Moving Beyond the Agent?Structure Debate

Abstract

Editor's Note: Constructivists in international relations accept the basic premise that agents and structures are “mutually constituted.” This perspective stresses that social context may constrain particular actions, but historical legacies do not determine behavior. People both perpetuate and alter their worlds. But this ontological agreement does not preclude vociferous disagreements beyond whether to label scholarship “positivist” or “post-positivist” (see, for example, Adler 1997; Campbell 1998; Hopf 1998; Price and Reus-Smit 1998; Ruggie 1998). Epistemological differences raise critical questions about the formulation of research designs and the selection of appropriate methodologies that can untangle the empirical manifestations of mutual constitution (Klotz and Lynch, forthcoming). If meanings are malleable, for instance, is it acceptable to assume that social structures are stable enough for us to identify norms or rules? If identities are fluid and overlapping, are we ever justified in using national interest as a category of analysis? Should we treat language as action or as evidence of individual beliefs?