Session 18: Notes of a Constructivism 'Fan-girl'

I have often wondered if “what is” and “what should be” are always separate and most often antagonistic; if we cannot enable change or strive for the better then what is even the point. Why is normative thinking and rational choice always seen as two opposing forces, would not it be ideal if they were one and the same at least sometimes?

I got the answer to this conundrum by reading “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. It felt so liberating to be told that this need not be the case, that I was not wrong. It is hilarious how many times I internally ‘squee-d’ and nodded my head along while reading it. I loved it so much I don’t know where to start. Suffice to say, constructivism has gotten itself a fan-girl. Granted that is probably because it best fits my idea of the world and to get that validation was pure joy.

Building on this sense of validation, the reading talks about how that is precisely the way norms work. How norms are patterns of appropriate behavior and how the appropriateness is determined by those around us. They are social constructions. This is true in terms of individuals as well as states in the international system.

Constructivism emphasizes the importance of international norms and explains changes in terms of normative shifts. This occurs in a three step process: norm emergence, norm cascade and internationalization. The reading discusses all three of these steps in detail with examples of women’s rights and norms of war.

The most interesting for me was norm emergence and the persuasive role of norm entrepreneurs in that stage. That was probably the case because it spoke to me on an individual level. How everything one does matters, it can change the world in many ways in varying degrees. Is that not amazing? That realization leaves me awestruck every time. I am far from that stage of being the next Rosa Parks or Nelson Mandela but it is inspiring nonetheless.

Finally, the authors have also discussed on how normative study in international relations has been ignored in the past because of the typical “science envy”. But now with constructivism, there is more space for normative studies, more room for collaboration over rationality and normativity by recognizing their inter connectedness, the writers are encouraging and more optimistic about the continuation of healthy debate within IR. That is something that I can completely get behind, because combined all these theories can better help us provide the missing pieces of the puzzle that is IR.