Critical Social Constructivism - "Culturing" Identity, (In) Security, and The State in International Relations Theory

Indian Political Science Association
CRITICAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM : "CULTURING" IDENTITY, (IN) SECURITY, AND THE

STATE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY
Author(s): Runa Das
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 70, No. 4 (OCT. - DEC., 2009), pp. 961-
982
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42744013
Accessed: 22-01-2018 15:00 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Indian Journal of Political Science
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Indian Journal of Political Science
Vol. LXX, No. 4, Oct.-Dec., 2009, pp. 961-982
CRITICAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM :

"CULTURING" IDENTITY, (IN) SECURITY, AND THE STATE IN INTERNATIO
RELATIONS THEORY
Runa Das
A plethora of scholarships have represented the constructivist school in International

Relations theory into the conventional, middle-ground, and the critical variants.
Contending that this categorization namely that of the latter variant is not critical
enough, I heuristically re-categorize the constructivists as the structural, post-modern,
and the critical. I highlight on the concepts of identity, (in)security, and the state to
make a case for the constructivist insight known as critical social constructivism.
What follows is an exploration of the analytical, conceptual, and substantive refinements
of critical social constructivism, which, with an inter-disciplinary engagement with
culture, has implications for I.R.
Introduction : The Constructivist Turn
The 1 990s witnessed the emergence of a new constructivist turn in International Relations
(I.R) theory and analysis. Representing a collective genre, constructivism, differing over substantial
and epistemologica! issues but sharing some core ontological assumptions vis-à-vis the neo-
realist/liberal positions in International Relations (such as, facts are social interventions; the
notion of agency as vested within individuals; ideas construct realities; and that, all agents and
structures are mutually constituted) offers a social perspective of international relations. Three
mutually re-enforcing factors, namely, the exchange of debates between the reflectivists and the
post-positivists (centering on who can provide a more conceptually and sustained empirical
analysis of international relations); the end of the Cold War (that undermined the explanatory
hegemony of the dominant rationalist theories, particularly neo-realism); and, the emergence of
new forms of post-Cold War politics in the Third World (namely the emergence of new forms of
nationalist, communalist, and ethnic conflicts) - prompted the constructivist tum in I.R. This
new generation of scholars classified with overlaps as structural/ post-structural constructivists;
modemist/ post-modernist constructivists; and, the conventional/critical constructivists have
since formed the principle axis of debate in international relations vis-à-vis the rationalists (see
Adler 1997; Price and Reus-Smit 1998). In some ways, as Waever (1997:26) correctly notes,
there has been no dearth of scholarships studying constructivism as representing a conceptually
refined and an empirically sustained analysis of international relations.
This article acknowledges the contributions of this genre of constructivism (albeit their
marginal status) in the field of I.R., but does not make a case for this collective genre per se;
rather, it speaks for one of its sub-variants, called critical social constructivism, premises of
which, articulated following the publication of an edited book Cultures of Insecurity by Weldes
et al (1999), has remained under appreciated in the ensuing constructivist debates. To this
extent, this article makes an exposition and defense for the theoretical insight of critical social
constructivism that despite significant analytical, conceptual, and substantive contributions in
The Indian Journal of Political Science 962
reading identity, insecurity, and the state in

obscure within this genre of constructivism. T
addressed the place of constructivism in the the
vis-à-vis the mainstream of I.R., or, its dialogu
efforts, other than in Fierke (2007) and Mc
critical social constructivists' premise of the "c
the state in international relations.
Now, the why and the what questions, i.e., what does critical social constructivism
offer in terms of re-visiting issues of state, identity, and insecurity in I.R., and, how does its
features côntribute to a more "criticar understanding of I.R? These questions become pertinent
for two reasons: first, given that constructivism as a broad umbrella shares many core and
inter-related propositions to which even Weldes et al (1999) subscribe, then, why bother to
carve a space for this insight? Second, given that the critical social constructivists draw
significantly from post-modern constructivists, such as Doty (1993) (whose work is widely
acknowledged academically as an illustration of critical constructivism), then, why draw attention
to Weldes et al s variant of critical social constructivism? |n other words, why not accept the
recognized classifications of constructivism as structural/ post-structural, modernist/ post-
modernist, conventional/critical, and place Weldes et al's critical social constructivism either
in the post-structural, post-modern, or the critical camp ?
In this article, I suggest not reducing Weldes et al's exposition of critical social
constructivism to post-modern constructivism as falling under a broadly-defined critical variant
of constructivism. This is because Weldes et al's variant of critical social constructivism
owing to a more "cultural" reading of international relations analytically, conceptually, and
substantively contributes more critically to constructivist I.R. than undertaken by scholarships
representing this broadly-defined critical constructivist variant. In suggesting that critical social
constructivism is more "critical," I am not claiming that critical social constructivists (such as
Weldes et al) are not post-moderns; or, that the post-modern constructivists (such as Doty)
are not critical (although my argument will certainly be that they are not critical in the sense
that critical constructivists are). Rather, by focusing on the concepts of identity, insecurity,
and the state I seek to push the boundaries of the constructivist debates by arguing that
critical social constructivism that is often reduced to and categorized with post-modern
constructivism adds significant conceptual/analytical refinements missed by the other
constructivists, namely how meaning-producing discourses and "codes of intelligibilities"
produce insecurities in international relations. Therefore, the task at hand is to trace how the
constructivists have thus far conceptualized identity, insecurity, and the state; examine their
epistemologica!, conceptual, and research analytical frameworks and limitations; and, then
explore how critical social constructivism might address these shortcomings not essentially
Critical Social Constructivism 963
by constituting a complete ontologic

through certain analytical/conceptual r
identities, and security practices that
My thematic exposition thus appe

constructivism which, I categorize a
middle-ground in the constructivist de
purposes as the structural construct
social constructivists. With one sele
epistemologica!, conceptual, and res
variants in analyzing identity, insecur
analytical, and conceptual refinements
and post-modem constructivism) and ho
productions of identity, insecurity, an
the article by highlighting the cultu
social constructivism for I.R.
Constructivism and Its Variants
The term constructivism, coined by Onuf (1989), emerged as "a constructive response
to the challenge of the post-movement, in particular rejecting] the 'slash and burn extremes'
of some [radical] post-modern thinkers," and, yet joining the "post" movement "in calling into
question the orthodoxy of the [traditional] postwar IR scholarship" (Onuf 1 998:20).1 Instead,
sharing some common ontological/epistemological premises (as mentioned earlier),
constructivism maintains that "the sociopolitical world is constructed by human practice, and
seeks to explain how this construction takes place" (Onuf 1998:20). Yet, substantial,
epistemologica!, and analytical differences remain among them in understanding "how" human
practices work to construct this sociopolitical world-thereby resulting in the constructivist
variants. Below I enumerate some of these variants especially their substantial, epistemologica!,
and analytical premises-with an eye to configure the location or lacuna of these constructivists
in providing a more "cultural" constructivist understanding of international relations.
Structural Constructivists :
Represented by Peter Katzenstein, Nicholas Onuf, Alex Wendt, and others, the basic
premise of the structural constructivists, which they share with the critical constructivists in
the post-modern sense, is that states' national securities do not wait to be discovered by self-
interested rational actors. Instead, they offer a sociological perspective of national security
based on the claim that national interests are constructed through processes of social
interaction, in which states affected by and responding to norms, identities, and cultures in
their domestic and global contexts define their national interests. To this effect, Katzenstein
(1996:4-5) offers a cultural-institutional analysis of n

identity of state 5, governments, and other political
purposeful political action, and differences in power
interests; Onuf s (1 998) constructivism, based on th
practices are co-constituted, explains anarchy as a
constructivism examines the inter-subjectively const
and the inter-subjective meanings out of which they
of states and the identities on which those inter
structure of the system (i.e., are not constitutive pr
"collective meanings that constitute the structures"
394, 396, 397). In sum, "self-help and power politic
from anarchy... [but] due to process" (Wendt: 396
Despite upholding that states' national securit

processes of social interaction, for the purpose o
amongst the structural constructivists in conceptual
state: first, in their analyses, anarchy albeit seen
within a systemic process where anarchy is comp
practices, and/or causal powers of interaction occu
defined either in terms of material capabilities with
or a social arrangement (Onuf 1 998); or due to proce
of identity, the structural constructivists insist on id
and cognitively as a result of social processes, col
capabilities. Accordingly, identities of states, go
seen as "resulting from social purposes, purposefu
capabilities (Katzenstein 1 996:4-5); or reduced to o
or seen as rooted in a systemic process (Wendt 19
see the state as a "fixed" political entity, i.e., a subje
processes, identities, and institutional cultures i
exception underlies Barnett's (1996) constructivist ex
identities wherein with reference to the Arab-Isr
identity rather than the logic of anarchy work as a
Barnett's analysis remains structural and cognit
cognitive norms that are likely to instruct states on
and alliances formations. Collectively then, the ep
constructivists reveal a "minimalist foundationalism
researcher the subject of the same self-reflective cr
precisely what forms the epistemologica! departure
Critical Constructivists (or, post-mode
In this section, I classify those cons

influenced by the intertextual strategies of
first, to show how this group, despite ma
constructivists in analyzing issues of iden
conceptual refinements that provide a "cu
state in I.R. Second, these limitations pr
different categorization of the constructi
explore the analytical and conceptual s
insecurity, and the state in I.R.
Der Derian and Shapiro's (1 989) postmo

discourse, and power-knowledge in pro
point of entry in exploring some of the
constructivism in I.R theory. This postmo
making is pursued by Doty (1993) in her
However, Doty takes the postmodern inte
lines by asking "how meanings are pro
constituting particular interpretive dispos
others" (Doty:298). In answering these q
explain the social constructions of subject
policy making. Seen from this postmodern
in this article, Doty's contribution lies in
must entail "the examination of what was
as well as statements made in society mor
general public takes as reality" (Doty:3
which such statement making adheres,
worlds), becomes critical.
Likewise, Campbeii (1 994) through his

poiicy making, makes at least two promin
First, in examining "how" the realm of n
(i.e., boundary-making practices are centr
in whose name it operates); and, second
discourses in representing danger in intern
postmodern line of analysis that foreign
practices, he teases out from such expo
basis of the ontological status of the state
or 'the state'. ..the identity of each is per
Seizing the Middle Ground (or, Modernist Cons
Yet, constructivists claiming to seize the middle-gr

problems with both the structural and the post-mode
middle-ground. Yet he reveals the cognitive orientatio
evidenced in his claims that this middle-ground shoul
synthesis that draw on the material, subjective, and i
which will result in the diffusion and internalization of c
peace among states (Adler: 322). Likewise, Hopfs (1 998

constituted relies on the assumption that this constitut
and practices, and, other constructivists (such as Krat
trends by concentrating on notions of territorial state
in explaining systemic transformation. That constr
rationalism/ structuralism is forwarded by Price and
by some as "thin" constructivism (Laffey and We
International Studies Review forum converse as to wh
framework may provide a dialogue between constr
Jackson and Nexon 2004; Sterling-Folker 2004). Yet, t
celebratory or liberal notions that institutions transfo
In tracing the major contours of the constructivis

variants, this article accepts that the post-modem con
offer a more critical scrutiny of the construction of
how meanings are implicated by power, language,
relations. In doing so, the post-modern constructivists
structure, processes of cognizance, norms, belief
initiated an intertextual/discursive turn in construct
constructivist trend is an analytical turn that explain
relations. It is to address this lacuna in the constructi
research query of this essay.
Constructivism: Identity, (In) Security, and th
In the sections that follow, I offer for heuristic r

constructivists as the structural, post-modern, and th
from the re-categorized variants to highlight how the
frameworks have addressed the concepts of insecurit
so, I also explore how they have borrowed, diffe
understanding of these concepts and why critical soc
a complete ontological/epistemological re-orientatio
have through their analytical/conceptua

constructivistl.R.
As a representative scholarship from the structural constructivists, I choose Wendťs

( 1 992) article, "Anarchy is what States Make of It," for the prime reason that his oft cited work
which has also left an imprint on the successive constructivists provides a good starting point
for my comparative analysis. As a sample of postmodern constructivism, I choose Doty's
(1993) article, "Foreign Policy as Social Construction," since it is an excellent usage of the
premises of postmodern constructivism to study the construction of foreign policy/national
security practices. Finally, I choose Weldes et al's (1999) Cultures of Security: States,
Communities, and the Production of Danger since it is the most extensive work till date that
posits the critical social constructivist position.
Structural Constructivism (Wendt: Anarchy is what States Make of It, 1992)
Wendt theory of constructivism begins as a challenge to the rationalist lenses of neo-

realism and the neo-liberalism, where "... rational choice. .. treat[s] the identities and interests
of agents as exogenously given and focus[es] on how the behavior of agents generates
outcomes" (Wendt: 391-92). As such, realism and neo-liberalism offer "a fundamentally
behavioral conception of both processes and institutions: they change behavior but not identities
and interests" (Wendt: 391-92). This leaves the neo-realists and the neo-liberals with similar
assumptions about agents: i.e., states are the dominant actors in the global system and
security defined in terms of self-interest (Wendt: 392).
Wendt's concern is the "basic 'sociological' issue bracketed by rationalists - namely

the issue of identity-and interest-formation" in international relations (Wendt: 392). This is
because mainstream systemic I.R dominated by "economic theorizing" negates "a 'sociological,
psychological' form of systemic theory in which power and interests are the dependent variable"
(Wendt: 394). In this context, Wendt sees constructivism's potential in contributing to a
strong liberalism, namely liberal interests, identities, and interest formations, where
constructivism is in turn "enriched with liberal insights about learning and cognition..." (Wendt,
394). It is with this epistemologica! inclination on behalf of the liberal claim that "institutions
can transform state identities and interests," (Wendt, 394) that Wendt develops his constructivist
argument and sets out to define anarchy - with further implications for understanding identity,
insecurity, and the ontological status of the state in international relations.
In conceptualizing anarchy, Wendt's constructivism in contrast to the neorealist claims

that "self-help and competitive power politics are simply given exogenously by the structure of
the system," claims that "self-help and power politics are socially constructed under anarchy"
(Wendt: 395-396). He does so by "detangling the concepts of anarchy and self-help by
showing that self-interested concepts of security are not a constitutive property of anarchy;"
rather, they are endogenously constituted (W

spells out his constructivist social theory, t
including other actors, on the basis of the mea
396). "The distribution of power may alway
depends on the intersubjective understandi
knowledge,' that constitute their conceptions of
that constitute the structures which organiz
How then, for Wendt, are these intersubj

give rise to collective meanings- constituted
and expectations that constitute their collective
(or structure) are produced causally by proc
This is because "in the extent to which and the
with the other, [will] the meaning of anarchy
399-400). In other words, collective meaning
between the states," constitute the represen
states organize their actions (Wendt: 397).
For Weridt, "collective meanings" also r

international relations. On this, he explains
role-specific understandings and expectation
of such collective meanings. Identities are [thus]
attachments of psychological reality, is always
world" (Wendt: 397-98). While identities vary,
of. . . [what] the actors collectively hold about
the structure of the social world" (Wendt: 398
This socially constituted nature of ident

basis of states' interests must relate to the
Wendt notes that the concept of institutionali
and interests [is] not something occurring out
is a process of socialization involving "a co
institutions, usually states, representing relati
are in essence an embodiment of "collective
socialization to and participation in [this] co
that "institutions are fundamentally cognitive
about how the world works," and, are "fun
international relations (Wendt: 399). In this
such cognitive institutions [the state] do no
constituted" (Wendt: 399). Yet, "regular [in
constituting sovereign identities (agent

lie at the core of Wendt's ontologic
process-oriented (Wendt: 413).
Wendt's analytical contribution to t

intersubjectively constituted structure
system, encapsulated in the premise
on the basis of the meanings that the
basic premise to which successive c
anarchy as not exogenously given by t
via "collective meanings" to which stat
"anarchy is what states make of it." On
assumptions of identities as structural
to and social definitions of what act
social world. On the state, Wendt ex
are constituted by collective identities
identity, and the state represent "ap
reality," (Wendt: 397) which, relatio
social construction of reality.
Yet, for the purpose of this proj

anarchy, identity, and state, when
constructivist frameworks reveal thre
cognition; second, remains rooted in
norms in explaining states' security pr
that anarchy, identity, and the stat
defined "collective meanings," Wendt's
constituted ultimately boils down to
cognitive and structural biases evidenc
'logic' of anarchy apart from the [inter
of identities and interests rather th
identity, and structure (states) cann
focus on the constitutive roles of no
the basis of international social interac
in terms of institutional norms and co
Since it is not the major purpose of

that have been launched against We
orthodoxy (for such critiques, amongs
that Wendt's variant of constructivism
which have influenced the later variants of c

of Wendt's of constructivism, i.e., "people
basis of the meanings that the objects hav
next section how the postmodern constructiv
intertextual /discursive o¡ :°ntation to construc
Postmodern Constructivism (Doty: Fore
Like Wendt, Doty (1993) begins by ont

approaches in I.R; but epistemologically depar
by rendering a more critical interpretation o
of post-modernism and intertextuality, Dot
study of the U.S counter-insurgency operatio
to study the representations of national secur
how the subjects, objects, and interpretive
certain [foreign policy] practices were mad
the ability of an agent to imagine certain
kinds of social actors and relationships, m
In applying her "how-possible" approach to

Doty, while developing on Wendt's intersubjec
(epistemologica!) and discursive (methodolog
situates this epistemologica! challenge by b
but it is "not the kind of power that works th
via their role specific understandings of in
have it); nor is it "a power that social actor
kind of power that is productive of meaning
range of imaginable conduct." That is "the wa
modes of subjectivity and interpretive dispos
How the linguistic construction of reality

relations constitutes Doty's methodology.
the discursive space within which meaning
cognitive modes of meaning-giving, discourse
characteristics of individuals as providing col
Rather, drawing from intertextuality, i.e., "a
meanings," discourses produce identities an
vis-à-vis one another to re-enforce their iden
the analytical concepts of "pre-supposition, p
the discursive constitution of subjects an
intelligibility" (Doty: 306-07). These

'world' by providing positions of vario
attributes" (Doty: 306-07). "Policy m
that imposes meanings on their wor
More importantly, the possibility of

subject-positions denotes the existence
as to how is this international hierar
international hierarchy constituted, Do
that situates foreign policy practices w
of international order consisting of
international ordering of hierarchy an
"background condition" from which fur
What follows in Doty's (1993) explicatio
"infinite play of signifiers [words, i
of subjectivity]" (Doty: 302).
How does Doty's post-modern constr

(1992) structural constructivism provid
and, the international system? In term
solving approaches of I. R theory/ fore
take "subjects as given" as an ontolo
albeit, rendered problematic by Wendt
takes its own analytic form, i.e., one
intertextuality (and not on regular i
subjects" produced via "modes of su
subjectivities constituted through
constructions of insecurities by endowi
such attributes against the self/othe
group of people as a collectivity (ref
Doty:310).
It follows then, as Doty demonstrates, that the international order (anarchy) is not
given; rather, it is a construction, and, a hierarchical power-based construction. This is because
the very possibility of constitutive practices also presupposes the ability of certain hierarchical
agents to imagine certain kinds of actions in the international system, and, that agents have
the power to re-enact and consolidate this socially-constituted international system (Doty:
298). This further implies that "the state, as [an] international subject, is [also] constructed by
the discursive practices of those who speak... write... and act on its behalf (Doty: 310).
Doty's postmodern constructivist reading of

and how it makes various foreign policy pract
I argue that certain epistemologica! and conceptu
critical enough need to be considered, namely in
of critical social constructivism. In terms of epi
of construction is to some extent structure-orie
to it by saying that "In one sense my possibl
"associated with the behavior of complex syst
In this context, namely given the recent resurg
over, it might be worth considering how the po
through hierarchy/North South dynamics, as Do
cultural power- that might give meanings to act
In terms of methodology, Doty seems

intertextuality as constitutive of power, hier
postmodern I.R analysis). In this context, interp
her method, is "not providing an interpretation o
constructed by the participants. Rather, [she] is p
practices do. . . ' (Doty 1 993: 305). Mere interpre
another problem, i.e., they seem to assume t
unique determinative reading," and this reading
this author being a pre-existing interpretive com
of the text that is productive of meanings ra
power of construction as conscious and meani
In sum, these epistemologica! and methodolog

from considering that it is not merely the texts
world; rather, discourses and their "codes of int
and, fundamentally cultural may produce the w
claim, "...going beyond the agent's [actor's] p
meaning and social practices that are the con
understandings in the first place. . . " With the
modern constructivism, I now turn to critical s
Critical Social Constructivism (Weldes et a

Weldes at al study the concept of "crisis" or
subscribe to the general constructivist premise,
things have for them," and thus, "crises are soc
the outcome of particular social practices, inc
(Weldes et al 1999: 13-14, Weldes 1999: 57). Y
representations of cognitive, politica

(1993) would render; rather, for the cr
(Weldes et al: 57). As they explain:
Reprosentations that constitute a cr

processes and out of cultural resour
of intelligibility, (Hall 1985:105) - t
and endow it meaning. . . These rep
set of features... that come to constitute 'a situation' to which the state
must then respond. State officials. . .must necessarily make decisions and
act on the basis of culturally grounded representations and it is in these
representations that crises are produced (Weldes et al: 57).
In suggesting an "anthropomorphized" or culturally-grounded understanding of insecurity,

as reflected in the quote, Weldes et al offer a more conceptual and analytical refinement of the
constructivist debate in I.R. Before delineating these refinements, I deflect briefly to consider
the disciplinary origin of this variant which enables their cultural engagement in explaining I.R.
Critical social constructivism emerged as an interdisciplinary engagement between I.R

and Anthropology to engage with the mainstream of I.R. that produce knowledge as "intellectual
carriers of Enlightenment" (Weldes et al 1999: viii). This necessitated for Weldes et al an
alternative insight, which, inspired by the interdisciplinary realm of thinking based on literary/
cultural studies and/or the varieties of critical/post-modern social sciences, challenges these
rationalization structures of mainstream knowledge production in I.R. They ask: What are the
anxiety and rationalization structures supporting the maintenance of conservative modes of
thought in I.R research? How are these anxieties and rationalizations expressed and in what
cultural idioms? (Weldes et al: xi) Viewed from this challenge that they pose to the discipline
of I.R. , the turn to an anthropomorphized understanding of I.R that focus on culture as "both a
source of insecurity and an object of analysis," remains inevitable (Weldes et al: 1 -2).
Substantive and Analytical Claims
If conventional analyses in security studies begin with a set of pre-given entities and
ask "how can they be secure," the critical social constructivists "flip this strategy on its head"
(Weldes et al: 10). Instead, taking discourses of insecurities, as what Campbell (1994) calls
"representations of danger," the basic substantive assumption of the critical social constructivists
is that "insecurities, rather than being natural facts, are social and cultural productions" (Weldes
et al: 1 0). That is, "in contrast to the received view, which treats the objects of insecurity and
insecurities themselves as pre-given and natural, and as ontologically separate things, . . . [critical
social constructivists] treat them as mutually constituted cultural and social constructions ..."
(Weldes et al: 10).
In explicating their substantive claim, i.e

critical social constructivists propose "examin
and the objects that suffer from insecurity
this extent, they pursue an analytical line
analysis," and examine "how they work" (W
social constructivists draw attention to dis
state, and, in explaining "how they work," de
of intelligibilities" provide categories of identi
14). The inter-subjective assumption underlyi
"the world is constituted in part through the
people act on the basis of the meanings th
assumption implies that meanings as cons
are "fundamentally cultural ...[and] inhere
people engage with each other and with the n
socially constructed world of international rel
focus is "always and expressly on insecurit
Seen in terms of these analytical commitm
constructivism are as follows:
1. What is understood as reality is socially constructed.
2. Constructions of reality reflect, enact, and reify relations of power. In turn, certain agents
and groups play a privileged role in the production and the reproduction of these realities.
3. A critical constructivist approach denaturalizes [through cultural lenses] dominant

constructions, . . . and facilitates the imaginings of alternative life-worlds (Weldes et al: 1 3).
I delineate below some of these substantive commitments as they contribute to the critical
social constructivists' conceptual elaborations on insecurity, identity, and, the state in I.R.
Conceptual Elaborations :
1 . What is understood as reality is socially constructed.
In analyzing their basic substantive claim that realities are socially constructed, Weldes
et al conceptualize culture (and its relation to insecurity) in their meaning-producing roles.
Viewing culture as encompassing "a multiplicity of discourses or codes of intelligibility through
which meaning is produced," Weldes et al conceptualize "insecurities [as] cultural in the
sense that they are produced in and out of the contexts within which people give meanings to
their actions and experiences and make sense of their lives" (Weldes et al: 1-2). In this
sense, meanings of insecurities are not given; rather, inhere in the constructions of social
practices and categories, which , made possible by discourses or codes of intelligibilities,
provide the frame through which t

construction of identities take place th
meanings, then constructed identitie
then, "emerges in various ways out o
"the self and the other, or multiple
Muppidi 1 999 in this volume).
Insecurities, culturally constituted, r

On this view, Weldes et al (contra th
and insecurity as mutually distinct e
relationship" to self-identity (Weldes e
take place through an intersubjectiv
"established in relation to a series of di
(Weldes et al: 11). "Thus, there is alw
difference can ...be transformed in
insecurity" (Weldes et al, 11). This id
"insecurity, rather than being external
of the very process of establishing and
In essence then the mutually constitut
only creates insecurities but in turn
constructed identities (Weldes et al:
2. Constructions of reality reflect,

agents and groups play a privileg
of these realities.
If conventional security studies treat the state as a natural fact, Weldes et al

conceptualize the state as a "cultural entity," i.e., "it is an effect of a set of statist discourses"
(Weldes et al: 14). State as a "cultural" entity means that statist discourses produce the state
as an entity with particular kinds of interests in representing its own security, and, is
simultaneously the self/subject (that defines security) and an object (that faces its constructed
insecurity). As a result of this discursive constitution and transposition of the subject/object
position, the state becomes the central focus of its discourses on security, i.e., the interests
that are articulated in these discourses are interests of the state and insecurities that are
projected are also the insecurities of the state. Thus, the identities and insecurities of states
rather than being given emerge out of a process of statist discourses "through which individuals-
-whether state officials, leaders, or members of nationalist movements. . . describe to themselves
and others the world in which they live. . . "(Weldes et al: 14; also see Niva 1 999 in this collective).
By authoritatively defining what they perceive as the real, these statist discourses of insecurity
"remove from [their] analysis and political debate what are, in fact particular, interested
constructions, thus endowing those particular re

(Weldes et al: 17; see Niva 1999 in this collec
Constructions of identities and insecurities thus invoked as statist discourses also
relate to the mutually constituted nature of statist identities and their insecurities-which also
explain Weldes et al's analytical elaboration of how discourses of insecurity work. In this
context, as Weldes (1999: 57) claims the mutually constituted nature of statist identities and
their insecurities occur in two complementary ways: first, state identity enables crises; and
second, crises enable state identity. The first is explained by the fact that "crises must be
crises for some subject, and, in the context of an international politics defined around states,
that subject is typically... the state" (Weldes: 58). The second proposition, i.e., crises enable
state identity, means that crises benefit states in two ways: "they facilitate the internal
consolidation of state power. . . [and] allow for the (re)articulation of relations of identity/difference
as a means of both constituting and securing state identity" (Weldes 1999: 58). In this sense,
constitution of identities is often a reciprocal process. As each subject seeks to perform its
identity, it threatens others, whose identities are consolidated in response. . .The two identities
are thus in significant respects mutually constitutive through a relation of insecurity (Weldes
et al: 15-6).
3. A critical constructivist approach denaturalizes [through cultural lenses]

dominant constructions,. . . and facilitates the imaginings of alternative life-worlds.
The fact that cultures are composed of multiple discourses and that the world is
represented in different and competing ways- means that any representation can be potentially
contested. This leads to the third conceptual proposition of critical social constructivism, i.e.,
"denaturalizing" the taken for granted, which requires "...going beyond the agent's [state's]
point of view to examine those structures of meaning and social practices that are the conditions
of possibility for the agent's self-understandings in the first place. . . "(Weldes et al 1 999: 1 9-20).
Denaturalization not only renders to critical scrutiny agents such as states and communities,
as also done by Doty (1993), but also entails a more critical exploration of how agent's
common-sense and meaning-producing understandings of the world are ultimately
representative of "the point of view of the (insecure) political actor, generally the state" (Weldes
et al:20). I proceed below to examine how these conceptual, analytical, and substantive
refinements of critical social constructivism serve to "culture" the concepts of identity, insecurity,
and the state in I.R., and how these refinements in relation to structural and the post-modem
cpnstructivism represent a more "cultural" and hence a more critical elaboration of these
concepts in I.R.
Critical Social Constructivism : "Culturing" Identity, Insecurity, and the State in I.R.
In terms of insecurity as a concept, the critical social constructivists contribute in
providing a "cultural" explanation of in

(Weldes et al 1999: 1). In doing so, W
(1 993) variants of constructivism, tha
the basis of the meanings that the obje
Yet, their contribution in proving a m
mere inter-subjective constructivist pr
exploring how "meaning-producing" co
attribute meanings in creating insecu
construction of insecurity is not m
intertextuality, where "language of tex
Weldes et al, the process of construc
where, culture, "as encompassing a m
constitute "a field on which are fough
et al:2; also see Muppidi 1999 in this co
simply entail the social work of prod
also draw attention to how "such eff
16). Herein, Weldes et al extend their
cultural power that construct insecu
and Doty's (1993:305) reliance on str
Insecurities as cultural production

work through which identities of subj
et al 1 999: 2). In this context, Weldes
of identities lies in showing that th
insecurities) are not simply a creatio
rhetoric (as Doty's post-modern constr
boiled down to the causally-produce
collective meanings) are relational to an
the others, and the social world (as W
for Weldes et al, constructions of iden
discourses and codes of intelligibilities
it: they tell us what the world is and h
Linguistically, therefore, while discour
of identities and insecurities, non-li
serve in the production and transfor
common-sense reality (Weldes et al: 1
contested codes and representatio
discursive constitutions of identities
This reciprocal constitution of identities and

producing roles also implicate an "anthropomorph
Weldes et al, depart from both the structural an
whom really forgo a structure-oriented concep
(1 992) conception of the state as a fundamentally
are products of and are codified through rules, no
in Doty's (1993) analysis, the state, despite a
constitutes "modes of subjectivities," remain
relation to a systemic hierarchy (Doty:305). C
state as a structured entity, Weldes et al con
entity, which, a product of statist discourses, pro
with particular kinds of interests in representati
In this sense, statist discourses in their meaning-
of power - given that the constitution of stat
constructions of statist identities and their co
(1999: 14) claims at the heart of the Cuban M
subject - the United States - with a particular, di
What is also significant from Weldes et a

an anthropomorphized concept is how statist
mobilize state subjects in support of its inter
ideological orientations of state leaders not only c
but also draw from a plethora of authoritative
(Weldes: 1999:55; also, see Milliken 1999 in this
between statist identities and their insecuritie
statist discourses will present or perceive a cr
on their cultural contexts, i.e., thecultural project
their threats or interpret the same threat. As W
constructed as crises, or not constructed as cri
relation to the discursively constituted identities
Yet, discourses are not perfectly coherent

contradictions render possible resistances to
transformation possible (Weldes et al:16).This
critical social constructivists term as "denatu
exposition, implies that culturally-produced mean
contested codes and representations) are themselv
not only explicates that ť .e world of inter-state
structural and post-modern constructivists wo
(1999) to analytically extend this soc

that is "culturally" constructed by acto
a fluid body of codes, meanings, and
world) serves as the battlefield on whic
and, transformative potentials of ident
Critical Social Constructivism : Im
This article has established a narrativ

heuristically for the purpose of this art
and conceptual refinements of critic
understanding of the concepts of ident
suggesting that critical social construct
critical social constructivists (such as
modern constructivists (such as Doty) a
article an ultimate definition of what is
different approaches to I.R. Rather, by
the state I have sought to push the bou
that critical social constructivism tha
constructivism, adds significant con
constructivists), namely how discourse
meanings of identities, insecurities, an
The analytical, conceptual, and

constructivists have implications for th
analysis to study the cultural produc
critical constructivist engagements wit
particular objects of knowledge, wh
"foregrounding the supplemental relat
Moreover, their inter-disciplinary eng
of culture also draws attention to this
the mainstream or the structural/post-m
social constructivists' engagements wit
defining security can be a cultural cho
(Weldes et al 1999: 25).
A corollary of this understanding al

discourses as sites of cultural power
attention the culturally constituted lin
and their corresponding construction
to constitute and re-enforce their self-constructed

their identities, and insecurities are mutually const
Finally, because discourses bring with them

constitute the world, statist representations of
important sources of power in their "cultural" ma
which "disciplinary objects of knowledge have b
power," the critical social constructivists expose th
international relations (Weldes et al 1 999: 23). In d
the state and security practices that inform the in
and terms of engagement with the mainstream, in
world of international relations.
Notes :
1. The post-positivist movement in I.R. refers to those groups of scholars who since the late 1970s hav
challenged the rationalist-positivist (i.e., the mainstream) ways of approaching I.R. Including but not
limited to the post-structuralists, the post-moderns, the post-colonials, the post modern/post-colonia
feminists, and the constructivists this group challenges the Enlightenment-based forms of knowledg
production that underlies mainstream/positivist I.R. (although in pursuit of this endeavor the "posts"
have taken different directions with different implications for post-positivist I.R). For a summary see
Chowdhry and Nair 2002.
2. Since, I contest the usage of the term "critical" and instead suggest that the term post-moder
constructivism is a better one in denoting constructivists with a post-modern bend, I use the term pos
modern constructivists in parenthesis.
3. Post-modern I.R., which arose in the 1980s as a challenge to positivi st/scientific I.R, is made up of t
critical perspectives : critical interpretivism and radical interpretivism. While radical interpretivism
drawing from the intertextual approaches of Derrida (1978) and Foucault (1980) reject logo-centris
and power hierarchy as modes of knowledge-formation in I.R. (see Der Derian and Shapiro 1989, an
others), critical interpretivism refrains from such radicalism and concentrates on the socio-linguisti
turn in analyzing the framing of subjects/ objects in I.R. (see Biersteker 1989, and others).
4. Campbell's (1994) scholarship might be considered by some as a seminal example of post-modem

scholarship. While I do not dispute this, I also deem Campbell's expositions as indicative of
constructivist turn in I.R., given that it suggests a cultural analysis of foreign policy practices in I.R.
5. Presupposition "creates background knowledge and in doing so constructs a particular kind of worl
in which certain things are recognized as true. " Prediction " involves the linking of certain qualities t
particular subjects through the use of predicates and adverbs and adjectives that modify them. " The
second, leads to the third, i.e., "subject positioning," i.e., "...a particular kind of subject is, in large par
the relationship [in which] that subject is positioned in [relation] to other kinds of subjects" (Doty 1993
306-07).
References :
• Adler, Emmanuel (1997). "Seizing the Middle Ground : Constructivism in World Politics."
Journal of International Relations, 3(3): 319-363.
• Barkin, Samuel (2003). "Realist Constructivism. " International Studies Review, 5 (2): 325-3
• Barnett, Michael (1996). "Identity and Alliances in the Middle East. " In The Culture of National
Norms and Identity in World Politics (Peter Katzenstein, ed.), NY: Columbia University Press.
• Biersteker, T.J. (1989). "Crítical Reflections on Post-Positivism in International Relations." Int
Studies Quarterly, 33 (3) .263-267.
• Campbell , David (1994). "Foreign Policy

Economy as Political Space (Stephen Rus
• Chowdhry, Geeta and Sheila Nair (2002)

Race, Class, and Gender. London: Routled
• Der Denan, James and Michael Shapiro (1

Books.
• Derrida, Jacques (1978). Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Doty, Roxanne (1993). "Foreign Policy as Social Construction : A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S
Counterinsungency Policy in the Philippines." International Studies Quarterly, 37 (3):297-320.
• Fierke, Karin (2007). Critical Approaches to International Security. Cambridge: Polity.
• Foucault, Michel (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Ed, and trans, by
C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
• Hopf, Ted (1998) "The Promise of Constructivism in International Theory." International Security, 23(1):
171-200.
• Jackson, Patrick and Nexon, Daniel (2004). "Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism. "
International Studies Review, 6(2):337 -341 .
• Katzenstein, Peter (ed) (1996). The Culture of National Security : Norms and Identity in Wortd Politics «
NY: Columbia University Press.
• Kratochwil, Frederick and John Ruggie (1986). " International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art
of the State. " International Organization, 40 (4): 753-775.
• Kratochwil, Frederick (2000). "Constructing a New Orthodoxy: Wendt's Social Theory of International
Politics' and the Constructivist Challenge." Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(1):73-101.
• Laffey, Mark and Jutta Weldes (1997). " Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study
of International Relations." European Journal of International Relations, 3(2): 193-237.
• MacDonald, David (2008). "Constructivism." In Security Studies : An Introduction (P. Williams, ed.),
NY: Routledge.
• Milliken, Jennifer (1999) "Intervention and Korea: Reconstructing the West in Korea." In Cultures of
Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger (Jutta Weldes et al, ed.), MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
• Muppidi, Himadeep (1999). "Postcoloniality and the Production of International Security: The Persist
Puzzle of U. S-lndian Relations. " In Cultures of Insecurity : States, Communities, and the Production
Danger (Jutta Weldes et al, ed.), MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Niva, Steve (1999). "Contested Sovereignties and Postcolonial Insecurities in the Middle East."
Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger (Jutta Weldes et al, ed
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Onuf, Nicholas (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and Internation
Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
World (Vendulka Kubálková et al, ed.), London: M. E Sh
• Price Richard and Christian Reus-Smit (1998). "Dangero

Constructivism." European Journal of International Rela
• Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2004). "Realist-Constructivism

6(2): 341-343.
• Waever, Ole (1997). The Future of International R
• Weldes, Jutta, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson, an

States, Communities, and the Production of Danger.
• Weldes, Jutta (1999). " The Cultural Production of C

of Insecurity : States, Communities, and the Prod
University of Minnesota Press.
• Wendt, Alexander (1992) m Anarchy is What States

425.

Critical Social Constructivism - "Culturing" Identity, (In) Security, and The State in International Relations Theory

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Critical Social Constructivism - "Culturing" Identity, (In) Security, and The State in International Relations Theory

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Indian Political Science Association

CRITICAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM : "CULTURING" IDENTITY, (IN) SECURITY, AND THE

CRITICAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM :

A plethora of scholarships have represented the constructivist school in International

Introduction : The Constructivist Turn

reading identity, insecurity, and the state in

by constituting a complete ontologic

My thematic exposition thus appe

Constructivism and Its Variants

(1996:4-5) offers a cultural-institutional analysis of n

Despite upholding that states' national securit

Critical Constructivists (or, post-mode

In this section, I classify those cons

Der Derian and Shapiro's (1 989) postmo

Likewise, Campbeii (1 994) through his

Seizing the Middle Ground (or, Modernist Cons

Yet, constructivists claiming to seize the middle-gr

peace among states (Adler: 322). Likewise, Hopfs (1 998

In tracing the major contours of the constructivis

Constructivism: Identity, (In) Security, and th

In the sections that follow, I offer for heuristic r

have through their analytical/conceptua

As a representative scholarship from the structural constructivists, I choose Wendťs

Structural Constructivism (Wendt: Anarchy is what States Make of It, 1992)

Wendt theory of constructivism begins as a challenge to the rationalist lenses of neo-

Wendt's concern is the "basic 'sociological' issue bracketed by rationalists - namely

In conceptualizing anarchy, Wendt's constructivism in contrast to the neorealist claims

rather, they are endogenously constituted (W

How then, for Wendt, are these intersubj

For Weridt, "collective meanings" also r

This socially constituted nature of ident

constituting sovereign identities (agent

Wendt's analytical contribution to t

Yet, for the purpose of this proj

Since it is not the major purpose of

which have influenced the later variants of c

Postmodern Constructivism (Doty: Fore

Like Wendt, Doty (1993) begins by ont

In applying her "how-possible" approach to

How the linguistic construction of reality

intelligibility" (Doty: 306-07). These

More importantly, the possibility of

How does Doty's post-modern constr

Doty's postmodern constructivist reading of

In terms of methodology, Doty seems

In sum, these epistemologica! and methodolog

Critical Social Constructivism (Weldes et a

representations of cognitive, politica

Reprosentations that constitute a cr

In suggesting an "anthropomorphized" or culturally-grounded understanding of insecurity,

Critical social constructivism emerged as an interdisciplinary engagement between I.R

Substantive and Analytical Claims

In explicating their substantive claim, i.e

1. What is understood as reality is socially constructed.

3. A critical constructivist approach denaturalizes [through cultural lenses] dominant

1 . What is understood as reality is socially constructed.

provide the frame through which t

Insecurities, culturally constituted, r

2. Constructions of reality reflect,

If conventional security studies treat the state as a natural fact, Weldes et al

constructions, thus endowing those particular re

Constructions of identities and insecurities thus invoked as statist discourses also

3. A critical constructivist approach denaturalizes [through cultural lenses]