Theories of Constructivism and Rational Choice - Essay Example

? Theories of constructivism and rational choice Introduction International relations are a study of foreign affairs andrelations among different countries of the world and international organizations. The different areas of research include world history, international laws, economics, sociology and other global issues. The field emerged in the early 20th century in the west and in the United States of America as the country gained supremacy over the rest. Normative factors have had a major contribution to any studies that have been undertaken to gain an insight in international relations; these factors include the goal of reducing armed conflict and increasing international cooperation.  The major subjects of research at the start of the 21st century included terrorism and religious conflicts, illegal spread of arms and weaponry, limitation of nuclear activities and the development of international organizations. ( McDougall 2011). The reason why there is a need to study and have an adequate amount of knowledge of international relations is the fact that the whole population of this world is classified into different political sects or organizations or independent states which greatly affects the lives of each and every one of us. These states and communities interact with each other on all kind of issues. These issues can directly or indirectly affect our lifestyles for example economy or military conflicts. Thus the study of international relations is necessary in order to prevail. The international relations theory provides a conceptual model upon which the international relations can be studied. A number of different international relations theories exist that are divided into positivist/rationalist theories and post-positivist theories which include the theories of constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism etc. The aim of positivist theories is to imitate and reproduce in a similar form the procedures undertaken by natural sciences. This is done by reflecting upon and evaluating the effect of material sciences. Positivist theories are characterized by their capacity to take into account various features of international relations like the nature of interactions amongst states, the size of the army put into order by governments, the clash and balance of the authorities and the control of the states. On the same hand, the role of post-positivist epistemology comes into limelight. This epistemology refutes the notion that the social world can be investigated and studies upon for the purpose of gaining more insight into the dynamics of international relations by taking an unbiased and value-free approach. The concepts of neo-liberalism and neo-realism, as promoted by a number of theorists, are not granted credibility and substance for study of the social world. This follows that the rational choice theory and other theories that fall under the category of neo-liberalism and neo-realism are not a viable approach for knowing more about the social world in an academic way. Post-positivist epistemology regards that these theories are not applicable for this purpose because the scientific method cannot be used for analyzing the interactions being carried out in social setups, and therefore a science relating to the international relations can never be established. One of the main differences between the two sets of theories is that while positivist theories, like neo-realism, present simple explanations, e.g. the rationales as for why and how power is to be used; post-positivist theories instead center on constitutive questions, like what exactly is meant by power, what builds it up, how it is experienced and reproduced. The rational choice theory  Evolution of Rational Choice Theory The rational choice theory is based on the views and concepts of a man named Cesare Beccaria from the 1700s. Cruelty and harsh punishments were common in the period of the nineteenth century but Beccaria’s dedication to the field aided in eliminating such unjust practices. He believed that individuals themselves chose to be a part of different kind of activities that may be criminal and people would continue to commit these crimes if there is a lack of the fear of punishment and just treatment. Furthermore he believed that all individual possess free will. And that they make reasonable decisions by using their free will. For example, is the risk of committing an offense and breaking the law, imposed by the administration, worth the gain in individual profits? Rational and reasonable decisions like these and others similar to this can only be made by the aid of free will. Later philosophers further studied Beccaria’s views and devised that people choose their actions on behalf of whether they would be satisfactory avoid an unlikable situation or not. And thus laws were made on this concept to keep the community satisfied and maintain order and to fairly punish those who deserved it. What is the rational choice theory? The rational choice theory deals with the observation of human behavior, their thinking and decisions. It attempts to answer the fact that how individuals looking for personal benefits make decisions and choices on the base of their preferences and interests. The social exchange is treated like the economic exchange where all fractions make an effort to maximize their advantage or profit, and to minimize their loss or disadvantage (Business Dictionary 2010). There are basically three main building grounds of the rational choice theory. Firstly, the behaviour of human beings can be interpreted or explained by, and is a result of rational calculations. Secondly, humans operate with wisdom while making decisions and choices. Thirdly, their decisions and choices are intended to make the best of it to their interest and benefit. These concepts are applicable in fields like economics and marketing as well as in criminology and international relations. A more detailed concept of the rational choice theory is given below. In the rational choice theories, individuals are concerned with those goals and ambitions that fulfill their areas of interest and choice. They operate within the specific restrictions that they have to follow and on the basis of all the information that they have about the conditions under which they are performing. In simple words, the relationship between preferences and constraints can be seen in the purely technical terms of the relationship of a means to an end. It is unlikely for an individual to succeed at all desired needs; therefore, the choices made should be in line with the goals, for a manner that suits the achievement of their goals. Rational choice theories states that individuals must expect the results of substitute courses of action and compute the best alternative. Rational individuals choose the alternative that is likely to give them the greatest satisfaction (Scott 2000). Problems with the rational choice theory The rational choice theory also has several flaws. Firstly the theory is unable to explain the being of some important phenomenon like humanity, reciprocity and the human nature to trust and why humans tend to willingly be a part of organizations where joint rather than individual benefits exist. This is known as the problem of collective actions. It is not possible to explain why is there a co-operation of people in form of group and organized associations and similar forms of joint action. If people looked in the personal benefits to be made from each of their actions why should there ever consider choosing to indulge in any activity that would benefit others more than themselves? People do join such organizations mentioned above and they do actively take part in them; this points to the possibility that there is something missing from the rational choice theory. Thus the theory fails to present answers to such questions. Another problem with the rational choice theory is of the problem of norms and obligation. The question arises that why should individuals ever feel the sense of obligation of doing a particular act. Why should individuals obey norms that lead them to act in non-self-interested ways? For example, individuals tend to pay taxes or join trades unions as they feel themselves to be under an obligation for doing so or because they have some kind of moral or ideological commitment to the organization (Scott 2000). This comes in conflicts with the concepts, of the rational choice theories, of free will possessed by individuals. The problem of social structure is another flaw in the rational choice theory. Rational choice theorists support methodological individualism which affirms the view that all statements that are given regarding social phenomenon can be translated and simplified into individual action. The concept adheres to the notion that if social facts are expounded in terms of other social facts is in fact a representation of the finely detailed procedures that lead to their creation. It has been claimed by many theorists that basic social behavior found in face to face interactions constituted a sub-institutional grade conforming to social analysis- a phenomenon on which most of large scale social institutions are dependent on. It is seen that the higher degrees of complexity found at the highest echelons of society are in fact a mirror of the more indirect nature of interactions that take place at the lower level. For example, an employee of a business enterprise trades the work that he performs with a certain amount of salary, which he is given by another clerk working in the organization. The top management does not have any interaction with the worker in this respect. There is no direct exchange occurring between the worker and the managers that he is working for; rather, an indirect exchange takes place involving one or more intermediaries (Scott 2000). The unintended consequences of individual action have manifested themselves as the most comprehensive feat expounding the characteristic structural aspects of social life. It is the juxtaposition of the unintended results that leads to the generation of such a social phenomenon that is unrecognizable or barely recognizable by the common man and is seen as a limitation by him. The working of marketing relations is a typical example of this as depicted in the economic theory. The interactions occurring at the market structure are representative of a relative degree of independence from regulation, central preparation and adroitness. The supply and demand of the market is met by the interaction of these elements with each other, without any influence or directive by regulatory mechanisms. Equally the supply with the demand of the market is the spontaneous and non-synchronized culmination of multitudes of individual actions. Nevertheless, rational choice theorists refute the existence of any constraining power or autonomy for the operation of social structures. Methodological individualism contradicts this point and regards it as the philosophical foundation of the theory. Thus, one can appreciate that rational choice theory is subject to the same problems that other social theories not giving importance to social structures have faced (Scott 2000). The Theory of Constructivism Evolution of the theories of constructivism The credit of innovation of the theory of constructivism goes to Nicholas Onaf. He categorized theories that are relevant to the socially built nature of international relations under the heading of constructivism. A number of theorists besides Onaf have contributed to the development of the theory of constructivism including Richard Ashley, John Ruggie amongst many other renowned intellectuals. Within the past three to four decades constructivism has emerged among the popular and major school of thought in the international relations. The work and ideas of theorists supporting constructivism have been critically acclaimed in the global community. What is the theory of constructivism? Constructivism is among the basic yet popular theories of international relations. The core ideology of the theory of constructivism is that particular social conditions and historical events shape most if not all of the crucial aspects of international politics; instead of being the unavoidable result of the type of interactions occurring between humans or the character of politics. The theory of constructivism in explained in greater detail in the following section. The theory of constructivism is based on the concept that human actions are justified more by ideas than material objects. And that the social and political structure of the world is built by human practice which consists of norms, rules, identity, and institutions. Thus the chief purpose of the constructivist theory is to explain how this social and political structure is constructed (Natefist 2008). Constructivists believe that interactions and social practices between different states is an ongoing process and that the system is being modified at all times. Rules are an important aspect while explaining the theory of constructivism as people are commanded by rules and regulations into what they are required to do. The ways in which implement these rules into their lives are known as practices. Theorists also believe that by looking and studying people’s practices, one can find out what rules they follow. These rules and regulations help to shape the social and political arena and are critical to its operations; when these regulations are accepted by the people, they come to fashion institutions and regimes. The major branches of constructivism deal with the poststructuralist and postmodernist analysis of discourse and linguistics. These are technically constructivist but must be described separately to appreciate their significance (Vogt 2010). The theory of constructivism Vs the theory of rational choice A lot of constructivists have argued against the ideologies of rationalism. However this critique does not complete falsify the notion of the scientific methods that rationalism employs. In the theory of constructivism human acts and practices are considered a result of ideas rather than material objects. The theory came out to be an open challenge to neo-realism which stated that the behavior of the state and community was determined by the international system in which states existed and operated (Vogt 2010). Constructivists on the other hand believe that the system has been constructed by a group of people themselves and that system is being altered and modified all the time. The theory of constructivism argues that the international society and relations are what human beings make them to be. Moreover constructivism challenges the theories put forth by neo-realists that anarchy is a system that is innate and inbred into the states. Contrary to that constructivism supports the notion, as expressed in Alexander Wendt's words, that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (IR Theory Knowledge Base 2011). This argument follows that anarchy is not s system that is inherent to the states; rather it is a product of the conditions of the states where states have the choice to create it. Anarchy is conceived as a consequence of processes that are responsible for developing the rules and norms needed to regulate the interactions of the states. In the contemporary world, the condition of the states where they have acquired the role of being self-helpers in the middle of anarchy is seen to be the product of how the states have been formed. Thus, constructivism believes that anarchy is not an inherent element of the interactions that occur amongst states and so it is possible to alter the anarchic character of system of states (IR Theory Knowledge Base 2011). On the contrary, there are certain problems that are associated with rationalism, one of which relates to anarchy. Weber (2005) observes that rationalism regards the interests and identities that are created from international anarchy as given. This follows that the system of international anarchy cannot be altered according to rationalists. Moreover, rationalism in international relations denounces the notion of constructivist point of view that the self-help system can be changed. Rationalism provides the state with substantial international agential power that serves not only to give form to the international system but also to reduce anarchy. Moreover rationalism considers anarchy implicitly, and attributes the international arena as the product of necessity rather than pure necessity (Hobson 2000). In both constructivism and rationalism, a lot of attention is paid to the interaction between the individual and the social structure but the notion is viewed from different lenses by the school of the thoughts. Constructivism has also tended to give more attention to the traditions and mutual understandings of legitimate behavior. On the other hand, this comes into clash with the perceptions propagated by rationalists who believe that the actors try to do the right thing rather instead of working for and reaping the most benefits from their given set of preferences (Dunne, Kurki & Smith 2007). Constructivists do not give preference to structure over agency or vice versa. However this theory does not accept the notion of individualism which is widely accepted by rationalist theorists (Klotz & Lynch 2007). Constructivists have presented arguments against the individualistic ontology of rationalist theorists; instead constructivism has placed stress on social ontology. Another difference between rationalism and constructivism is the logic of consequences and the logic of appropriateness. This provides a contrast between the concepts of homo economicus and homo sociologicus. Homo economicus relates to the concept of calculating the most efficient methods for deciding a course of action. Homo sociologicus relates to the concept of habits can decide the actions of the person. The present methods of the rationalists are not suited for the analysis of ideational logics that are present in these systems (Fearon & Wendt 2002). Conclusion To sum up the argument it is obvious that the theory of constructivism wins over rationalism in understanding international relations. Research carried on constructivism has escalated in the past few years, and have provided greater insights into new and possibly productive linkages among the various characteristics of constructivism in comparative politics (Finnemore & Sikkink 2001). The divide that has spurred on between the rationalist and constructivist theories is real. When considering the ontology and epistemology of these theories, one can appreciate how vast the void is between them. This can be exemplified from the fact that for rationalists the core of IR relates to how self-interested agents are active proponents and users of strategic choice, while for constructivists, it encompasses the ‘other-regarding agents’ which are actively participating in ‘deliberative dynamics’ (Jupille, Caporaso & Checkel 2003). Taking into consideration the interactions that occur between states, one can see that they are mostly interpreted from the lens of constructivism. Policy makers research on the strategies that they need to make in order to solve a certain issue, and what norm can be adopted to promote its solutions; this is constructivism. Constructivist approach is used because it provides a clear picture of the situation since it takes into account the notions, transnational forces and global norms (Lynch 2005). References Business Dictionary 2010, rational choice theory, WebFinance Inc, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Dunne, T, Kurki, M & Smith, S 2007, International relations theories: discipline and diversity, Oxford University Press. Fearon & Wendt 2002, Fearon and Wendt, Rationalism v. Constructivism, Comsenz Inc., viewed on 22nd January, Finnemore, M & Sikkink, K 2001, ‘TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 4, pp. 391-416. Hobson, JM 2000, The state and international relations, Cambridge University Press. IR Theory Knowledge Base 2011, IR Paradigms, Approaches and Theories, IR Theory, viewed on 22 January 2011, Jupille, J, Caporaso, JA & Checkel, JT 2003, ‘INTEGRATING INSTITUTIONS Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 36, no. 1/2, pp. 7-40. Klotz, A & Lynch, C 2007, Strategies for research in constructivist international relations, M.E. Sharpe. Lynch, M 2005, IR: Constructivism v Rationalism, Abu Aardvark, viewed on 22 January, 2011, McDougall, W.A 2011, international relations, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Natefish 2008, Constructivism Vs. Realism, Socyberty, viewed on 22 January 2011, Scott, J 2000, Rational Choice Theory, Sage Publications, viewed on 22 January 2011, Vogt, A 2010, Constructivism: International Relations Theory in Brief, Webika Ltd, viewed on 22 January 2011, < http://www.bukisa.com/articles/335688_constructivism-international-relations-theory-in-brief> Weber, C 2005, International relations theory: a critical introduction, 2nd edn, Routledge. Read More