Before We Start
A genuinely different kind of challenge to realism and liberalism
Realism and liberalism disagree about what anarchy PRODUCES — competition or cooperation. Constructivism challenges something more fundamental: it argues that state interests aren't fixed by material factors (like power or economic interest) at all — they're shaped by ideas, norms, and identities, which can genuinely change over time.
💡 Wendt's Famous Formulation, Stated Precisely
Alexander Wendt's core claim — "anarchy is what states make of it" — means that the same structural condition (no world government) doesn't automatically produce the same behavior everywhere. How states INTERPRET and RESPOND to anarchy depends on the ideas, norms, and identities they hold, not on anarchy's structure alone.
Mnemonic
The core constructivist claims
Interests Aren't Fixed
Shaped by ideas, norms, and identities
Rather than treating state interests as simply given by material power or economic position (as realism and much of liberalism tend to do), constructivism argues these interests are actively shaped and can genuinely change based on ideational factors.
Anarchy Is What States Make of It
Wendt's core formulation
The same anarchic structure can produce genuinely different outcomes depending on how states collectively understand and respond to it — anarchy doesn't have one single, fixed, inevitable meaning.
Explains Normative Change
Abolition of slavery, human rights regimes
Constructivism is particularly well-suited to explaining how genuinely new norms emerge and spread internationally over time — changes that are harder to explain purely through shifting material power calculations.
💊 A useful way to distinguish constructivism from the other two major theories: realism and liberalism both largely treat state interests as GIVEN (by power or by rational self-interest, respectively) and then ask how states pursue those interests; constructivism instead asks where those interests actually COME FROM in the first place, treating them as a genuine object of explanation rather than a starting assumption.
⚖️ Applying the Framework — Explaining a Genuine Normative Shift
A practice that was once widely accepted and even actively practiced by many states over an extended historical period becomes, over subsequent decades, nearly universally condemned and abandoned — a shift that doesn't seem to be primarily driven by changes in the relative power or economic interests of the states involved.
Apply the Constructivist Explanation
A constructivist would point to changing international norms and evolving collective understandings of legitimate versus illegitimate state behavior as the primary explanation for this shift — not to changes in material power or economic calculations, which realist or narrowly rationalist accounts might otherwise emphasize. This is precisely the kind of normative change constructivism is specifically well-equipped to explain.
Contrast With a Purely Material Explanation
A purely realist or narrowly self-interested explanation would need to identify some shift in power or economic interest to account for this change — but if no clear material shift explains the timing or pattern of this normative transformation, this points toward the ideational, identity-based mechanisms constructivism specifically emphasizes. Recognizing when a purely material explanation falls short is a genuine signal that a constructivist framework may better fit a given case.
📌 Exam Application
Constructivism questions test both Wendt's core formulation and its distinction from realism/liberalism:
Wendt's formulation: "What does Alexander Wendt mean by 'anarchy is what states make of it'?" → The same anarchic structure doesn't automatically produce the same behavior — how states interpret and respond to anarchy depends on their ideas, norms, and identities.
Theoretical distinction: "How does constructivism differ from realism and liberalism in its treatment of state interests?" → Realism and liberalism largely treat interests as given/fixed; constructivism treats interests as socially constructed and genuinely explainable, shaped by ideas and norms.
Explanatory application: "What kind of international change is constructivism particularly well-suited to explain?" → Normative change, such as the abolition of slavery or the emergence of human rights regimes.
⚠️ The Trap — Assuming Constructivism Denies That Material Power Matters at All
Because constructivism emphasizes ideas, norms, and identity so heavily, it's easy to assume it dismisses material power and interests entirely. Most constructivists don't claim material factors are irrelevant — they argue ideational factors shape HOW material factors are understood and acted upon, working alongside rather than entirely replacing material considerations.
The safeguard: Present constructivism as adding ideational factors ALONGSIDE material ones, not as claiming material power is entirely irrelevant to international relations.
✓ Quick Self-Test
Answer before checking:
1. What is constructivism's core claim about state interests?
2. What does Wendt mean by "anarchy is what states make of it"?
3. What kind of international change is constructivism particularly well-suited to explain?
4. How does constructivism's approach to interests differ from realism and liberalism's?
Answers:
1. State interests aren't fixed by material factors — they're shaped by ideas, norms, and identities.
2. The same anarchic structure doesn't automatically produce the same behavior; how states respond depends on their ideas, norms, and identities.
3. Normative change, such as the abolition of slavery or the emergence of human rights regimes.
4. Realism and liberalism largely treat interests as given/fixed; constructivism treats interests as socially constructed and genuinely explainable.
Next Lesson
Balance of Power
→