Constructivist and Neo-Liberal Theories - Coursework Example

Political Theories on International Relations Political theories pertaining to international relations may be a guide on how to understand and manage the society. This area of study may have been criticized to be irrelevant due to the complexity of today’s political sphere. Nonetheless, political theories set the foundation for why and how the communities behave through the discussion of its components and their interaction. Hence, it continues to be a relevant discourse in the development of international relations this changing political backdrop. This paper will probe on the different political theories, its assumptions and compositions to better understand its application in the modern society. Specifically, the paper will examine the Constructivist Theory, Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, and Modernist Theory. Constructivist Theory Basic Image, Application, and General Prescriptions Constructivist theory postulates about human consciousness and the role it plays in an international context (Finnemore and Sikkink 392). This theory accentuates on the role of ideas, culture, norms, and arguments in politics, with particular emphasis on the collective ideas and understanding on social life. A number of scholars have also noted that constructivism is a social analytical approach, asserting that ideational factors primarily shaped human interaction, wherein such factors are inter-subjective beliefs that are widely shared for constructing purposive interests (Finnemore and Sikkink 393). Moreover, this theory views that social facts such as money, rights, and sovereignty do not have any material reality yet their existence merely lies in the collective belief of the people. In other words, application of the constructivist theory rests on the analysis and understanding of how these social factors influence political outcomes and social change. This is in relation to what Wendt (314) has claimed that constructivist social theory is associated with a structural change in the realm of international politics, which entails a significant challenge. As such, the theoretical concepts of constructivism can be applied in the study of comparative politics and international relations. Examples of using Constructivist Theory One example of using constructivist theory for policymakers is the relationship of the state’s national identity and national interests. With social norms, culture, and ideas as the underlying factors governing the theory of constructivism, policymakers would be able to determine the possible actions by which states can react to the distribution of practices and norms in the international community (Clunan 6). This in turn defines the state’s national identity and the scope of its national interests. The case of enhancing Soviet’s self-esteem in the international community under the leadership of Gorbachev illustrates an example of defining a radical new identity of the Soviet Union. This would lead to a new international political order which could ensure USSR’s desire for dominance and power, wherein such identity resulted to a sharp transition of national interest (Clunan 12). Another example is the state-centric view of Chinese nationalism. In the post-World War II era, the constructivist and rational choice movements have synergized the study of nationalism (Gries 119). Thus, in view of the Chinese nationalist politics, negotiation of legitimacy is at the core in any political system. Difference between Constructivist Theory and Realism Constructivist theory differs from realism in that constructivism, as stated by Finnemore and Sikkink (393) is “not a substantive theory of politics.” While constructivist theory views the existence of social facts on the collective belief of the people, realism on the other hand, is not just about the existence of power but also on the exercise of power itself (Guzzini 173). Realism, as viewed from the context of international relations, assumes an egoistic behavior which is opposed in most instances within the scope of world politics. Also, constructivist theory and realism differ on the concept of public interest. While the constructivists’ approach to international relations is particularly concerned with institutions relevant to world politics, the realists however, focus mainly on the state and assume that it is the social structure that identifies the people politically (Barkin 67, 72). Thus, it is argued that constructivist theory is better than realism as it does not only emphasize the importance of the state in international affairs but also on the role of non-state actors and pursuit of public interests. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism or Modernist Theory Diffusion and Diversification of Power Modernism is the era in which changes were radically introduced centering on the evaluation the “temporal” activities of the human race (Smouts 88). This era means the deviation from the focus on man’s religious or spiritual activities. In relation to the power, Abeyratne underscored that the era of the proliferation of modernism centers on the importance of state Sovereignty among others as the result of the World War (251). It implies that aside from the religious paradigm, men are looking into politics and other forms of discipline, in which national governments are ensuring that they can recover their capability of governing their nations, and secure this capability against external interference through cooperation. In this regard, then there may be less diffusion of power among international institutions that help govern international relations. Also, power may be decentralized in the government, and forms of power are not only that of the government. Basic Image and Modernists’ Application of the Theory Neo-liberal institutionalism is the modern variant of liberal internationalism in that the promotion of peace and order has been a dominant concept in liberal international relations (Haar 144). This political ideology posits that international regimes and organizations lessen the probability of cheating in the international system as they establish a system of rules and conventions that are designed to encourage cooperation and penalize defectors. In this regard, Haar further noted that proponents of this theory highlight the significance of state cooperation through international institutions and regimes, and are less idealistic than their classical counterparts. Also, the neo-liberal institutionalisms/modernists accept the vital role of the states in recognising an anarchic condition in the international domain. This implies that states will cooperate in order to achieve absolute advantage instead of promoting global order. Application of this theory can be observed in the cooperation of states as the core concept of liberalism is the degree of human freedom which can be realized through an increased international cooperation among states and nonstate actors (Haar 141). Thus, liberalism is viewed as modernist o the belief that different elements such as democracy, interdependence, and scientific progress have transformed international relations in modernizing the world. Modernists’ Perspective for World Peace and Security It has been established that modernist believe in the sovereignty and the reign of the interdependence of the states. However, the modernist presumption on world peace and security lies on how the importance of interdependence among states for its sustainability, and to ensure peace (Smith 15). That is, there is a need for states to cooperate, and formulate international institutions for each state to communicate and convene. Hence, international relations according to the modernist theory plays an important role in the maintenance of peace and security. Smith further argued that one of the differences of modernism and realism is that the former acknowledges the influences of non-state elements in peace, such as diseases, financial stability and even terrorist groups (16). It means that even if the focus of power is about sovereignty, it is also open to considering other elements that may affect peace and independence like fatal diseases that may spread globally, financial crises and terrorism attack, and not solely on the state. Redefinition of Traditional or Realist US International Perspectives The United States views power conversion—metamorphosing capability resources into successful control—as a long-standing problem. Its Constitution was founded on the basis of the 18th century liberal view in which fragmentation and countervailing checks and balances primarily control power. In international policy, the struggle for control has always been a common issue faced by the President and the Congress due to the Constitution. The national interest, in particular, has diverse self-interested definitions from strong economic and ethnic pressure groups. Additionally, an exceptionally moralistic international policy complicates such a concern caused by the American political culture—exceptionalism (Nye 198). From this perspective, the redefinition of the national interest is needed to alter the international perception of the Americans. The redefinition of the international perspectives should consider the identity of the nation as well as its national interest, which is defined as sustaining the country’s international status (Clunan 210). Notably, international relations are a vital component of world politics. Therefore, considering the national identity and the definition of national interest is a predominant factor because the particular events that take place domestically are the most important for world politics (Schouten 1). Key Variables to Improve the Prospects for Peace and Security Two key variables that might improve the prospects for peace and security include insistence of one country on retribution and reparations (Legro 107). For instance, punishment for crimes acted by someone as well as helping individuals who have been wronged can efficiently promote peace and security in the longer term. Other than retribution and reparations, national interest is also a vital variable because it is a major component of national security and survival, and new military alliances, capabilities, or preventive war are the contingent responses to threats to national security (Clunan 5). However, violation of the expected peace terms or international regimes and the withdrawals of a country from any security guarantee are the things that diminish them (Legro 107). For instance, states have the ultimate control of the word system as they control the impacts of non-actors toward the regulation of violence, and they influence the eventual change, while non-state actors are only the imitator of the change (Wendt 9). With this in mind, the dual effects brought by the withdrawal of the country from the security and the violation of non-state actors from the expected international regimes cause to diminish peace and security at large. Personal Assessment of Realist and Modernist Theories Realist and modernist theories are two distinct political ideologies with a significant impact on the conduct of international relations. As an opinion, realism best illustrates the nature and scope of political behaviour of the international system in an anarchic situation. Unlike the modernist theories, which condemn the traditional approaches on the objectivity and neutrality of international relations, realism claims the anarchic condition of global politics (Nye 19). This means that in view of the realists, there is no international government dominance over and above the states as the world itself is composed of sovereign states, each with the aim of preserving their security. On the contrary, the principles of modernism in the context of international relations are likely to be considered as a weak theory as it is criticized for its lack of consistency and credibility of its critical assumptions. This is contradictory to the rational approach of realism; thus, it merely contributes to international relations. In view of this, Telo (114) stated that the weak reasoning of the modernists strongly opposes the theories proposed by the realists and institutionalists in whom they share a rational choice and positivistic approach. Nevertheless, by stressing out the impact of complex and critical issues relevant to international affairs of state and non-state actors, it could be argued that the claims and assumptions of the modernist theory may well provide a better perspective of change and governance in global politics. Similarities/Differences between Modernist and Realist Theories Modernist theories have radical and oftentimes futile implications of international relations. With regard to theoretical knowledge, the modernist principle criticizes progress and universal ideas and argues that the notion of sovereignty and international anarchy must be modified (Telo 114). Such claim, however, can sometimes result to absolute relativism and/or reconsideration on the purpose of international relations. This differs from that of modernist theories as they do not give much emphasis on the existence of anarchy in the realm of international affairs. In contrast to modernist theories, the realist perspective, according to Mearsheimer, contends that the international system is characterised by anarchy, and that states by nature have offensive military force and capability for preserving their security (qtd. in Donnelly 8). For instance, liberal culture, democracy, and a wide network of transnational relations suggest that anarchy creates different outcomes compared to the realist perspective. Also, modernist and realist theories differ on the rationality of the states and the concept of power relations. For example, the interdependence of highly industrialised countries like the US, Canada, and Australia reflects a typical power relation among sovereign states (Nye 19). Unlike the modernists, the realists reckon on the real issues affecting the world politics which is understood through a rational analysis of different interests on the basis of power relations (Donnelly 8). Conclusion The above discussion and contrasting of different political theories and its relations to international relations provides an illustration of the presumption of its theorists and how can it be applied to society. The Constructivist theory postulates the collective assumptions of people on certain concepts that have an impact on their social behavior such as the strengthening of nationalism. Modernist theory, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of being sovereign and the cooperation of among states to propel peace and order. Also, underscored in this theory is that power is centralized to government to attain independence. Lastly, the Realist is only focused on the independence of the state from others without regard to association and cooperation. These theories can be integrated to the development of international relations, its policies and implementation among the states. International institution can maximize perspective from these theories. However, it is important to note that these theories have differing features that may be beneficial and detrimental for the world development. Hence, proper understanding and great among of consideration is necessary for sustainable international relations. Works Cited Abeyratne, Ruwantissa. Convention on International Civil Aviation: A Commentary. Switzerland: Springer, 2014. Print. Barkin, J.Samuel. Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print. Clunan, Anne L. The Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity and Security Interests. United States of America: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Print. Donnelly, Jack. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (2001): 391-416. Print. Gries, Peter Hays. China’s New Nationalism: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy. California: University of California Press, 2004. Print. Guzzini, Stefano. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6.2 (2000): 147-182. Print. Haar, Edwin. Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory: Hume, Smith, Mises, and Hayek. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print. Legro, Jeffrey W. Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order. United States of America: Cornell University, 2005. Print. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. The Future of Power. United States of America: Perseus Book Group, 2011. Print. Schouten, P. Robert Keohane on Institutions and the Need for Innovation in the Field. Theory Talks #9 (2008): 1-5. PDF File. Smith, Andrew P. Prospects for World Peace and Security. Roger Williams University, 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. Smouts, Marie-Claude. Ed. The New International Relations: Theory and Practice. London: C. Hurst & Co Publishers, 1998. Print. Telo, Mario. International Relations: A European Perspective. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2009. Print. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Read More