Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Influence of Ideational Aspects in World Politics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Peacebuilding in the United Nations

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 406 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the broader theoretical framework informing the book—social constructivism or, simply, constructivism—paving the way for the study of the influence of ideational aspects (the concept of peacebuilding) in world politics (UN support to societies emerging from conflict). It offers an account of the origins of constructivism in the field of International Relations (IR) and delves into a discussion of what constructivism generally is all about: a set of social theory tenets that provide helpful insights for the study of social relations in general and world politics in particular. Finally, the chapter elaborates on how social science theories may influence political outcomes in world politics and outlines the research framework that allows for a discussion on how the concept of peacebuilding gained life and its implications for the United Nations approach to societies affected by armed conflict.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The ensuing narrative mainly builds upon Jørgensen (2010: esp. 155–164), Kratochwil (2001), Fierke and Jørgensen (2001), Guzzini (2000), and Price and Reus-Smit (1998).

  2. 2.

    To the best of my knowledge, the best overview of and engagement with Onuf’s reading of constructivism in IR is found in Zehfuss (2002: 151–195).

  3. 3.

    Contemporary scholars, however, do not necessarily equate Morgenthau’s defence of scientific inquiry with positivism; see, e.g., Ish-Shalom (2006b) and Bain (2000).

  4. 4.

    For a good overview of this process, see Toulmin (1992: esp. 45–137).

  5. 5.

    For references on what constitutes meta-theorising in social sciences and on the implications and usefulness of this exercise, see Ritzer et al. (2002) and Ritzer (1990). For discussions about meta-theory in IR, see Chernoff (2007), da Rocha (2002), and Neufeld (1995).

  6. 6.

    Giddens also suggests that social science—and theorising in social science—is a critique in itself, as it is a practice of social life. According to him, “theories and findings in the social sciences are likely to have practical (and political) consequences regardless of whether or not the sociological observer or policy-maker decides that they can be ‘applied’ to a given practical issue” (Giddens 1984: xxxv).

  7. 7.

    For reviews of research inspired by constructivism in IR, see Checkel (1998, 2004), Pouliot (2004), Finnemore and Sikkink (2001), and Hopf (1998).

  8. 8.

    Hacking goes on, stating that constructivists often hold two other claims in their writings: that “X is quite bad as it is” and that “We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed” (Hacking 1999: 6).

  9. 9.

    Elsewhere (Cavalcante 2011: esp. 24–27), I provide an overview of ‘anarchy’ in realist writings and discuss its meaning in Wendt’s earlier works.

  10. 10.

    That is, at least a minimum form of agreement. In the following chapter, I introduce the notion of minimal intelligibility to highlight this feature.

  11. 11.

    Thus understood, Ish-Shalom’s notion of public conventions may be closely associated with at least four other concepts. First, with Searle’s Background, defined as “set of nonintentional or preintentional capacities that enable intentional states of function” (Searle 1995: 129). Second, to Berger and Luckmann’s definition of common-sense as “the knowledge I [impersonal ‘I’] share with others in the normal, self-evident routines of everyday life” (Berger and Luckmann 1991: 37). Third, they are close to Habermas’ notion of lifeworld, understood as “the transcendental site where speaker and hearer meet, where they can reciprocally raise claims that their utterances fit the world (objective, social, or subjective), and where they can criticize and confirm those validity claims, settle their disagreements, and arrive at agreements” (Habermas 1987: 126). Finally, public conventions also mirror Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, understood as “a system of lasting, transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions” (Bourdieu 1977: 82–83; emphasis in original). In all cases, individuals simply assume as correct and take for granted knowledge they have about social reality. It is worth noting that the first three concepts are rather broad, referring to such things as money and its shared understanding among a large number of people. The concepts of habitus and public conventions are more restricted socially, in the sense that they refer to specific social groups in particular contexts.

  12. 12.

    The author elaborates in more detail the concept of rhetorical capital in Ish-Shalom (2008).

References

  • Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, R. K. (1984). The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audi, R. (1999). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, W. (2000). Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered. Review of International Studies, 26(3), 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage [Orig. 1986].

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books [Orig. 1966].

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalcante, F. (2011). A Construção da Paz em Cenários de Anarquia: Uma Inversão do Foco de Análise. Relações Internacionais, 32, 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (1997). Ideas and International Political Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (1998). The Constructivism Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2004). Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics: A Review Essay. Review of International Studies, 30(2), 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff, F. (2007). Theory and Metatheory in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chwieroth, J. M. (2010). Capital Ideas: The IMF and the Rise of Financial Liberalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • da Rocha, A. J. R. (2002). Relações Internacionais: Teorias e Agendas. Brasília: IBRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fierke, K. M. (2010). Constructivism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 177–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fierke, K. M., & Jørgensen, K. E. (2001). Introduction. In K. M. Fierke & K. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (pp. 3–10). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1976). Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, and Peacebuilding. In J. Galtung (Ed.), Peace, War and Defence: Essays in Peace Research (Vol. II, pp. 282–304). Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press [Orig. 1976].

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. (2002). Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policy, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2006a). Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of Democratization. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 565–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2006b). The Triptych of Realism, Elitism, and Conservatism. International Studies Review, 8(3), 441–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2008). The Rhetorical Capital of Theories: The Democratic Peace and the Road to the Roadmap. International Political Science Review, 29(3), 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2011). Political Constructivism: The Political Construction of Social Knowledge. In C. Bjola & M. Kornprobst (Eds.), Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld, and Shared Reasoning (pp. 231–246). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2013). Democratic Peace: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, D. S. L. (Ed.). (2002). International Relations and the “Third Debate”: Postmodernism and Its Critics. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, K. E. (2010). International Relations Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jupille, J., Caporaso, J. A., & Checkel, J. T. (2003). Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 36(1/2), 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O., & Krasner, S. D. (1998). International Organization and the Study of World Politics. International Organization, 52(4), 645–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. (1995). Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A., & Lynch, C. (2007). Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F. (2000). Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(1), 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F. (2001). Constructivism as an Approach to Interdisciplinary Study. In K. M. Fierke & K. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (pp. 13–35). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F., & Ruggie, J. G. (1986). International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State. International Organization, 40(4), 753–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapid, Y. (1989). The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill [Orig. 1948].

    Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld, M. (1995). The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pio, C. (2001). A Estabilização Heterodoxa no Brasil: Idéias e Redes Políticas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 16(46), 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. (2004). The Essence of Constructivism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. (2007). ‘Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, R., & Reus-Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, 4(3), 259–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (1990). Metatheorizing in Sociology. Sociological Forum, 5(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G., Zhao, S., & Murphy, J. (2002). Metatheorizing in Sociology: The Basic Parameters and the Potential Contributions of Postmodernism. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 113–131). New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G. (1998b). What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 11–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1992). Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. (1996). The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 149–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1969). Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing National Interests. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldes, J. (1999). Constructing National Interest: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. E. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. E. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. E. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United Nations, Kabul, Afghanistan

    Fernando Cavalcante

Authors
  1. Fernando Cavalcante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cavalcante, F. (2019). On the Influence of Ideational Aspects in World Politics. In: Peacebuilding in the United Nations. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03864-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation