Constructivism Vs. Realism

There are therefore, many differences between constructivist and realist thought. While Realism has been popular in the past, in more recent decades it has been supplanted by differing thought like Constructivism due to apparent inadequacies in providing a more full view of international relations. For example, Neo-realism’s structure, according to Alexander Wendt, “does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other’s sovereignty, will have dynastic ties, will be revisionist or status quo powers, and so on” This is one of the critical insights that constructivism hopes to explain.

Despite differences with Realism, it is possible that a combination of both schools of thought may be used appropriately to help explain the processes of international relations. Andrew Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University, provides a few examples of how Realism is still applicable to international relations. States he,

“In Somalia, efforts to feed the starving culminated with besieged US forces gunning down women and children. In Kosovo, protecting ethnic Albanians meant collaborating with terrorists and bombing downtown Belgrade. In Iraq, a high-minded crusade to eradicate evil and spread freedom everywhere has yielded torture and prisoner abuse, thousands of noncombatant casualties, and something akin to chaos.”

These examples demonstrate to Realists the baseness of human nature and how state actors in the fight for balance of power, will do whatever it take to ensure individual security and self-interests. It is the opinion of the author of this essay, that while Constructivism explains international relations as a result of human construction through the means of norms, rules, identities, and institutions; Realism helps to explain how and perhaps just as importantly, why these norms, rules, identities, and institutions come to exist.

It can be concluded that although constructivism is an alternative approach to interpreting and understanding International relations and does conflict somewhat with Realist thought, it also however, in many ways compliments this school of thought on different levels. Due to Realisms apparent inadequacies to explain international relations as noted previously by Wendt, other schools of thought are necessary. Constructivism rises to this challenge by providing various critical insights into the international arena. It uses rules, norms, identities and institutions – constructed by mankind – to express sociopolitical interaction. Realism also helps to explain how these institutions come to exist and why they exist – as a result of inherent human drive for personal security and well being. Therefore, despite some scholars wanting to see the demise of Realist thought, Realism does indeed still play a vital role in International Relations and is complimented by critical insights extended by Constructivism.