Constructivism in International Relations: from a theory between positivism and postpositivism to the theory of the world state
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v5n1y2019.pp1-16Keywords:
البنائية, دولة العالم, الوضعية, مابعد الوضعية, العلاقات الدوليةAbstract
Constructivism emerged at the end of the Cold War and entered into IR theories debate by criticizing the rationalists (neo-liberal and neo-realist) on the one hand and critics on the other, accusing them of failing to predict and explain the end of the Cold War. While rationalists focus on material and economic factors, constructivists focus on cultural factors, the influence of ideas, norms and identities on the explanation of processes of interest formation, how to define survival and defining mechanisms of international politics, and emphasize that interest and identity interact through socio-historical processes and constitute each other. Thus, constructivism belongs to the fourth debate in the theoretical study of International Relations and it is one of the post-positivist theories, but it attempts to serve as a bridge between the positivist and post-positivist approaches. For example, if post-positivist theories are criticized, because of suffering from providing a realistic alternative versus of the description and explanation offered by rational theories, constructivism tries to overcome this criticism and it is able to provide the research program required to remove the post-positivist dilemma, by providing the practical hypotheses required by the establishment of a theory to describe and explain the reality of international relations. However, constructivism is not immune from criticism, it is accused that it does not offer anything new and exaggerates the understanding of cultural factors such as norms and identities and their impact on the reality of international relations, as well as its epistemological and methodological problems and its internal divisions between modern constructivists and postmodern constructivists.
References
أولاً: العربية:
أحمد، حسن الحاج علي (2005) العالم المصنوع: دراسة في البناء الإجتماعي للسياسة العالمية، مجلة "عالم الفكر"، الكويت، المجلس الوطني للثقافة والفنون والآداب، العدد (4).
حمشي، محمد. (2017) النقاش الخامس في العلاقات الدولية: نحو إقحام نظرية التعقد داخل الحقل، أطروحة دكتوراه غير منشورة، الجزائر، جامعة باتنة، كلية الحقوق والعلوم السياسية.
العتيبي، عبد الله بن جبر. (2010) النظرية في العلاقات الدولية بين المدرسة الواقعية الجديدة والمدرسة البنائية، مجلة "شؤون إجتماعية"، جمعية الإجتماعيين، السنة (27)، العدد (108).
غريفتش، مارتن. (2008) خمسون مفكراً في العلاقات الدولية، دبي، ترجمة ونشر مركز الخليج للأبحاث.
غريفتيش، مارتن. وأوكلاهان، تيري. (2008) مفاهيم أساسية في العلاقات الدولية، دبي، ترجمة ونشر: مركز الخليج للأبحاث.
سميث، كريستيان رويس. (2006) البنائية، في: سكوت بورتشيل وآخرون (تحرير)، نظريات العلاقات الدولية، ترجمة: صفار، محمد. القاهرة، المركز القومي للترجمة.
سميث، ستيف. (2004) مقاربات جديدة للنظرية الدولية، في: جون بيليس وستيف سميث، عولمة السياسة العالمية، دبي، ترجمة ونشر مركز الخليج للأبحاث.
فرج، أنور محمد. (2007) النظرية الواقعية في العلاقات الدولية، السليمانية، مركز كوردستان للدراسات الإستراتيجية.
فيرك، كارين. (2016) البنائية، في: تيم دان، وميليا كوركي، وستيف سميث (تحرير)، نظريات العلاقات الدولية: التخصص والتنوع، ترجمة: ديما الخضرا، بيروت، المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات.
ويندت، ألكسندر. (2006) النظرية الاجتماعية للسياسة الدولية، ترجمة: العتيبي، عبد الله بن جبر. الرياض، جامعة الملك سعود.
ثانياً: الإنجليزية:
Agius, C. (2013). Social Constructivism. Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
Barnett, M. (1993). Institutions, roles, and disorder: The case of the Arab states system. International Studies Quarterly, 37(3), 271-296.
Björkdahl, A. (2002). Norms in international relations: Some conceptual and methodological reflections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15(1), 9-23.
Burns, T. (2018). What’s wrong with a World State? http://Worldgoveronment research network.org, Date of visit: 2/6/2018.
Checkel, J. T. (2008). Constructivism and Foreign policy. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford University Press.
Checkel, J. T. (2004). Social constructivism in global and European politics: a review essay. Review of International Studies, 30(2), 229-244.
Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructive turn in international relations theory. World politics, 50(2), 324-348.
Dunne, T. (1995). The social construction of international society. European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 367-389.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual review of political science, 4(1), 391-416.
Greenwood Onuf, N., Kubàlkovà, V., & Kowert, P. (1998). Constructivism: A User’s Manual. Vendulka Kubàlkovà et al. International Relations in a Constructed World, Sharp, London.
Hartzog, P. B. (2018). Panarchy Is What We Make of It: Why a World State Is Not Inevitable. https://academiaedu.edu, Date of visit: 2/6/2018.
Herring, E. (2013). Social Constructivism. Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International security, 23(1), 171-200.
Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2016). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1989). International relations theory and the analysis of change. Global changes and theoretical challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 8-1990s, Lexington, Lexington Box.
Kratochwil, F. (1996). Is the ship of culture at sea or returning. The return of culture and identity in IR theory, 221.
Kurki, M. (2006). Causes of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in International Relations theory. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 189-216.
Lebow, R. N. (2016). IR Theory as Identity Discourse, in: Booth, K., & Erskine, T. (Eds.). International relations theory today. John Wiley & Sons.
Onuf, N. (1989). World of Our Making. Columbia, University of South Carolina Press.
Philips, A. B. (2007). Constructivism, In: Griffiths, M. (Ed.). International relations theory for the twenty-first century: an introduction. Routledge.
Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. (2000). After Postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 213-237.
Sampson, A. B. (2002). Tropical anarchy: Waltz, Wendt, and the way we imagine international politics. Alternatives, 27(4), 429-457.
Shannon, V. P. (2005). Wendt’s violation of the constructivist project: Agency and why a world state is not inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 11(4), 581-587.
Snyder, J. (2004). One world, rival theories. Foreign policy, (145), 52.
Valerie, M. (2001). The constructivist Debate; Bringing Hermeneutics. In properly) in, paper presented at the 2001 ISA conference (Vol. 21).
Wallerstein, I. (1996). The inter-state structure of the modern world-system. International Theory: positivism and beyond, 87-107.
Wendt, A. E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International organization, 41(3), 335-370.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization, 46(2), 391-425.
Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International security, 20(1), 71-81.
Wendt, A. (2000). On the Via Media: a response to the critics. Review of international studies, 26(1), 165-180.
Wendt, A. (2003). Why a world state is inevitable. European journal of international relations, 9(4), 491-542.
Wight, C. (2006). Agents, structures and international relations: politics as ontology. Cambridge University Press.
Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in international relations: the politics of reality. Cambridge University Press.
