We’ve finally come to the final instalment of this series! It’s been something like three months in the works, but please enjoy these last three theories.
If you haven’t already read them, click to read Part One and Part Two first. Then, without further ado, let’s jump into it!
Constructivism, aka “The Self Help Book Of IR Theory”
Constructivism is a theory often associated with the end of the Cold War, arguing that the social world is of our own making. Actors, usually those with power, continually shape and reshape the nature of international relations through their actions and interactions. We create our own reality.
For example, imagine the UK has 500 nuclear weapons, while North Korea has only one. Which country is more dangerous to the US?
This relationship between the three countries is perceived the same way by all three of them; this is called intersubjectivity. This intersubjectivity, or shared understanding, informs the basis of interaction between the three countries.
This example also shows that the nuclear weapons themselves have no meaning without their social context.
Constructivism sees the world and everything we know about it or think we can know about the nature of the world. This refers to the nature of reality, or ontology, and the nature of knowledge, or epistemology. Constructivism goes beyond the material reality, including the effects of ideas and beliefs on world politics. Reality is always under construction, and meanings can change over time depending on beliefs and ideas.
Feminism, aka “Smash The Patriarchy, Baby!”
I know what you’re thinking. Feminism? An IR theory? It’s more likely than you think.
From the outset of human history, women have been almost completely absent from both the theory and practice of international relations. Women are largely kept out of decision-making and institutional structures, “high politics,” the state, and the military. Keep in mind, we cannot point to the isolated “great women” of history to refute this claim—heroes though they are, they were usually the exception rather than the norm, and often succeeded and were applauded due to taking on traditionally masculine traits. International relations has always been, in this sense, a highly masculine discipline. It has also long been “gender-blind,” failing to acknowledge the impact of gender on our world. Further, international relations historically has tended to operate on the assumption that women’s day-to-day lives are neither impacting or impacted by international relations. The domestic sphere where women “belong,” after all, cannot possibly have to do with the work of the big, important bureaucrats.
That’s sarcasm, by the way. I would like to see a world where society can continue to function without its domestic sphere.
In any case, feminism as an IR theory seeks to challenge the historical bases of international relations, taking women and gender seriously as factors which have long shaped our world. It also places an emphasis on intersectionality, and seeks to deconstruct gender roles in society—who decided that the domestic sphere was an inherently feminine , anyway? And furthermore, who decided that femininity was the inferior end of the spectrum?
Feminist IR theory makes women visible and gives them agency, but it also exposes gender-based violence for the normal state of affairs that it is in our society. Violence against women is seen in some cases as a currency even—to rape the women of a city was and is as disgustingly normal for a conquering army as to loot the homes of the inhabitants. Further, domestic and sexual violence have been constants in society, not aligning with traditional periods of stability and peace. While states and men are at peace, women are constantly at war. This is what feminism seeks to rectify.
Post-colonialism, aka “The West Projects Its Insecurities. Again.”
Post-colonialism is first an foremost an examination of how formerly colonized regions experience IR. It posits that Western perceptions of the non-West are a result of the legacies of colonization and imperialism.
Like feminism, post-colonialism interacts heavily with other theories, asking questions which have previously gone ignored. It draws attention to IR theory’s traditional neglect of the intersections of empire, race, ethnicity, gender, and class.
Like constructivism, post-colonialism is somewhat tied to the idea that society perpetuates itself. Post-colonialist theory operates around discourses, both written and spoken. These discourses—i.e. the way we talk about the world—have built the narrative of Western superiority and have been used to justify colonialism in the name of progress. For example, they paint non-Western societies as primitive, hyper-masculine, effeminate, aggressive, or childlike, when this is the farthest thing from the truth.
If you’ve read this far, thank you for sticking around for this series! I hope you learned something interesting.
