The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review Essay

The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism Dale C. Copeland A Review Essay Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 For more than a decade realism, by most accounts the dominant paradigm in international relations theory, has been under assault by the emerging paradigm of constructivism. One group of realists—the structural (or neo-/systemic) realists who draw inspiration from Kenneth Waltz’s seminal Theory of International Politics1 —has been a particular target for constructivist arrows. Such realists contend that anarchy and the distribution of relative power drive most of what goes on in world politics. Constructivists counter that structural realism misses what is often a more determinant factor, namely, the intersubjectively shared ideas that shape behavior by constituting the identities and interests of actors. Through a series of inºuential articles, Alexander Wendt has provided one of the most sophisticated and hard-hitting constructivist critiques of structural realism.2 Social Theory of International Politics provides the ªrst book-length statement of his unique brand of constructivism.3 Wendt goes beyond the more International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 187–212© 2000 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 187 Dale C. Copeland is Associate Professor in the Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, University of Virginia. He is the author of The Origins of Major War (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000). For their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this essay, I thank Spencer Bakich, Eric Cox, John Dufªeld, Kelly Erickson, Mark Haas, Jeffrey Legro, Len Schoppa, and Dennis Smith. Portions of this essay were drawn from “Integrating Realism and Constructivism,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, September 1998. For insightful comments on that paper, I thank Michael Barnett, Miriam Fendius Elman, Iain Johnston, Andrew Kydd, Randall Schweller, Jennifer Sterling-Folker, and Alexander Wendt. 1. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979). 2. See, inter alia, Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory ,” International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Summer 1987), pp. 335–370; Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 391–425; Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 2 (June 1994), pp. 384–396; and Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995), pp. 71–81. 3. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). References to Wendt’s book are given in the text, enclosed in parentheses. moderate constructivist point that shared ideas must be considered alongside material forces in any empirical analysis. Instead he seeks to challenge the core neorealist premise that anarchy forces states into recurrent security competitions . According to Wendt, whether a system is conºictual or peaceful is a function not of anarchy and power but of the shared culture created through discursive social practices. Anarchy has no determinant “logic,” only different cultural instantiations. Because each actor’s conception of self (its interests and identity) is a product of the others’ diplomatic gestures, states can reshape structure by process; through new gestures, they can reconstitute interests and identities toward more other-regarding and peaceful means and ends. If Wendt is correct, and “anarchy is what states make of it,” then realism has been dealt a crushing blow: States are not condemned by their anarchic situation to worry constantly about relative power and to fall into tragic conºicts. They can act to alter the intersubjective culture that constitutes the system, solidifying over time the non-egoistic mind-sets needed for long-term peace. Notwithstanding Wendt’s important contributions to international relations theory, his critique of structural realism has inherent ºaws. Most important, it does not adequately address a critical aspect of the realist worldview: the problem of uncertainty. For structural realists, it is states’ uncertainty about the present and especially the future intentions of others that makes the levels and trends in relative power such fundamental causal variables. Contrary to Wendt’s claim that realism must smuggle...