Realist Constructivism Research Articles

Realist constructivism: a new perspective on norm theory

We contribute to the advancement of scholarship on realist constructivism by illustrating its potential to enrich norm theory and elucidate the role of states in shaping identities. The primary challenge in fully realizing the potential of realist constructivism lies in reconciling constructivists' perspectives on norms as carriers of universal ethical standards with realists' emphasis on their instrumental value for state interests. We address this contradiction by highlighting the existence of two distinct types of norms: individual and group norms. Individual norms are grounded in fundamental and inalienable human rights, exhibiting universality and resilience. In contrast, group norms primarily address collective rights and interests, rendering them more susceptible to instrumentalization by states and thus more contingent and changeable. Realist constructivism enables us to acknowledge the coexistence of both types of norms and analyze their interactions. Our framework is empirically tested using two norms concerning individual rights (the norm against anti-personnel landmines and the norm against torture), two norms related to group interests (the norm promoting the green energy transition and the norm of world-class universities), and one borderline case (the norm against genocide). We show that efforts to frame norms of the second category and to graft them onto the human rights discource have yielded intriguing outcomes, legitimizing and empowering new principles of interntional governance. Conversely, the instrumentalization of norms from the first category to serve national interests can weaken them, leading to a loss of credibility on the international stage.

Renewing Realist Constructivism: Does It Have Potential as a Theory of Foreign Policy?

This article raises the possibility of de- and reconstructing realist constructivism for the purpose of studying foreign policy, with an emphasis on explaining and forecasting change and continuity. I discuss why Samuel Barkin’s explication of realist constructivism has in my view struggled to take off as an IR perspective and which tenets appear problematic, especially when applying them to foreign policy. I suggest a way of revitalising realist constructivism across three layers of theorising: political ontology, explanatory theory, and praxis. Constructivism’s “open ontology”offers a meeting point with classical realism, together with its (less deterministic and more interpretivist) explanatory approach. Classical realism adds to the third layer with its focus on practice sensibility, including the choices actors make in highly uncertain contexts. Its strong interest in discovering the truth of politics is important here. I argue that such a synthesis, which is informed by Ned Lebow’s conceptualisation of causation as “inefficient”, could be well-suited to unpack the complex reality of foreign policy. I seek to make the case for realist constructivism as a dynamic thinking tool, among others when investigating the effects of material, intersubjective and subjective factors on foreign policy decisions and outcomes. While my propositions can only be sketched here, the goal is to encourage further debate about the value of realist constructivism, which has ebbed since the mid-2000s.

Beyond Inclusion: Explaining China's Rejection on the Indo-Pacific Regional Construct

The concept of “Indo-Pacific” has been increasingly adopted in foreign policies during the past few years. Despite its multifaceted nature, China has consistently rejected the use of the Indo-Pacific concept in its official policy. Beijing’s attitude was reflected in Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s remarks that dismissed the Indo-Pacific as a “come-back of Cold War mentality” and “retrogression of history.” This study explains why China renounced the Indo-Pacific concept despite the increasing inclusion in defining the region. By employing realist constructivism theory, this paper finds that the prevalence of containment and anti-China narrative engenders Beijing’s threat perception to the concept. The dominant narratives in China’s regional strategy, such as “community of common destiny,” also affect how the country treats the Indo-Pacific as a Western-centric concept, aimed to limit China’s influence. Beyond seeking inclusion from the Indo-Pacific conception, China advances its own vision to the region. China’s vision is projected through the Belt and Road Initiatives and various concepts to shape regional order in Beijing's preference.

The Effect of Security and Terror Policies in Bill Clinton Era in the Perspective of Realist Constructivism on Turkey-USA Relations

1991 yılı Aralık ayı itibariyle sona eren Soğuk Savaş sürecinin akabinde George Bush, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin (ABD) süper güç olarak “yeni dünya düzeni” içerisinde yerini alacağını belirtmiştir. Bush dönemi sonrası, Demokrat Parti adayı olarak başkan seçilen Bill Clinton, yeni düzen dizaynının gereklilikleri çerçevesinde, bir yol haritası oluşturmuştur. Realist parametreler ile hareket etmiş olan Bush yönetiminin aksine Clinton göreve gelir gelmez, güvenlik ve terör politikaları konusunda idealist bir bakış açısıyla hareket edileceğine dikkat çekmiştir. Clinton bu durumu, uluslararası örgütler, müttefikler ve diğer devletler ekseninde “sert güç”ten “yumuşak güç”e geçiş olarak değerlendirmiştir. Bu bağlamda, 1990 yılı Ağustos ayında başlayan Körfez Savaşı’ndan itibaren ortak müttefik anlayışıyla sürdürülen Türkiye-ABD ilişkileri, Clinton dönemi ile birlikte yakın işbirliği hedefli olarak ilerlemiştir. Türkiye’nin, Irak Savaşı sırasında oynadığı etkin rol ve Kuzey Atlantik Antlaşması Örgütü (NATO) kapsamında ABD’nin yanında yer alması, Clinton dönemi itibariyle ilişkileri, kimileri tarafından kabul görmüş olmasa da “stratejik ortaklık” boyutuna taşımıştır. Çalışma, Clinton’un başkanlık dönemi içerisinde, Türkiye ile ABD’nin birbirlerine karşı aldıkları pozisyonu, dış politika analizleri üzerinden, realist konstrüktivist analitik bakış açısı doğrultusunda değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır.

Discourse power: sovereignty claims over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

ABSTRACT This paper examines the discursive construction in the territorial disputes over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands between China and Japan. In the 21st century, territorial sovereignty is still a widely acknowledged issue involving national and international security that imposes potential risks of conflict and even war. Based on realist constructivism, which differs from liberal constructivism, the study theorizes discourse power formation, which is jointly determined by power and social construction. Power and ideas are not mutually exclusive: states construct a discourse to express and legitimize power, while ideas and norms shape the ways states establish the morality of power. The findings of this study show that China and Japan use discourse as an instrument to pursue power, and that ideas and norms determine the two countries’ narratives in discursive construction.

From Containment to Realpolitik and Back Again: A Realist Constructivist Analysis of Turkey–EU Relations and the Migration Issue

AbstractThe EU's reaction to the migration crisis of 2015–16 was to shower the Turkish government with gifts to secure their cooperation on the Aegean crossing. This led to accusations of realpolitik after Brussels made concessions to Turkey despite Ankara's liberal democratic deficit. This article examines EU policy before, during and after the migration crisis to argue that the situation is more nuanced than this suggests. Turkey–EU accession had been in a state of containment for nearly a decade before the migration issue. Brussels' reaction to it raised questions about the EU's liberal identity but Brussels backtracked quickly once the extent of illiberality following the attempted coup d'état emerged. Turkey–EU relations then returned to a pre‐migration state of containment whereby Turkey remains a candidate but progress towards accession depends on their liberal progress. Using realist constructivism, it concludes the EU's liberal democratic standards remain, but the liberal bar is pliable according to circumstances.

A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation

This article offers a realist constructivist account of armed conflict, based on the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel has received relatively little attention in mainstream IR theory. When he has been read, four readings have predominated: realist, liberal, critical, and normative. Instead, we link his thought to both realism and constructivism. For Hegel, a persistent struggle for recognition and identity between individuals and groups drives much of human interaction. In his account of the causes of war in Philosophy of Right, Hegel relates international violence not only to realist international-structural pressures, but also to nationalism, and to the internal socioeconomic imperfections of the modern state. The result is broadly realist constructivist, linking a major international phenomenon — armed conflict — to interactions between power and ideas. Previous readings of Hegel in IR have deemphasised some or all of these features. Recovering them furnishes realist constructivism with theoretical tools for explaining the processes linking ideas and power politics — tools it has lacked thus far — in the context of a substantive phenomenon: armed conflict.

COGNITIVISMO E RACIONALISMO CRÍTICO

A Revolução Cognitiva só se tornou possível graças à mudança na concepção de ciência modernaocorrida a partir da obra de Karl Popper. Ao minar e posteriormente derrotar o Positivismo Lógicocomo teoria epistemológica geral, o Racionalismo Crítico acabou com o mito da indução e daobservação neutra como fonte original de conhecimento científico. Além disso, ajudou a generalizaro reconhecimento de que o método de investigação da ciência moderna era o hipotético-dedutivo,e não o indutivo-experimental. Sem o enfraquecimento da posição antes hegemônica do PositivismoLógico em filosofia da ciência, o estudo empírico de processos cognitivos não poderia ter conquistadoo respeito da comunidade científica. Além disso, o Cognitivismo é plenamente compatível com oRacionalismo Crítico, como podemos ver na identidade entre as teses filosóficas de Popper e doCognitivismo sobre o construtivismo realista (Piaget), o caráter antecipatório da percepção (Bruner),a observação que se faz contra ou a favor de uma teoria (Neisser), a rejeição da tabula rasa (Chomsky),o interacionismo (Sperry) e o caráter de imprevisibilidade que o conhecimento traz ao sujeito(Neisser). Entretanto, o Cognitivismo apresentava até vinte anos atrás uma surpreendenteinconsciência em relação ao caráter precursor da filosofia de Popper. Essa inconsciência se revelaparticularmente surpreendente no silêncio do Cognitivismo em relação à origem de seu modelo demétodo geral científico.

The structure-identity nexus: Syria and Turkey’s collapse (2011)

The relation between Syria and Turkey transformed from enmity in the 1990s to détente in the early 2000s, grew into amity after the rise to power of the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP, Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi) in 2002, and reverted to enmity in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. This research suggests that a combination of structural and identity-based factors, at regional and domestic levels, induced the collapse of the decade-long amity. This paper builds on the notion of a “structure-identity nexus”; and determines the orientation of foreign policy outcomes from the 1990s until 2011. The discussion outlines the merits of a hybrid theoretical perspective by elaborating on Barkin’s idea of ‘realist constructivism’, which draws on two rival traditions, realism and constructivism. The structure-identity framework explains the double transformation in the relationship, considering the return to inter- and intra-state conflict in 2011. The research draws on extensive primary and secondary sources, as well as interviews carried out with key figures. In addition to the relationship between Syria and Turkey, the structure-identity nexus provides potential broader explanations that fuel the shift from amity to enmity in the complex network of states found in the Middle East.

THINK LIKE CONSTRUCTIVIST: DISCOVERING A POLYPHONIC WORLD

The article covers the specific features an main ideas of the constructivist attitude to international relations studies. The article consists of two parts. In the first part the ontology, epistemology and main principles of constructivism is explained. In the second part, the author’s attention is directed towards the key concepts of the international relations theory (anarchical structure of the international system, power, national interest, identity, war and peace, etc.). The author’s conclusion is the following: principally constructivism managed «to build a “bridge” between neorealism and liberal instututionalism. The latest versions of constructivism have a propensity either for neorealism (realist constructivism), or for liberalism ( liberal constructivism).

Human Nature and the Limits of the Self: Hans Morgenthau on Love and Power1

International Relations (IR) has seen renewed interest in the nuanced insights of Hans Morgenthau which had long been obscured by neorealism. This new “reflexive realism,” however, far from exhausts the range of Morgenthau's thinking about politics or social theory. In the 1960s, Morgenthau lamented the inability of modern thinking to recognize the connections between power and love, which he argued was symptomatic of the inability to fully understand either one. For Morgenthau, both power and love were rooted in the need to overcome the loneliness of the human condition. Through pursuits of both power and love, people seek, through others, to avoid the self's insufficiency. Yet, these pursuits are mutually subversive. The frustration of love blends into the imposition of power, and the pursuit of power is ultimately an extension of the search for love. In exploring these issues, this paper argues that Morgenthau's insights have implications for at least three core issues of contemporary concern in IR. First, they suggest fresh perspectives on recent discussions of human nature in IR. Second, Morgenthau's analysis contributes to the burgeoning interest in emotions in IR, pointing to the neglect of love in this literature, and illustrates his attempt to theorize what may be called the affective limits of the self. Third, these insights can be used to enrich recent discussions of realist constructivism in IR.

Realist constructivism

Realist constructivism

Realist Constructivism and Realist-Constructivisms

“Realist Constructivism” (Barkin 2003) endeavored to make the case that classical realist theory and constructivist approaches to the study of international relations are not implacably opposed, as has been claimed by self-described realist and constructivist scholars of international relations theory. As such, the goal of the article was to create a set of permissive conditions for a realist constructivism (unhyphenated, understood as a general approach rather than as a specific theory)—that is, a footnote that future students of international relations could use rather than have to make the case themselves that the two are not incompatible. In creating a set of permissive conditions, my hope was that a variety of specific realist-constructivisms (hyphenated, understood as more specific theories of international relations within the general approach of realist constructivism) could be created, each suitable to particular research questions and each contributing to a broader conversation on realist constructivism in the study of international relations. This Forum constitutes the beginning of such a conversation. The four theoretical formulations in this Forum suggest at least two axes on which specific realist-constructivisms might differ: (1) how to understand power, and (2) how to deal with the relationships among power, idealism, and liberalism. These questions provide two fruitful areas for a discussion of the potentialities and limits of realist constructivism in general. Power as a concept is involved in this conversation in two ways. The first is the status of power in a realist constructivism. Three of the four essays in this Forum argue that power cannot be transcended in international relations. The outlier, Richard Ned Lebow's essay, suggests that power is central to the study of international relations, but it is only one necessary focus among many. But even among the three essays that argue that power cannot be transcended, disagreement exists about the …

Power in Realist-Constructivist Research

Samuel Barkin is correct: constructivism and realism do have more to say to each other than the IR literature might lead one to think. What is unclear, however, is the extent to which Barkin has compellingly outlined the parameters of such a conversation. In this Forum, both Jackson and Nexon and Jennifer Sterling-Folker object that he has not, each arguing, for different reasons, that Barkin has defined the terms of the conversation in a way that sells the potential of realist constructivism short. I agree—for yet different reasons. Specifically, if we take Barkin's rendition of realist constructivism at face value and then proceed to engage the research agenda it implies, we are not likely to glean any particularly novel insights about international politics. Indeed, Barkin's realist constructivism appears to offer exactly the same insights as the liberal-constructivist approach against which his realist constructivism is positioned. What we need is a realist-constructivist approach that emphasizes the forms and expressions of power entailed in social construction. This focus implies an innovative research agenda that not only can, but already has generated novel insights about international politics. Consider Barkin's realist constructivism. As he describes its logic, it is not a theory about how international politics works, but a method for studying international politics. This means realist constructivism should be understood as a set of practices, procedures, or guidelines for inquiry into the substantive problems of international relations. Outlining those research guidelines, Barkin (2003:337) argues that realist constructivism involves an analytic focus on the dialectic between ideals and power. In essence, it consists of a focus on how “power structures affect patterns of normative change in international relations” and “how a particular set of norms affects power structures.” As vague as this sounds, sympathetically inclined individuals will nevertheless accept that it has the …

Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism?

In his article “Realist Constructivism,”Barkin (2003:338) described constructivism as a cluster of research methods and analytical tools: a “set of assumptions about how to study world politics” rather than a “set of assumptions about how politics work.” As such, constructivism is subject to E.H. Carr's dialectic between realism and utopianism. Barkin also argued that the problem with contemporary constructivism is that it has been dominated by liberalism and idealism; it would therefore benefit from a healthy infusion of realism. Much of Barkin's essay is aimed at showing that mainstream constructivism is, or can be, broadly compatible with classical realist theory. Barkin is right that mainstream US constructivism is liberal and idealist. In this respect, his article serves as an important overarching statement of a position implicitly taken by a growing number of constructivist scholars. However, Barkin underplays the real and substantial differences between a commitment to understanding the social world as a product of contingent social interactions, on the one hand, and a commitment to understanding the social world as a result of natural necessity, on the other. These divergent commitments are assumptions about how politics works—assumptions that place constructivism in opposition to both liberal and realist approaches to contemporary international relations. By ignoring these distinctions, Barkin's arguments amount to a call for a “constructivist realism”—a realism that takes norms and ideas seriously as objects of analysis—rather than a “realist-constructivism”—a constructivism that involves a self-consistent set of arguments about why power cannot be, in any way, transcended in international politics. The latter approach represents the key space in the field occupied by realist-constructivism, and it provides a better basis for promoting both a dialogue within constructivism and a dialogue between constructivism and realism. Where would a properly understood realist-constructivism fit into the disputes between the so-called “isms” in …

Bridging the Gap: Toward A Realist-Constructivist Dialogue

Editor's Note: J. Samuel Barkin's International Studies Review article “Realist Constructivism” (2003) makes the important point that the opposition between realist and constructivist schools of thought in international relations (IR) may not be as clear-cut as is commonly supposed. In doing so, he focuses on how certain classical realist notions are compatible with constructivist sensibilities …

THE NOMINALISM VERSUS REALISM DEBATE: TOWARD A PHILOSOPHICAL RATHER THAN A POLITICAL RESOLUTION

Educational TheoryVolume 53, Issue 3 p. 275-311 THE NOMINALISM VERSUS REALISM DEBATE: TOWARD A PHILOSOPHICAL RATHER THAN A POLITICAL RESOLUTION Richard S. Prawat, Richard S. Prawat Professor and Chair of the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education at Michigan State University, College of Education, 449 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. His primary areas of scholarship are learning theory as it relates to epistemology, and testing alternative constructivist approaches to teaching and learning with a focus on “realist constructivism.”Search for more papers by this author Richard S. Prawat, Richard S. Prawat Professor and Chair of the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education at Michigan State University, College of Education, 449 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. His primary areas of scholarship are learning theory as it relates to epistemology, and testing alternative constructivist approaches to teaching and learning with a focus on “realist constructivism.”Search for more papers by this author First published: 25 January 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2003.00275.xCitations: 6Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume53, Issue3September 2003Pages 275-311 RelatedInformation

Realist Constructivism

Realist Constructivism

Evidence for the Dewey Discontinuity Hypothesis: A Rejoinder to Garrison

In these remarks I address the three main criticisms Professor James Garrison raised about a thesis I presented in the August, 2001, issue of the Teachers College Record. Garrison begins his remarks with the comment that my argument, which demonstrates that Dewey underwent a dramatic midcareer shift in thinking, is “so stunning, so remarkable, that if true, it would transform Deweyan scholarship” ~2001, p. 723!. My goal, let me hasten to say, is much more modest than that. Progressive educators continue to view Dewey as being largely about child-initiated activity, which I think grossly underestimates the subtlety of the educational approach he developed in the second half of his career. ~This approach, I am now inclined to think, can perhaps best be characterized as that of “realist constructivism.” In this approach, the teacher helps the child perceive and label regularity in various disciplinary situations—that is, mathematical, scientific.! As I began to carefully examine Dewey’s writings on a number of subjects, it became clear to me that he had begun to entertain severe doubts about the process— induction—which had been a staple of his early advice to educators ~EW 5; MW 6!. Dewey, it became more and more evident, had undergone a major change in thinking sometime around 1915, altering his views not only about education but also about philosophy and psychology. I am not the first to note discontinuity in Dewey’s thinking from early to late, of course ~cf. Diggins, 1994; Edel & Flower, 1985!, although I may have developed this thesis more than others. The results of this reexamination of Dewey have been published in a number of journals; a piece that focuses specifically on changes in Dewey’s views of education, in fact, was published in the August 2000 issue of Teachers College Record. This work has been controversial. The response by Garrison, the focus of this rejoinder, is not the first that he and other critics have written to a piece I published about Dewey ~cf. 1996, pp. 213–24; 1999a; 1999b!; I am sure it will not be the last. I do want to point out that there is nothing personal in this disagreement. I have tremendous respect for Garrison as a scholar. That said, I do want to address the two main issues that Garrison raises with regard to the discontinuity theory. First, he takes exception to my statement that Dewey backed away from the notion that it is the frustration