Social Constructivism: International Relations Approach

2.2.1 Constructivism

Social Constructivism is one of international relations approach. This approach challenged the rationalism and positivism of neorealism and neoliberalism. One of constructivism character is its emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material structures, the role of identity in shaping political action and on the mutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures (Burchill et al. 2005: 188).

The term “constructivism” was first introduced by Nicholas Onuf in his book World in Our Making. According to Viotti and Kauppi, Constructivism differs from neo-realist and neo-liberal who believes that identities and interest are given. Constructivist argues that states do not simply react to their environment

It has also taken the idea that states are more than just a system, it is a society that has pushed this idea to a new level of theoretical and conceptual sophistication. In its journey in becoming one of the international relations prominent theory, constructivism was developed into three different forms, systemic, unit-level, and holistic constructivism.

In systemic constructivism, it adopted a ‘third-image’ perspective and focusing on interaction between unitary state actors. Consequently, everything that exists or occurs within domestic political realm is ignored. The most prominent figure in this form is Alexander Wendt. Wendt views that state identity will inform its interests and its actions. In his writing, Social Theory of International Politics (1999) and Anarchy is What States Make of It (1992), defend systemic-constructivist more than the other forms of

described nationalism as a feeling of unity, a sense of collective unity that turns large groups into extended family. In his writing, Is Nationalism Good for You, Las Casas questioned the effect Nationalism brought to a country as most scholars’ view nationalism negatively. However, in his research, he believes that as nationalism increases, countries become wealthier, less corrupt, and more legally binding. The several cases where nationalism goes wrong, such as Nazi Germany and civil war in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. He views, that it is because the sense of nationalism was not counterbalanced with moral doctrine that value self-control and compassion. Both Kohn and las Casas definition of nationalism is suitable for the meaning of nationalism that I imagined that United Kingdom had. This writing also supports Renan notion that I used as the main definition in this