Antje Wiener Constructivism: The Limits of Bridging Gaps Introduction emanated from an interest in theorising > social ontologies. By focusing on the impact of the This article explores the different social in world politics construc- conceptual paths generated by the inter- tivists have generated theoretical est in the social in world politics. To that debates with a potential for inter- end, it focuses on constructivist work on disciplinarity that leads beyond the norms bringing to bear the considerable boundaries of international rela- integrative and interdisciplinary poten- tions theory (IR).1 Especially the role tial which norms have generated as a and function of social facts (Ruggie research object. Thus, not only con- 1998b) and the influence of social prac- structivists but also legal scholars and tices (Wendt 1987; Koslowski and Krato- sociologists consider norms as highly rel- chwil 1994) have facilitated an enhanced evant in their respective disciplines. The understanding of the social construction article scrutinises studies which identify of world politics. Theorising the impact the powerful impact of norms and which of the social has motivated a broad range have significantly contributed to theory- of research projects and theoretical building based on the constructivist debate in IR following the observation of axiom of the politically relevant social. once leading United States constructivists It is argued that, despite considerable that ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism are progress in assessing the impact of the “undersocialized” in the sense that they social on key categories in world politics pay insufficient attention to the ways such as e.g. actors, institutions, organisa- in which the actors in world politics tions, interaction, and political arenas, are socially constructed. This common the integrative potential of norms, in thread has enabled a three-cornered particular with a view to the oft empha- debate with Neorealists and Neoliberals sised bridge-building between opposing to emerge’ (Wendt 1999:4). Subsequently, standpoints, remains to be scrutinised constructivism was established as a regarding the impact of the ‘construc- counter movement to neorealism and tivist turn’ (Checkel 1998) in IR. The neoliberalism which often are sum- article proceeds to apply the bridge marised as rationalist approaches to IR.2 metaphor by situating core construc- Following debates about ontology among tivist contributions as “stations” on a constructivists and rationalists,3 con- semi-circle above a baseline, i.e. the ana- structivist theoretical innovations were lytically constructed bridge above the generated by a range of positions that epistemological abyss (see Figure 3).4 As JIRD (2003) 6(3), 252-275 252 Copyright 2003 by Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre of International Relations Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3 the following elaborates in more detail, According to this perspective, ‘rules and the bridge does extend the terrain for norms are viewed as means to maintain discussion among opposing theoretical social order’ (Kratochwil 1989:1). They positions. However, at the same time, maintain the order of society.5 Both lead- the process of bridge-building offers ing questions have evolved into two dis- insights into emerging conflictive issues tinguishable theoretical approaches. Even among constructivists. This article seeks though the second approach does not to shed light on these issues. It argues work with explicit reference to the lead- that they are highlighted particularly ing question highlighted above, the range well by research on norms which has of contributions focusing on the societal focused on two insights, including first order in world politics does advance a the theoretical challenges of assessing conception of norms that is clearly distin- Constructivism: the concept of intersubjectivity and the guishable from the first approach. In what The Limits of interrelation between structure and follows, the two approaches are therefore Bridging Gaps agency (Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986; referred to according to the umbrella Wendt 1987); and second, the recogni- terms of compliance approach and tion that international politics is not societal approach, respectively.6 Both exclusively negotiated in international should be considered as offering comple- settings but in transnational and nation- mentary and not necessarily competing al contexts as well (Zürn 1997; Risse et al. views on how to study the role of norms.7 1999; Müller 2001). The compliance approach is more closely So far, the role of norms has been dis- affiliated with the analytical strand of cussed along two questions. The first “modern constructivism” which addresses question of “why comply?” expresses an behavioural change as a reaction to norms interest in explaining why states comply (Katzenstein et al. 1998). In turn, the sub- with global norms in the absence of insti- stantively broader societal approach tutionalised sanctions in the anarchic brings together various analytical strands international state system (Kratochwil of research that are interested not only in 1984; Chayes and Handler Chayes 1995; the impact but also in the emergence of Koh 1997; Zürn 1997; Checkel 2001). norms which are explored as constituted Accordingly, the analytical emphasis has by the interrelation between context and been set on the regulative function, i.e. sociocultural practices. This understand- the ‘effect’ of norms in world politics ing has contributed to theory-building (Jepperson et al. 1996:52) in order to and furthering the constructivist debate explain opposing and changing sets of in particular by facilitating a perspective institutionalised causal ideas and norms on theoretical debates beyond the bound- that guide action (Katzenstein 1993:267; aries of IR (see e.g. Guzzini 2000; Fierke Sikkink 1993:161). The second question, and Jørgensen 2001). ‘what makes the world hang together?’ The following scrutinises construc- focuses on normatively and culturally tivist research on norms with reference established reference points in the organ- to the two challenges that are taken as a isation of ‘new transnational political yardstick for successfully theorising the orders’ (Ruggie 1998b; March and Olsen social, including (1) the theoretical ap- 1998, respectively). It is about the con- preciation of intersubjectivity and (2) struction and implementation of the the horizontal and vertical extension of meaning of norms which are ascribed a relevant political arenas in world poli- stabilising yet not necessarily a stable role. tics. Both challenges overlap in the cen- 253 Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3 tral question of how to conceptualise ture (alongside material conditions) can interaction as the process which consti- determine the interests and identity of tutes meaning (Tilly 1998). The imple- agents, rather than seeking to locate the mentation of norms in different political power of norms in the process whereby they arenas depends on the successful media- are created in the first place. tion of this meaning. In the 1980s con- structivist work focused on precisely As a result, the crucial question about this problem. For example, the early the emergence and decay of norms remains work of Wendt (1987; cf. critically a theoretical challenge that stands to be Guzzini and Leander 2001) built on the addressed by IR scholars to this day Giddensian concept of structuration (Kratochwil 1984:690; Kowert and Legro Antje which had been developed within the 1996; Stewart 2001). The consequence is a Wiener framework of reflexive sociology and conceptually dire straits in IR, posing an which stresses the duality of structures. important theoretical challenge in the area Thus, according to Giddens (1979:69), of norm research, in particular, in the areas the ‘structural properties of social sys- of foreign and security policy.8 tems are both the medium and the out- The article’s argument will be devel- come of the practices that constitute oped in three steps. The first step offers those systems.’ This originally key in- a concise summary of the core argu- sight for any robust assessment of the ments of the constructivist turn and its social construction of reality as a process consequences (second section). The has been increasingly abandoned howev- second step critically elaborates the sub- er. That shift in theoretical emphasis stantive input generated by this turn. culminated in the 1990s when the mod- This assessment is organised according ern strand of constructivism developed a to variation in research interest and the- neo-Durkheimian approach to the role oretical approach. The different re- of social facts, thus turning away from search perspectives are located as sta- the early constructivists’ insights from tions on a bridge according to their reflexive sociology. This functional be- ontological preferences on the one hand, haviourist’s take on constructivism has and their respective conceptual distinc- inserted a considerable conceptual barri- tion from both rationalist and reflec- er to furthering the analytical apprecia- tivist standpoints, on the other (third tion of intersubjectivity. The step section). The final step highlights the towards analysing the mutual constitu- disputed perceptions of the input of the tion of structure and agency, which was duality of structures on the quality of of considerable importance to the begin- norms as constructed and structuring.