1

Constructivist Theory by Alexander Wendt: Crunching the Points

By Agnes Behr

Introduction

The central premise of Alexander Wendt theorizing in international system is that “social

construction (s)” shapes the environment within which international actors interact. The ontology

of Wendt therefore is that the international system is a social construction as opposed to the

positivist and materialist conceptualization of International relations theories by realists and

liberalists.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics; observes that material objective power

as emphasized by realists is not enough to define the international system.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics,

lays a theoretical groundwork upon which he challenges the neorealist and neo-liberalists

assumptions on the devotion to a crude method of materialism. Wendt thus attempts to demonstrate

that, core concepts in the realists’ foundation such as “power politics” are social constructions and

therefore not given by nature. The social construction implies that they are not static/inert but

capable of changing as a result of human practice given the dynamic nature of social reality.

These ideas are used as groundbreaking foundation for his later works, Social theory of

international politics.

Theory

2

Constructivism as a social theory challenges materialistic bases by hypothesizing that structures

of human associations are largely cultural rather than material phenomena, the resultant of which

is identity and interest creation and behavioral regulating. Noteworthy, material strengths still

matter and the people are still intentional actors (Wendt, 1999, p.193) but within the ideational

framework of identity and interests creation informing the output of the actor to the international

system.

Core claims of constructivism

1. States are the principal units of analysis for international political theory

2. Key structures in the states system are inter-subjective rather than material

3. The identities of states and interests are constructed by social structures rather than given by human

nature as neorealists claim or domestic politics as neoliberalists observe (Wendt, 1994, p. 385).

Central tenets of constructivism

Wendt postulates the basic tenets of constructivism by 'educing' from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke

and Immanuel Kant by theorizing three cultures of anarchy Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian

which characterizes “enmity”, “rivalry” and “friendship”. Wendt concedes on the importance of

materialist and individualist perspective of neorealism and neoliberalism thus referring to his

constructivist theory as “thin constructivism” as opposed to radical approach.

Wendt endorses a scientific approach to social inquiry (Wendt, 1994, 1).

Identities and interests

3

Constructivists put great importance on identities due to the power it holds in interpersonal and

international relations. Wendt views identity as subjective view of the international actors that

motivates generation of behavioral disposition founded/rooted in their self-understandings.

Identity goes beyond a unit level or subjective since understanding about self also depends on the

others understanding and representation of it. This brings about “inter-subjective or systemic” view

therefore qualifying identity and the construction by both “internal and external structures” (self

and others) (Wendt, 1994, p.224). This implies varying forms of identity definitions, its lack of

uniformity an outcome of susceptibility to general definitions.

There are four kinds of identities are portrayed by Wendt;

Identities as per Wendt hypothesis

1. Personal or corporate- “self-organizing and balanced functional structures”. This isolates ‘self’

from others. Hence constituting “a sense of I”, this is a personal view. Projected to corporate view

like states, it translates to a sense of “we” otherwise seen as group/bloc self. The personal or

corporate identities are constituted exogenous/independent to that ‘other’. (Wendt, 1994, p.224-

225).

2. Type identity- This applies to a social category sharing some characteristics such as outward look,

mannerisms, attitudes, values, dexterities such as language, knowledge, opinions, experience, and

similarity of history (Wendt, 1999, p.225) amongst other characteristics. To substantiate shared

characteristics, there must be ‘social content and meaning’ availed by membership rules of a bloc

of a community even though there are those characteristics that are primarily intrinsic to their

bearers. Wendt (1999) elucidates that, for type identities to be formulated, they are partially

4

dependent on the understanding and perception of others. In international system they are

analogous to ‘regime types’, or ‘forms of states’ such as democratic, theocratic, authoritarian,

capitalist, and communist, states.

3. Role identity- defined by culture and expectations these identities existence is dependent on the

relational aspect with the others. Role identity therefore cannot be constituted solely by “self”

because it exists through one’s placement in a ‘shared social structure’ and observation of

‘behavioral norms’ as postulated against others manifesting differing ‘contradicting identities’

(Wendt, 1994, p.227). Wendt argues in opposition to many foreign policy role theorists, who

distance from utilizing role theories in structural international relations theory that ‘conceptual role

identities’ and ‘international relations structural theory’ have strong correlation.

4. Collective identity- This utilizes type and role identities through blurring of self and others. Thus

self and other is amalgamated to form a single identity. The identity of other is configured in part

as self hence leading to philanthropic behavior (Wendt, 1999, p.229).

A clear identification leads to motivation of interests. Therefore, whereas identities formulate who

the actors are, interests stipulate the desires of the actors. Wendt presupposes identity because

without knowing who one is, it would not be possible for the actors to know what they want. Wendt

further observes that identities would have differing degrees of cultural content and therefore

translating to equally varying interests. In the presence of interests, identities would have a

motivational force/power emanating from an amalgamation of desire and belief (Wendt, 1999,

p.231).

5

In social theory, interests can be subjective or objective. Subjective interests are necessary to

.reproduce the four kinds of identities whereas objective interests correspond to beliefs of actors

on how to meet their identity needs, this motivates output of certain behavior, this would

correspond to what rationalist term as ‘preferences or tastes’ (Wendt, 1999, p. 231-232).

National Interests as a derivate of actor(s) identities and interests

In line of these identities and interests postulation, states would thus be motivated by varying

interests rooted in varying identities by virtue of their corporate identities hence national interests.

National interests in the context of objective interests such as security are brought into line with

subjective interest to ensure survival. When subjective interest is not brought in line with objective

interests it can lead to an actor’s fall (Wendt, 1999, p.234).

Alexander George and Robert Keohane (1980) elucidate three national interests, Physical survival

(life), autonomy (liberty) and economic well-being (property) with the fourth one of ‘collective

self-esteem’ introduced by Wendt which he explains as the desire by a community to feel good

about themselves or to earn status/respect. This postulates collective self-images therefore

dependent on others view of it. It implies collective self-image can be positive or negative

depending on how it is perceived by others (Wendt, 1999, p.235). Varying identities of actors

implies differences in interests. Noteworthy, the actors underlying needs have a common goal of

reproducing themselves as corporate entities, they must therefore fulfill the underlying needs

derivative from their identities.

In summary the national interests of need for life corresponds to physical survival of an actor/state.

Liberty corresponds to autonomy of a state thus ability to control resources within it and make

6

choice of government as an outcome of state sovereignty. Property need refers to economic

wellbeing through utilization of effective method of production and resource cornerstone of the

actor (Wendt, 1999, p.236).

The fourth national interest of collective self-esteem as “a groups need to feel good about itself,

for respect or status” that mainly draws from “collective self-images” as positive and negative,

which are derived from the postulation of self and others. These positive images are arrived at as

a result of mutual respect and cooperation and by extension recognition of sovereign status of each

other. Negative images on the other hand is arrived at as a result of perceptions of disrespect or

contempt of that other whose resultant can lead to aggression through self- assertion against the

disrespected other (Wendt,1999, p.336-337).

Wendt’s conceptualization of anarchy

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics

delves into the nature of anarchy and thus triangulates on the behavior of states in the international

system. The ideology that lack of a centralized system in the international arena leads states to

behave in a certain way begs the question on whether anarchy is immutable to changes. The

neorealists and neoliberalists postulate that anarchy is indispensable for self-help systems. Taking

this approach would mean the Wendtian collective need is problematized. To counter the self-help

system Wendt progresses that international relations has ignored “questions of identity and

interest-formation” (Wendt, 1992, p.392-392).

7

Wendt thus challenges the logic of neorealists of viewing anarchic structure as exogenous to states

qualifying the states need to act in self-help. On self-help and power he observes that, they do

qualify in terms of logic and causal strength from anarchy, because self-help and power is an

outcome of a process and not a structure. The structure itself is also a resultant of a process of

identity and interest’s creation, without the process the structure of anarchy loses logic and causal

strength. Therefore self-help and power are in themselves establishments or brainchild of identities

and interests contrary to acknowledging them as anarchic attributes. “Anarchy is what states make

of it” Wendt, 1992, p.394-395).

Contrary to neorealists especially Waltz who ascribes to materialism and security concern, Wendt

views anarchy as a structure comprising of cultural or ideational elements thus subject to

adaptations. This leads to his, Social theory of international politics propounding a non-realist

culture of anarchy based on the Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian views of human and social

interaction. These philosophical views are in turn derivatives of role structures and subjective

positions thus analogous to; enemy, rival and friend respectively. States thus represent self and

others in terms of these positions resulting to different outputs in the social interactions such as

corporation, competition and aggression. The identities and interests of the actors are therefore

constructed from the shared ideas and not given by nature (Wendt, 1999, p.1) as elucidated by the

neo-realists. Social structures are therefore as real as the material structures (Wendt, 1999, p.24).

Wendt further observes that, social structures are not easily transformed given a context; this is

because to do so one would need to sort out institutionalization, power balances, and collective

8

action which problematize social structures as opposed to their counterparts, ‘material’ (Wendt,

1999, p.24).

Cultures of Anarchy

1) Hobbesian

Enmity otherwise known as Hobbesian culture of anarchy is often taken as permissive cause of

war by the neorealists. This representation of ‘other’ as enemy, leads to willingly utilizing of

violence due to the view of lack of existential autonomy of other (Wendt, 1999, p.260). The

enemies intentions are perceived as being unlimited in nature. The portrayal that an enemy’s failure

to acknowledge the right of ‘self’ to exist as a free subject implies intentional move to change

‘self’s’ power or life (revise) hence deep revisionism, shallow revisionism would thus follow when

a rival recognizes/acknowledges ‘self’s’ right to life thus revising only behavior or property but

not life.

Hobbes notes that some enemies are real whereas others are imagined. Implying the other really

does threaten self for example the Nazi’s threat to the Jews. On the flip side, others are ‘chimeras’

in this example the Jews are chimeras to the Nazi’s. The depiction of either real or imagined does

not affect the Hobbesian culture, what matters is the perception of the enemies by the actors of

whether they are real or imagined.

At macro-level of collective representation in which micro-level role identities are rooted takes a

course of their own which cannot thus be reduced to actor’s perceptions or behavior. In other words

the more actors in a system represent others as enemies, the depiction takes root and it reaches a

point where the actor views others as enemies by their mere membership in the system. This goes

on to a point of no return even as new members join the system and get socialized. The

9

compellation to represent others as enemies leads to ‘others’ being a ‘generalized other’, (Mead,

1934, p.154-156).

Constructing an enemy of the other is also done by encouraging other to take identity of the enemy

through actions such as groups created within the state that lobby for maximization of power to

outcompete a constructed enemy. This helps to create identity of the enemy whose existence

depends on the existence of the ‘enemy other’. To maintain ‘self’ identity therefore, other is

encouraged to take ‘enemy’ identity. The Soviet Union and the US militaries took on this analogy

during the Cold war in order to advance their interests (Mead, 1934, p.274-275). Wendt further

observes David Campbell whereby actors are viewed to fulfill their national interests (security,

self-esteem) through construction of an enemy (Campbell, 1998). Campbell further indicates that

the US state utilization of a discourse of danger in justifying its self-existence goes too far in

overstating the threats towards self hence constructing an “us” isolated from a “them”. Self-esteem

enhancement on the other hand comes about as members of a group within states compare

favorably with other states leading to egoistic definition of interests. Such collective self-esteem

can lead to needs for ‘glory’ and ‘power’ at others detriment (Wendt, 1999, p.237).

Noteworthy, in order to fulfill the shared knowledge of other the other has to fulfill the image

constructed by reacting towards the “enmity” identity thus acting bad towards the other who will

now have a complete picture as a result of mutual shared enemy identity. In cases where the

constructed enemy fails to act as prodded by the other, the self would be left with ‘chimerical

enemy images’ rather than shared culture. Where there is a shared culture revisionist needs

becomes meaningful/purposeful.

10

2. Lockean culture of anarchy

Wendt observes that Hobbesian culture of kill or be killed has taken another turn where by actors

want to live thus live and let live Lockean anarchical society (Wendt, 1999, p.277). Rivalry

replaces enmity in this culture. The rival takes the ‘other’s identity. Domineering or conquering is

not an option as ‘other’ sovereignty, life and liberty is recognized (Wendt, 1999, p.279). When

more and more of this recognition goes on in the international society shared expectation arises.

The recognition of other sovereignty, liberty and life does not imply that force cannot be exercised;

dispute settlement can resort to force but within confines of allowance to live (Wendt, 1999,

p.281).

Rivalry at the international society takes form of collective representation creating an anarchical

society at a macro-level with four tendencies.

1. Simultaneous acceptance of war as a mode of extending national interests but constrained within

limits of not killing states. This implies the existence of states is not at stake but configurative wars

are staged over territory and strategic advantage while accepting the sovereignty of the other

despite violating it by use of violence.

2. Limited warfare-encourages stable membership with reduced rate of state deaths. This places

sovereign states on equal footing with dysfunctional ones since the system only encourages

membership of sovereign states. The discouragement of state deaths implies weak states have a

chance of survival thus upholding the Westphalian norms (Wendt, 1999, p.284).

11

3. Power Balancing in this respect Wendt’s counters that it is not a resultant of anarchy as Waltz

views but mutual recognition of sovereignty. This follows states recognition of others sovereignty

thus arresting the Hobbesian state of nature by not accumulating power due to its lack of logic in

state survival (Wendt, 1999, p.284-285).

4. Neutrality/non-alignment occurs when states resolve their differences thus eliminating the threat

of revisionism. This indicates that despite security predicament and proclivity to violence conflicts

can be resolved without threat to survival and autonomy (Wendt, 1999). Wendt thus acknowledges

the importance of sovereignty which he views as the foundation for the international system

(Wendt, 1999, p.285).

Sovereignty in Lockean state of nature helps states to resolve their differences without threat of

elimination. It also helps to advance national-interests in collective self-esteem in a less threatening

environment. The assurance of sovereignty eliminates mind threat of possible elimination by other.

The recognition of sovereignty can be said to exclude certain players in the Lockean culture.

Kantian Culture of anarchy based on friendship.

This is derived from Immanuel Kant’s work, perpetual peace. The Kantian culture is derived from

friendship thus subjects position of friend. The rule of non-violence is embodied, implying

resolution of disputes without violence or its threat. Secondly there is mutual aid/help collective

action is taken as a team against the other who is viewed as a threat to the team or a member in the

team (Wendt, 1999, p.298-299). It is not unlikely to see indifference where a member’s fate is

ignored despite friendship. Living peacefully with one another and resolving to go own way

happens. Various issues can bring conflict within this membership but when national security

12

threat occurs the members consolidate and support the threatened one. Friendship is thus continual

despite occasional fallouts (Wendt, 1999, p.299).

The outcome of Kantian culture of anarchy is collective security within which members are assured

of good intentions that cannot deteriorate to physical fight or threat of war regardless of their

internal indifferences that could be ongoing. Barnett & Adler (1998) observe that, collective

security comes from a shared knowledge of peaceful intentions formed from a community of

friends.

Mutual aid comes from common reciprocity in which reciprocal aid is given, despite direct return.

Specific reciprocity on the other hands expects a return favor (Wendt, 1999, p.300). When matters

of national security occur, multilateralism takes over or in other words other help is given. Kantian

culture of anarchy can be exemplified by the modern US, UK and North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO). Collaboration is thus not a depiction of a threat from others but a way of

enhancing security as a bloc (Wendt, 1999, p.301).

Challenges to realism

Constructivism challenges certain assumptions of neorealism. Upholding that most of the

important content in international politics is explained by the structure of the international system

translates to fundamental causal structuralisms. Kenneth Waltz (1979). Man, the state and war

advances this by elucidating in his central thesis of neorealism, Theory of international politics

that international politics is mainly determined by the fact that international system is anarchic,

lacking an overarching authority constituting of sub-units (states) which are equal formally and

sovereign in their own given territories. Anarchy forces states to behave in certain ways hence the

idea of self-help in order to defend their self- interests such as power. State level explanation is

13

viewed as reductionist approach. Wendt challenges this assumption by indicating that causal

powers attributed to ‘structure’ are not given by nature but are upheld by the way in which the

‘structure is constructed’ by social practice. In other words structures do not lead to causal powers

independent of processes that form the structures to begin with (Wendt, 1992, p.394). Wendt

argument goes further to elucidate that regardless of how anarchy is viewed states do behave

towards each other based on some form of ‘inter-subjective’ meaning formulated about others

(Wendt, 1992, p.397). Taking an example of Waltz work about material power and specifically

military power, despite lodging the explanation on anarchical society in analyzing the behavior of

states, something very critical is underplayed according to Wendt, the fact that for example 500

nuclear bombs in the hands of UK is perceived less threatening than 5 in possession of North Korea

(Schonberg, 2009), informs that there is a process of identity and perception that has taken place

thus actors acquire identities that are held consistent thus forming understanding (Wendt, 1992,

p.397). The acquired identities goes ahead to inform of the actors interests. The interests are

changeable and different because states outline interests in the process of defining circumstances

(Wendt, 1992, p.398). A look at the US interests’ post-9/11 indicates that U.S had to define who

the friends are and the enemies, in so doing identities were formed and interests changed by the

situation of 9/11. The end of cold war also meant Soviet Union and the U.S redefining their

interests since the situation shaping their interests was no more.

A deeper look at the state of nature, Wendt observes that, states are first made of domestic material

which is postulated in the international society. Second is that states try to survive in the

international society (Wendt, 1992, p.402). Therefore when states encounter each other, first try

to understand the other, followed by an interpretation of the other’s motives before deciding on

14

cause of action. This process is what creates identities and lasting social structures (Wendt, 1992,

p.406).

To explain this Wendt further elucidates that, if the structure of neorealist is stripped off the

identities and interests of the actors involved, it will reveal very little. In other words it will fail to

predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will have dynastic ties, will revise or maintain

held positions (Wendt, 1992, p.396).

The implication is; the way anarchy constrains states is informed by the way the states conceive

anarchy and their own identities and interests. Self-help system is thus not constrained to anarchy

unless states choose to view it using Neorealists lens which thus views security as competitive

conceptualizing that a gain in security by one state implies loss of security by another actor(s). If

the lens was changed and security conceptualized as collective or co-operative a gain in security

by one actor would not infer insecurity to another. Anarchy thus would not lead to self-help

(Wendt, 1992).

Neorealists thus depend on unspoken and unquestioned assumptions on how social institutions are

constructed by the actors. The assumption that such meanings are unchangeable leads to exclusion

of the processes of social construction which are the bases for the expounding work underneath

the Neorealists observations.

Common features of constructivism with realists and neorealists

Existence of anarchy.

States are principal units of analysis in the international system.

15

Differences with neorealism

According to constructivists, anarchy is rendered in the cultural rather than materialists terms.

Anarchy is also a resultant of a process through formation of identities and interests. Cultures of

anarchy therefore affect the meaning of power and content of their interests thus creating the

behaviors exhibited in the international system. Anarchy is not inert and immutable as postulated

by neorealists’.

Constructivists believe in the inter-subjectivity of interests as opposed to realism belief in lone

identity of sovereign status of states.

Conclusion

The international system is a resultant of constructions formulated by actors/states through creation

of identities informing their interests. The identities are to a greater extent extrapolations of cultural

beliefs. The resultant structure of international system is therefore changeable because interests

are susceptible to changes in the environment resulting from human actions and or inactions.

Anarchy is not static and neither is it an institution but rather a structure formed through processes

of identity creation and interests. Anarchy is therefore what the actors make of it. Actors can thus

change it depending on the identities created of self and others to promote behavior necessary to

tackle that other or inform self, depending on the interest bearing in mind the situation at hand.