This isn't real? What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. For constructivists, social reality is a product of human consciousness, which is created and constituted through knowledge that forms meaning and also forms the categories of understanding and action. Constructivism is a way of studying social relationships. The theory does not offer generalist explanations of what people do, because societies differ and with it the world changes. It is fundamental to constructivism that human beings are social beings, and we would not be human if they were not made by social relationships. It argues that the world is socially constructed through intersubjective interactions, in which agents and structures are mutually constituted. Furthermore, it argues that ideological factors such as norms, identity and ideas are often central to the constitution and dynamics of the political world. In this video, we will talk about international relations in the 90’s, the objective of knowledge accumulation, the assumptions of Constructivism, the social theory of international politics and the spiral model. Constructivism played a central role in the 1990s. It became the great reference for dialogue of traditional theories because it sought to make a transition from appropriating concepts outside the discipline within an intellectual science project. It seeks to offer an alternative that is a fusion between what realists and liberals are doing and the novelties they are proposing within a new set. This group has authors who discuss the problems of the international system within scientific practice. What we have come to call “conventional constructivism” sets the stage for the great contemporary debate on IR. It starts in the 90's, when we have the debate between those who make a positivist science and those who are post-positivists. The latter advocate the idea that we don't need to improve the knowledge we have at the moment, but rather move away from it. When we have this idea between positivism and post-positivism, we have two very clear sides. We have a group of authors who seek to improve the knowledge model, and a group of authors who seek to break with this knowledge model. Like securitization theory they seek to broaden the conceptual basis within which the discipline is anchored to show that we can produce knowledge so comprehensive that all theories that came before are particular cases of an intellectual formulation that is more general. To do this, it is necessary to overcome a dichotomy that marks the relationship between neo-realism and neo-liberalism (absolute gains vs. relative gains). In this, the objective of knowledge at that time is to understand the behavior of the State. The fundamental premise that supports the International Relations at that time is that of the State as a rational actor living in an environment of anarchy. The State is rational and has a strategy and this strategy is based on preferences, but they can change. Realists look at state preferences more from the perspective of relative gains, while liberals look more from the perspective of absolute gains. Constructivism argues that this is not enough because they will just look at preferences without understanding how they were formed. To have a scientific theory of International Relations it is necessary to have a theory that talks about the formation of preferences. We need to understand why states with similar capabilities make different choices with different preferences, and why they change their preferences. The difficulty with traditional approaches is to understand how this change happens, since they do not have the necessary concepts to operate a theory of change. Thus, it is necessary to talk about identity. Identity is a fundamental concept in the formulation of constructivism. It is the identity that allows you to understand what role you play in a certain social group. It helps you understand what preferences you have. By understanding preferences, you allow for strategic action and state rationality. Rationality starts from the moment you establish a clear relationship between means and ends, between resources and objectives. It is what allows us to understand how a certain actor translates its resources into objectives and to understand the identity of that actor. This identity is his perception about his role within a given system. Constructivism brings an intersubjective notion of identity. We define our role from the point of view of where we are located in a particular network of relationships. It is within the context of the interaction that we can define which elements of that system generate the greatest threat and as a result we can cooperate more easily. What is the implication of constructivism talking about these things? Constructivism, unlike these more materialist approaches, will not take reality for granted. Constructivism will work with the idea of social construction of reality. Which brings something important: just like critical theory, for example, constructivism brings the idea that, because reality is dynamic and the interaction between actors in a certain aspect builds your reality, this means that reality can change. In this way, constructivism allows you to deal with the circumstances of reality in a non-deterministic way. This is not to say that constructivism's notion of change is the same as critical theory's notion of change. In critical theory, change is associated with the idea of emancipation, of thinking about the opportunity for a rupture to generate a better world than what exists today. There is an idea of progress inherent in critical theory. With constructivism, we have the idea of neutrality: we look at the dynamic world as something that is not necessarily a product of its action in the world. You, as a knowledge producer, are neutral. We need to understand the dynamics of the world from an impartial perspective. We understand change as a cyclical process. Unlike the traditional International Relations that believes that anarchy is one thing, constructivism proposes that we have three forms of anarchy. From the moment we understand that the three patterns of anarchy are different, we understand that there is a possibility to move from a functioning pattern. Because it is intersubjective, it is not given by the materiality of reality, but by the structures of legitimacy within which we work. Once this structure of legitimacy and the norms within which that order is involved collapse for some reason, we have the emergence of a new structure of legitimacy. But the last legitimacy structure is not necessarily better or worse than the earlier one. It is a process of cyclical change that we observe from a distance. Another thing that constructivism allows us to do is to understand the process of internationalization of norms. Once we understand that all social structures, including the social structure of anarchy, are normative structures, these norms can change and pressure actors to behave in a certain way. We can build a theory that allows you to understand how to pressure certain states to commit and naturalize certain behaviors. The first important thing is to understand how constructivism fits into this knowledge project. In the first debate of International Relations, between the realists and the liberals, there’s a dilemma about how to rescue a project of order that failed unexpectedly. And what kind of response would be possible to the goal of rescuing the order. We have the idea of order, the idea that there is something to be valued in that order. There is a dispute over which values should be redeemed and what are the most effective strategies to do so. It is an intellectual project marked by positivism, it is a science project that, in a way, reproduces in the social sciences something similar to the exact sciences. They wanted something that could be systematized and measured as much as possible. They wanted to explore different possibilities and funnel this synthesis between neorealists and neoliberals, in which the idea of rationalism was created. Rationalism has created a kind of consensus within these theories and they have committed themselves to the measurable science project and it comes to a point where the two currents are very similar. They work with the idea of an anarchic system and with the idea of a rational State. This means that the State is a strategic actor that makes choices. the objective is to understand the actor's behavior. As the actor, the State takes certain resources and translates them into objectives. Between the resources you have and the strategy you undertake, between the means and the ends, we have the idea that states have different preferences. States with similar capabilities often have different international insertion strategies. They have the same understanding of what are the basic properties of the system, which is anarchy. And they also have the same understanding about the objective of the analysis of international relations: the objective is to study the behavior of the State. What changes is the explanation about the rationality of the State and the relationship it establishes between means and ends, how you understand a certain State translates resources into objectives. Constructivists have a strategy of seeking to broaden the conceptual base, in which their concepts are general cases. It is a broader theory that allows states to transform resources, means and ends, but also that states change strategies and change their preferences by transforming their identity. Although realists and liberals have a theory about state behavior, they do not have a theory about the formation of preferences that drive states' behavior. They take states' preferences for granted, this is called “exogenous preferences”. This is more vulnerable because we don't understand why the state prefers something. Liberal rationalists say that by identifying gains relative to absolute gains, you can generate hypotheses about strategy. But that doesn't answer "why are those preferences appropriate?" Once I know what I want in a given system, I need to understand who you are and what is your role within a given system. For example, we can point out nuclear bombs. The bomb France makes does not have the same impact on “insecurity” as the bomb North Korea makes. This depends on the pre-established structure between the forces, not exactly the economic power. You cannot understand foreign policy preference choices without understanding the structure of legitimacy. This structure is not material, it is social. It works by assigning identities to actors. Identity helps you determine how you relate in different ways to different groups. This is a formulation that rationalists have a hard time dealing with. Are there social structures of legitimacy that are crucial for you to understand how countries that used to identify themselves as rivals become willing to cooperate in the direction of collective security? To have a theory of state strategies, you have to have a theory about how these preferences change. In constructivism, it is necessary to understand the preferences of states. It is an endogenous theory, since it is necessary to explain how preferences are formed. In realism and liberalism, preferences are exogenous. You take preferences without explaining why they formed. The idea of intersubjectivity allows us to understand how constructivism understands the problem of threat and of insecurity. This is related to the dynamics of cooperation. For constructivism, what matters is the analysis of the interaction dynamics between the actors, and whether they have a pattern of hostility, cooperation or friendship. That's the first answer we need to have. Based on it, we can identify the foreign policy preferences of one country in relation to another. Do not try and bend the spoon —that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth What truth? There is no spoon. There is no spoon? Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. Constructivism is a way of studying social relationships. The theory does not offer generalist explanations of what people do, because societies differ and with it the world changes. It is fundamental to constructivism that human beings are social beings, and we would not be human if it weren't for social relationships. It argues that the world is socially constructed through intersubjective interactions, in which agents and structures are mutually constituted. it argues that ideological factors such as norms, identity and ideas are often central to the constitution and dynamics of the political world. Constructivism is concerned with the relationship between agents and structures. As an example, we can highlight the analysis between the relationship between States and structures of international politics. For constructivists, social reality is a product of human consciousness, which is created and constituted through knowledge that forms meaning and also forms the categories of understanding and action. These knowledge and meanings can be institutionalized in social life. This institutionalization shapes the construction of social reality. Social construction depends on knowledge that individuals use to map, construct, interpret and create meaning in the world. So reality doesn't just exist and needs to be discovered. Reality is produced historically and is connected with culture, in which this allows individuals to create meanings for their reality, thus creating a meaning for their world. Actors are created within a cultural environment, so we must emphasize the importance of identity and the social construction of interests. In the US, American identity shapes national interests. In this way, States may have an interest in security, but their understanding of what security is and how it can be achieved is connected with identity. About the Social Theory of International Politics, it is argued that what Waltz said exists. They recognize the standards that Waltz highlights about international reality. The problem is that Waltz believes that this is the only standard in the international community. He believes that structure is material. But constructivists say it's actually social. While Waltz argues that it is conditioned by the system's distribution of capabilities, constructivists do not agree because if that were the case, the insecurity arising from a North Korean nuclear program would be the same as a French program. Waltz fails to understand that what he saw is not a material structure. It is a social structure of legitimacy marked by a culture of hostility. It is present in the international system, but there are also other cultures. Wendt seeks to show that the concept of anarchy has three cultures. We have other possibilities. Wendt says that the concept of anarchy is not the problem, but understanding the cultures of anarchy is. But before that, it is important to keep in mind this fundamental dimension of constructivism that identity is in this intersubjective relationship. You recognize intersubjectivity through the dynamics of the relationship between actors and the processes that condition this dynamic. The relationship between actors always has a process embedded in it. To understand the rationality of choices, to understand whether we are going to cooperate or compete, to understand whether something is a threat, it is necessary to keep in mind the identity structures that mark the relationship between countries. If we understand identity structures, we understand preference structures, understanding preference structures, we understand cooperation or conflict strategies. Wendt will try to show that anarchy is a social construction, it is a counterpoint with Waltz, in which anarchy has 3 possible cultures and each culture corresponds to a specific intersubjective pattern. With these 3 cultures, we can understand how the States inserted within that culture make cost/benefit calculations regarding their willingness to cooperate/compete with each other. In the culture of hostility, we see the culture of realism. That's when we see anarchy as something marked by pure competition. In the culture of rivalry, we have the lockean culture, in which the structure is marked by complex patterns of competition and conflict, and there are certain spaces in which you need to cooperate and others where you need to compete. In Kantian culture, there is a culture of "friendship". There’s a degree of cultural sharing where the survival of cooperation, the survival of the whole, can override the survival of the parts. There’s collective security structures such as the League of Nations. They are so committed to each other that an attack against one unit corresponds to an attack against all units in the system. The system reacts as one thing. These three cultures are very resilient. This means that when we consolidate a structure of legitimacy, that structure tends to be self-replicating. They are hard to break. Change happens in the international system, but it is not frequent. This goes for all three cultures equally. Usually, we have a cultural and technological change that forces the structure to move in another direction. Finally, we have the idea of internationalizing international standards. Since constructivism allowed us to think that the international system has norms, how could we, as agents, use these norms to produce normative change within the state? For example, we can use the fight against apartheid National civil societies and organizations are linked to a global humanitarian political system, this is the larger circle. It is composed of human rights organizations and Western powers that have already internalized these rules. In the first moment, the South African government resists this process of external norms. But as the pressure increases, we have a process of tactical opening, in which the government starts to grant concessions, it gives in to pressure. If international pressure drops, the government goes back to what it was. But keeping the pressure on long enough, with a new political elite interested in this normative change, we create a scenario where the internationalization of these norms can be achieved. This model is important because, from the point of view of human rights organizations, it created a model for strategic international action. Thats's all! Thank you for watching.