Social Theory of International Politics

Is it a good alternative on established theories in international relations?

1811 Words

Maxim de la Haije (2509740)

VU University
Political Analysis
Dr. Paul Pennings
Amsterdam, 28 June 2013
Introduction
In recent decades, many approaches have emerged which all try to clarify the processes of international relations as best as possible. Alexander Wendt, a staunch supporter of the social constructivist school, developed the ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ to explain this process, this theory is based on social constructivism. His works can be seen as a response to the theory developed by Waltz, which provided the basis for the neorealist school. This new approach to international relations is increasingly gaining ground and can be seen as a important contribution towards existing theories of international relations.
Wendt felt that the existing theories in international relations were too restrictive and too much adherence to guidelines. He thinks out of the box and is in certain areas very rebellious. He beliefs that realism misses the inter subjectively shared ideas which shape behaviour by constituting the identities and interest of actors. Wendt (1999) sees the international system as a social construction. In his works he emphasizes the role of shared ideas and norms in shaping state behavior. Liberal and realist perspectives aim that materialist or individualist reasons causes actions by states. Wendt however, thinks that the social relationships between states are reason for the determining of international politics.
In this paper I will focus on the differences in concept between the mindset of Hay and Wendt with respect to international relations. At first I will clarify and explain the theory which Wendt has developed . Secondly I will clarify and explain the institutionalist theory which Hay has developed. Then I will try to describe Hay’s response towards the theory of Wendt. Thereafter I will give my opinion about these matters. Finally, I will conclude the analyze which is done, choose which approach provides enough foundation for a good analyze of international relations theories and discuss what would be interesting for evolution of future studies.

Social Theory of International Politics In his book Wendt tries to assemble different epistemologies, methodologies and ontologies. Wendt (1999) divides theoretical questions into first- and second-order questions. The theory focuses on inter subjectivity rather than subjectivity.
Wendt distinguishes two different debates. First the material/ideational debate, he thinks that a relation exists in society between the ideational and material forces, in his view these forces have the same ontological equivalence, this is ontological dualism. He sees ideas as constitutive, retains a causal materialism which moves towards a structural idealism. Second the agent/structure debate, he stresses the interdependence of these, structures will not appear without actions taken by agents, a contradiction between individualism and holism, he believes society is more than just the sum of individuals. He distinguishes the causal and constitutive effects of ideas. While both of these are possible. His position on causality is determined by a Humean conception. In short, this means humans have no conception of the self, only associations with it. Culture is deeply rooted in the way people look at contemporary international politics. Wendt takes a via media position between positivist and post-positivist epistemology. Wendt thinks that the division of power is caused by the distribution of interests. Any social system contains structure, agency and culture. He also declares that he sees the theory of rational choice as an idealistic theory instead of a materialistic one, with this opinion he goes against the mainstream. Wendt stresses that states should be seen as real, unitary actors. ‘The essential state has five properties: (1) an institutional-legal order, (2) an organization claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence, (3) an organization with sovereignty, (4) a society, and (5) territory’ (Wendt, 1999, p. 202). He suggests a typology of identities and interests based on the fact that all state actors have fundamental national interests. Those national interest originate from the state-society collective interests. Anarchy can have several logics, he describes three different cultures of anarchy, namely the Hobbesian anarchy, the Lockean anarchy and the Kantian anarchy, these represent enemy, rival and friendship as a form of attitude towards international relations. Anarchy is what states make of it. State actors have the ability to change the structural process, only by interaction. The attributes of these interactions portrays the systemic structures of their interests. Structure is constructed by social interactions. Wendt characterizes four master variables for international systems: ‘interdependence, common fate, homogenization and self-restraint’(Wendt, 1999, p. 343).

Constructivist Institutionalism
Hay has developed his own sub-field in the area of institutionalist theories. He calls this approach constructivist institutionalism. The origins of this new approach derive from the examination of questions of complex institutional change. As Hay (2008) states, the reason was simple, constructivist institutionalists were motivated by the desire to capture, describe, and interrogate institutional disequilibrium. In his view, former approaches have a too narrowed distinctiveness and too many limitations.
Hay (2008) declares that the analytical and ontological assumptions of constructivist institutionalism are highly distinctive. The approach contains substantial progress compared with their rationalist and normative/sociological predecessors, at least in terms of their capacity to inform an endogenous account of complex institutional evolution, adaptation, and innovation. Actors are tactical, looking to obtain specific complex, conditional and continually altering goals.
Institutionalism approaches in international relations all have their focus on the structures of the international system in common. This approach to institutional change provides insight into the role of ideas and discussion in international relation. The perspective concentrates on the content of ideas and the interactive process that ensures the communication of these ideas towards society. What also matters is the institutional context in which these are communicated. According to Hay constructivism outperforms other approaches because ideas matter most in the contemporary volatile political context. This position prefers complexity at the cost of parsimony.

Hay’s Response Hay stresses the fact that he has appreciation towards Wendt’s achievement of introducing the social theory in international relations discourse. Despite this appreciation, Gofas and Hay (2008) declare that, when stripped to its ontological core, Wendt’s position is and is explicitly presented as a form of ‘rump materialism’. They emphasize the vague separation between material and the ideational, the atonement of scientific realism and constructivism and the distinction between the causal and constitutive effects of ideas. The theory is unprepared for any sudden changes in the international system, caused by internal changes in non-governmental areas. According to the constructivist logic, this should not be a problem. Hay claims that it is impossible to reconcile scientific realism, positivism and post-positivism. Hay also sees a problem in the fact that Wendt crosses and simplifies the different opinions of people who support different epistemologies, methodologies and ontologies. The adoption of various schools of methodology provoke logical flaws. He also emphasizes that the ontological and epistemological premises are interdependent. When one decides to choose a certain series of ontological choices about the degree to which and the manner in which ideas really matter, these choices have epistemological implications which cannot be ignored. Apart from this, Hay in general quite agrees with Wendt, he is satisfied with the fact that Wendt stabilized the constructivist paradigm into the internal relations.

My Opinion
Like Hay, I believe the work that Wendt has made is an great achievement. Wendt found the existing theories too limited and sought a broader perspective. He has succeeded in developing a theory which provided counterweight against the established current existing theories of liberalism, realism, neoliberalism and neorealism. Despite his achievement, his theory is criticized a lot within the academic world.
The reconciliation of different epistemologies, methodologies and ontologies within one theoretical framework has never been done before and is therefore much criticized. This, as stated previously, is also the main criticism of Hay, he believes that Wendt, who uses useful parts from different existing theories and concepts, should take into account the possible interdependence of these.
I do believe that the constructivist paradigm, which both Hay and Wendt adhere, is the best paradigm to explain international relations. The limitation of realism, the fact that this paradigm it does not account for international change, and the limitation of liberalism, the fact that this paradigm tends to ignore the role of power are much larger than the limits constructivism consists off.
Despite its shortcomings, I still think that Wendt's 'Social Theory of International Politics', is the most convincing constructivist theory in international relations. Hay supplies many critics but fails to come with any good alternatives. I think his constructivist institutionalism focuses too much on the structures within the international system and is too little concerned with the collective interests of the individuals in a society. What’s also missing within Hay’s approach is culture, while culture, in my beliefs, is deeply rooted in the way people look at contemporary international relations. What is limiting to constructivism theories in general is the fact that it is better at describing the past than predicting the future.

Conclusion
This paper is written around the question ‘Is social theory of international politics a good alternative on established theories in international relations?’ In order to answer this question, this study clarified and explained the different opinions on international relations of Alexander Wendt and Colin Hay, thereafter I analyzed the response Hay had on the social theory of international politics and in the end I gave my own opinion on these matters.
Alexander Wendt has emerged his self into a true pioneer in the field of international relations. The addition and consideration to engage the social interaction in international analyzes has opened many doors. Because his approach towards international relations is relatively new, the theory gets a lot of criticism to endure.
The criticisms Hay gives are well-founded. Wendt's theory fails in having theoretical consistency, he takes the interdependence too little in account. He sees states as real, unitary actors. There is a time and space gap between the international system and individuals as an actor. This gap makes it impossible to understand the substantive issues in international relations and thus its primary objective of explaining the structural changes cannot work.
Hay and Wendt are both adherents of the constructivist approach towards international relations, but differ on a few key points. Despite the fact that Hay’s criticisms are correct, a better approach has still not occurred. Hay's constructivist institutionalism is a good theory for political analysis, however, less suitable for international relations analysis. The coming decades will be critical in redefining Wendt's theory.
After performing this analysis on Wendt's theory, It can thus be concluded that the lack of a better constructivist approach, best possible choice is the theory of Wendt. The academic world is happy with an alternative to the prevailing theories, but that there is still much room for improvement of the current theory. Interesting for the evolution of future studies will therefore be the search for possible theoretical alternatives and the redefinition of the agent /structure concept, so that in future, the constructivist approach will be the prevailing theory in areas of international relations.

Bibliography
Gofas, A., & Hay, C. (2008). The Ideas Debate in International and European Studies: Towards a cartography and critical assessment. Barcelona: Institut
Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals
Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: A critical introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hay, C. (2008). Constructivist Institutionalism. In Binder, S., Rhodes, S., & Rockman, B. van (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.