Rationalism v Constructivism

To what extent is trying to synthesize rationalism and constructivism fruitful? Illustrate your points with specific examples.

The debate between constructivism and rationalism is currently the main theoretical divide in international relations. While the two schools of thought have important differences, they are by no means mutually exclusive, and should be combined in various cross cutting ways to have the greatest and most productive effect in the practice of international relations. This essay will discuss each school of thought, then contrast the ways that each school conceptualizes central concepts such as preferences, agency, and norms in international relations. Next, this essay will discuss various methods in which the two schools can be integrated in IR theory, which is best illustrated by the work on norm entrepreneurship in IR.

Rationalism and constructivism can be distinguished on the basis of their ontological focus.

-       Rationalist theories

o   individualistic, whether focusing on the individual or the state

o   utilitarian and rational choice, where actors with fixed identities and interests seek to maximize given interests in a fixed decision game.

o   Objective, given context, world exists outside of community

-       Constructivist theories

o   Social constructivism, with focus on the community and intersubjective social knowledge of a community

o   Sociological, rule based decision making, acting on norms and ideas and through action creating structure and constraints

o   In this actors and actions are mutually constituted, structure and agents are mutually constitutive; neither is prior and determinitive of the other

The divide is based on earlier forms of the discipline, where rationalist theories were all empirical, rational choice theories, and constructivist theories were less empirical, and based on sociological concepts (Weber and Durkheim) whose analysis of identities, social knowledge, ideal types, etc was not empirical. However, since that time, the epistemology of the two schools have aligned more, and there has been an explosion of empirical work in constructivism

Therefore, the epistemological divide between rationalism and constructivism is no longer fundamental. Realism is largely theoretical, nonempirical (Waltz, Mearsheimer), and constructivism is largely empirical (Finnemore and Sikkink)

However, the ontological divide remains.

-       constructivists are holistic, where rationalists are still individualist in their theories

-       this leads them to focus on different problems, concepts, and areas of IR theory

o   rationalists look at how different factors from anarchy to domestic factors constrain state behavior

o   constructivists look at how norms and legitimacy and bureaucracy shape interests and identities in IR

since they focus on different areas and aspects of IR, they are not mutually exclusive, but can provide important detail and analysis for one another. There are four primary ways in which they can be combined

-       first, can combine the social ontology with the rational choice mechanism, which is what most empirical constructivist studies do.

o   This problematizes identity and interests as a first step, and allows for a strategic decision

o   Look at a rational decision between two or more “appropriate” and legitimate decisions. Why did the state choose A over B

o   Look at instrumental, strategic interactions that are designed to contruct new standards of appropriateness. This is what studies of norm entrepreneurs do.

-       Rational theories reveal a lot about how ideological phenomena and how norms work

-       Empirical studies of social construction and norm emergence show how rational and strategic normative actors are

While you can combine studies in this way, it is also important to note the differences in several areas between the two schools of thought.

-       Choice

o   Motivation for choice is logic of consequences, appropriateness

o   Persuasion differs between cheap talk and true argumentation

-       Rules/norms

o   Rationalists accept the regulative role of norms, but not the constitutive or prescriptive role of norms

-       Agency

o   Actors are confined to a prior script

o   Constructivists are interested in the making of identity and interest and context

Constructivism can enrich all of these limitations of rationalism in the first instance of setting up the decision game.

-       explains where preferences and identity came from in the first place

-       explains change in preference and identity

-       explains how the particular identities of particular states shapes their particular interests and thus explains out comes

-       adds and includes constitutive rules which define the set of practices that make up a particular class of consciously organized social activity

-       Not just about defending national interest but defining national interest. All bargaining situations are preceded by norms and rules

-       Not just about enacting stable preferences but in constructing stable preferences.

The core of constructivism concerns what happens before the neoutilitarian models kicks in. doesn’t touch the decision game of rationalism, only enhances the first assumption

Therefore, they ought to be combined to best explanatory, predictive and descriptive power of international relations. Provides context for change as well if we know how contexts, identities, actors, interests, rules and norms are all constructed.