Constructivism (International Relations)

Origins and core claims

In the 1980s international relations was dominated by the debate between neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. Both treated states as rational actors with given interests, but changes hard to explain by the material distribution of power, such as the peaceful end of the Cold War, called for an alternative. Nicholas Onuf (1989) introduced the term constructivism to the field, arguing that rules make both agents and society, and Kratochwil (1989) held that norms not only constrain action but give it meaning. Drawing on sociological traditions such as Berger and Luckmann's (1966) social construction of reality, they argued that the structures of world politics consist of shared knowledge and ideas as well as material things, and that agents and structures constitute each other.

Wendt and three cultures of anarchy

In "Anarchy Is What States Make of It" (1992), Alexander Wendt argued that the absence of central authority does not by itself produce self-help and power politics. Five hundred British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than five North Korean ones, not because of numbers but because of the meaning of the relationship, amity or enmity. In Social Theory of International Politics (1999), Wendt distinguished three cultures of anarchy: a Hobbesian culture in which states see each other as enemies, a Lockean culture of rivals and a Kantian culture of friends. Cultures are internalized at three degrees, through coercion, self-interest and legitimacy, and can change through interaction. This view explains phenomena such as Europe's security community and the democratic peace through changes in identity.

Norm research and critiques

Peter Katzenstein (1996) and colleagues gathered cases showing that security policy varies with culture and identity, and Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) proposed a norm life cycle in which norm entrepreneurs promote a norm, a cascade follows once a tipping point is passed, and the norm is finally internalized as taken for granted. Keck and Sikkink (1998) traced how transnational advocacy networks spread human rights norms, and Tannenwald (1999) explained the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 through a nuclear taboo. Ruggie (1998), Hopf (1998), Checkel (1998) and Adler (1997) positioned constructivism as a middle ground between rationalism and reflectivism. Critics remain. Realists argue that constructivism underrates power and material constraints and cannot predict when norms change, while poststructuralists contend that Wendt remains positivist, for instance in treating the state as a unitary actor.

FAQ

What is constructivism in IR in simple terms?

How countries behave depends less on the size of their militaries than on ideas, identities and shared rules, such as whether they see each other as friends or enemies.

How does it differ from realism?

Realism holds that anarchy and the distribution of power push states to compete, while constructivism holds that the meaning of anarchy itself depends on how states interact and what they believe.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
2. Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
4. Kratochwil, F. V. (1989). Rules, Norms, and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Katzenstein, P. J. (Ed.). (1996). The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
6. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
7. Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855–885.
8. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.
9. Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.
10. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
11. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond Borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
12. Tannenwald, N. (1999). The nuclear taboo: The United States and the normative basis of nuclear non-use. International Organization, 53(3), 433–468.
13. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.