage of the cycle as far as Pakistan is concerned as our society is still struggling with fully understanding the problems in women’s lives.

The authors then discuss which norms are most likely to become adopted and when. These include: legitimacy, prominence, intrinsic qualities, adjacency and world time. While the authors do a good job of explaining why, how and when norms are adopted, their analysis does not explain behaviour of those states that refuse to accept international norms and are not motivated by the pressure to conform or gain international legitimacy.

Finally, Finnemore and Sikkink highlight the complex relationship between rationality and norms. Issues of materialism, utilitarianism, choice and persuasion create divisions amongst scholars regarding this relationship.

Agreeing with the authors, I feel that normative theories should not be excluded from the field of IR. 

Such approaches to IR bring issues to light which may appear domestic at first, but might actually have significance internationally. The realist and liberal theories of IR do not really foster the possibility of the change in the world’s norms and focus too much on gaining power and security. Constructivist theories bring a non – scientific understanding to the field. Also, realists, in particular, do not take into account domestic pressures where as norm research explains how domestic pressures influence international politics. Overall, I enjoyed this reading as everything was very well explained by the authors. In general, being an individual interested in study of society and how ideas and motivations shape behavior, reading about social constructivism and normative research was a refreshing break from the usual realist theories, which now appear to be lacking in many respects.