Constructivism, English school and critical theories

International Relations · Theories of IR. The idea in plain words, the rules to remember, the mistake to avoid and a worked example, written and checked by Mega Lecture.

Test this topic free All International Relations topics

The idea

These approaches challenge realism and liberalism. Constructivism says that ideas, norms and identities shape world politics as much as material power. The interests of states are not fixed; they are formed through interaction. So anarchy has no single logic.

The English school takes a middle path. States live in anarchy but still form an international society with shared rules and institutions such as diplomacy and international law.

Marxist approaches put economic class and capitalism first. Dependency and world-systems theories argue that the rich core keeps the poor periphery underdeveloped. Feminist and post-colonial writers ask whose experience mainstream IR leaves out: women, and the peoples of the former colonies.

Rules to remember

Alexander Wendt: 'Anarchy is what states make of it' (1992); three cultures of anarchy: Hobbesian (enemies), Lockean (rivals), Kantian (friends).
Hedley Bull, 'The Anarchical Society' (1977); Martin Wight's three traditions: realist (Machiavelli), rationalist (Grotius), revolutionist (Kant).
Lenin, 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism': imperialism grows out of capitalism.
Andre Gunder Frank: dependency theory, 'the development of underdevelopment'.
Immanuel Wallerstein: world-systems theory with core, semi-periphery and periphery.
Feminist IR: J. Ann Tickner, Cynthia Enloe. Post-colonialism: Edward Said, 'Orientalism' (1978).
First great debate: idealism against realism. Second: traditionalism against behaviouralism (scientific method).

Common mistake

Students place the English school with realism because it accepts anarchy. Its point is the opposite of pure power politics: even under anarchy, states form a society with common rules.

Worked example

A writer argues that two states with similar armies can be at peace or at war depending on whether they see each other as friends or enemies, and that this view can change over time. Which approach is this?

Material power is the same in both cases, so realism cannot explain the difference.
The difference lies in how the states see each other, which is a matter of identity and shared ideas.
The claim that identities and interests are made through interaction, and can change, belongs to Wendt's approach.

Answer: Constructivism.

Ask about this

Type what you are stuck on. The helper finds the explanation, worked examples and the notes to read, free and instant.

Read the full notes

Keep going

← Liberalism, idealism and institutionalism Balance of power, alliances and collective security →Take a International Relations test