Abstract
This chapter presents the broader theoretical framework informing the book—social constructivism or, simply, constructivism—paving the way for the study of the influence of ideational aspects (the concept of peacebuilding) in world politics (UN support to societies emerging from conflict). It offers an account of the origins of constructivism in the field of International Relations (IR) and delves into a discussion of what constructivism generally is all about: a set of social theory tenets that provide helpful insights for the study of social relations in general and world politics in particular. Finally, the chapter elaborates on how social science theories may influence political outcomes in world politics and outlines the research framework that allows for a discussion on how the concept of peacebuilding gained life and its implications for the United Nations approach to societies affected by armed conflict.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
To the best of my knowledge, the best overview of and engagement with Onuf’s reading of constructivism in IR is found in Zehfuss (2002: 151–195).
- 3.
- 4.
For a good overview of this process, see Toulmin (1992: esp. 45–137).
- 5.
- 6.
Giddens also suggests that social science—and theorising in social science—is a critique in itself, as it is a practice of social life. According to him, “theories and findings in the social sciences are likely to have practical (and political) consequences regardless of whether or not the sociological observer or policy-maker decides that they can be ‘applied’ to a given practical issue” (Giddens 1984: xxxv).
- 7.
- 8.
Hacking goes on, stating that constructivists often hold two other claims in their writings: that “X is quite bad as it is” and that “We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed” (Hacking 1999: 6).
- 9.
Elsewhere (Cavalcante 2011: esp. 24–27), I provide an overview of ‘anarchy’ in realist writings and discuss its meaning in Wendt’s earlier works.
- 10.
That is, at least a minimum form of agreement. In the following chapter, I introduce the notion of minimal intelligibility to highlight this feature.
- 11.
Thus understood, Ish-Shalom’s notion of public conventions may be closely associated with at least four other concepts. First, with Searle’s Background, defined as “set of nonintentional or preintentional capacities that enable intentional states of function” (Searle 1995: 129). Second, to Berger and Luckmann’s definition of common-sense as “the knowledge I [impersonal ‘I’] share with others in the normal, self-evident routines of everyday life” (Berger and Luckmann 1991: 37). Third, they are close to Habermas’ notion of lifeworld, understood as “the transcendental site where speaker and hearer meet, where they can reciprocally raise claims that their utterances fit the world (objective, social, or subjective), and where they can criticize and confirm those validity claims, settle their disagreements, and arrive at agreements” (Habermas 1987: 126). Finally, public conventions also mirror Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, understood as “a system of lasting, transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions” (Bourdieu 1977: 82–83; emphasis in original). In all cases, individuals simply assume as correct and take for granted knowledge they have about social reality. It is worth noting that the first three concepts are rather broad, referring to such things as money and its shared understanding among a large number of people. The concepts of habitus and public conventions are more restricted socially, in the sense that they refer to specific social groups in particular contexts.
- 12.
The author elaborates in more detail the concept of rhetorical capital in Ish-Shalom (2008).
References
Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
Ashley, R. K. (1984). The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225–286.
Audi, R. (1999). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bain, W. (2000). Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered. Review of International Studies, 26(3), 445–464.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage [Orig. 1986].
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books [Orig. 1966].
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavalcante, F. (2011). A Construção da Paz em Cenários de Anarquia: Uma Inversão do Foco de Análise. Relações Internacionais, 32, 23–32.
Checkel, J. T. (1997). Ideas and International Political Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Checkel, J. T. (1998). The Constructivism Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.
Checkel, J. T. (2004). Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics: A Review Essay. Review of International Studies, 30(2), 229–244.
Chernoff, F. (2007). Theory and Metatheory in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chwieroth, J. M. (2010). Capital Ideas: The IMF and the Rise of Financial Liberalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.
da Rocha, A. J. R. (2002). Relações Internacionais: Teorias e Agendas. Brasília: IBRI.
Fierke, K. M. (2010). Constructivism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 177–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fierke, K. M., & Jørgensen, K. E. (2001). Introduction. In K. M. Fierke & K. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (pp. 3–10). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.
Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
Galtung, J. (1976). Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, and Peacebuilding. In J. Galtung (Ed.), Peace, War and Defence: Essays in Peace Research (Vol. II, pp. 282–304). Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press [Orig. 1976].
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.
Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hopf, T. (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.
Hopf, T. (2002). Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policy, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ish-Shalom, P. (2006a). Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of Democratization. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 565–598.
Ish-Shalom, P. (2006b). The Triptych of Realism, Elitism, and Conservatism. International Studies Review, 8(3), 441–468.
Ish-Shalom, P. (2008). The Rhetorical Capital of Theories: The Democratic Peace and the Road to the Roadmap. International Political Science Review, 29(3), 281–301.
Ish-Shalom, P. (2011). Political Constructivism: The Political Construction of Social Knowledge. In C. Bjola & M. Kornprobst (Eds.), Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld, and Shared Reasoning (pp. 231–246). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ish-Shalom, P. (2013). Democratic Peace: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jarvis, D. S. L. (Ed.). (2002). International Relations and the “Third Debate”: Postmodernism and Its Critics. Westport: Praeger.
Jørgensen, K. E. (2010). International Relations Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jupille, J., Caporaso, J. A., & Checkel, J. T. (2003). Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 36(1/2), 7–40.
Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O., & Krasner, S. D. (1998). International Organization and the Study of World Politics. International Organization, 52(4), 645–685.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Klotz, A. (1995). Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Klotz, A., & Lynch, C. (2007). Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kratochwil, F. (2000). Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(1), 73–101.
Kratochwil, F. (2001). Constructivism as an Approach to Interdisciplinary Study. In K. M. Fierke & K. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (pp. 13–35). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Kratochwil, F., & Ruggie, J. G. (1986). International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State. International Organization, 40(4), 753–775.
Lapid, Y. (1989). The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.
Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill [Orig. 1948].
Neufeld, M. (1995). The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Pio, C. (2001). A Estabilização Heterodoxa no Brasil: Idéias e Redes Políticas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 16(46), 29–54.
Pouliot, V. (2004). The Essence of Constructivism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(3), 319–336.
Pouliot, V. (2007). ‘Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 359–384.
Price, R., & Reus-Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, 4(3), 259–294.
Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.
Ritzer, G. (1990). Metatheorizing in Sociology. Sociological Forum, 5(1), 3–15.
Ritzer, G., Zhao, S., & Murphy, J. (2002). Metatheorizing in Sociology: The Basic Parameters and the Potential Contributions of Postmodernism. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 113–131). New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998b). What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855–885.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.
Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 11–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1992). Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wæver, O. (1996). The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 149–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1969). Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing National Interests. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275–318.
Weldes, J. (1999). Constructing National Interest: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wendt, A. E. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.
Wendt, A. E. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
Wendt, A. E. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cavalcante, F. (2019). On the Influence of Ideational Aspects in World Politics. In: Peacebuilding in the United Nations. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03864-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03864-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03863-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03864-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)