In order to effectively convey the critical insights that constructivism brings to international relations and how these insights differ from realism, the concepts of constructivism and realism must first be, albeit briefly, defined. Once terms are clearly defined, a few of the most critical insights that constructivism brings to the international table will be explored. The relevance and acceptance of these insights by the international community will be noted as well as a comparative study to the underlying principles of realist thought carried out. From this comparative process it will be concluded that despite the new global system of globalisation and subsequent schools of thought seemingly wanting to see the demise of realist thought, realism is still relevant when considering the interactions and construction of sociopolitical society and international relations.
Various different strands of Constructivism have been identified and outlined by international scholars, one noteworthy being John Ruggie, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Ruggie, along with other scholars, frame constructivism to be founded upon the premise that the world's sociopolitical structure is constructed by human practice and that this human practice consists of norms, rules, identity, and institutions. Therefore, the primary objective of Constructivism then, is to explain how this construction of societal structure takes place. Alexander Wendt in his work Social Theory of International Politics demonstrates that the previously mentioned aspects which comprise fundamental society then become the core aspects of international relations by means of them forming an ongoing process of social practice and interaction.
According to Nicholas Onuf, rules in particular and how they affect the sociopolitical construction is a critical aspect of Constructivism. Rules are what dictate what people should do. The ways in which these rules are executed are known as practices. Onuf further explains that by observing people's practices, one can determine the rules. These rules and practices are vital to the sociopolitical makeup as when accepted by the people ad backed up by legal laws, they form institutions and regimes. These institutions and regimes, as March and Olsen present, define “appropriate behaviour” and help to redirect those who wander from the accepted norms and behavioural practices by such actions as sanctions.
According to Wendt, there are two basic views of constructivism. These are, first, ”that the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and (2) that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature". This is perhaps one of the biggest differences between Constructivism and Realism. With regards to the study of Realist thought, there exist many varied definitions. In all simplicity, realism takes root on the belief that, “human nature is fundamentally flawed.” This entails that as a result the international system is anarchic and hence all international relations are derived from the necessity to survive rather than progress. The foundation of sociopolitical makeup is one of doing what is in the best interest of the state. Hence, Realism claims that international relations and interactions are determined by basic inherent human nature, whilst Constructivism asserts that international relations and interactions are carefully constructed by people.
There are therefore, many differences between constructivist and realist thought. While Realism has been popular in the past, in more recent decades it has been supplanted by differing thought like Constructivism due to apparent inadequacies in providing a more full view of international relations. For example, Neo-realism's structure, according to Alexander Wendt, “does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other's sovereignty, will have dynastic ties, will be revisionist or status quo powers, and so on" This is one of the critical insights that constructivism hopes to explain.
Despite differences with Realism, it is possible that a combination of both schools of thought may be used appropriately to help explain the processes of international relations. Andrew Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University, provides a few examples of how Realism is still applicable to international relations. States he,
“In Somalia, efforts to feed the starving culminated with besieged US forces gunning down women and children. In Kosovo, protecting ethnic Albanians meant collaborating with terrorists and bombing downtown Belgrade. In Iraq, a high-minded crusade to eradicate evil and spread freedom everywhere has yielded torture and prisoner abuse, thousands of noncombatant casualties, and something akin to chaos.”
These examples demonstrate to Realists the baseness of human nature and how state actors in the fight for balance of power, will do whatever it take to ensure individual security and self-interests. It is the opinion of the author of this essay, that while Constructivism explains international relations as a result of human construction through the means of norms, rules, identities, and institutions; Realism helps to explain how and perhaps just as importantly, why these norms, rules, identities, and institutions come to exist.
It can be concluded that although constructivism is an alternative approach to interpreting and understanding International relations and does conflict somewhat with Realist thought, it also however, in many ways compliments this school of thought on different levels. Due to Realisms apparent inadequacies to explain international relations as noted previously by Wendt, other schools of thought are necessary. Constructivism rises to this challenge by providing various critical insights into the international arena. It uses rules, norms, identities and institutions - constructed by mankind - to express sociopolitical interaction. Realism also helps to explain how these institutions come to exist and why they exist - as a result of inherent human drive for personal security and well being. Therefore, despite some scholars wanting to see the demise of Realist thought, Realism does indeed still play a vital role in International Relations and is complimented by critical insights extended by Constructivism.
