The Crisis of Constructivism and Methodological Problems of Studying International Relations
Director of the Center for Global Problems, Institute of International Studies, MGIMO University, firstname.lastname@example.org_id: 1447 |
Chief Research Fellow, Institute of International Studies, MGIMO University, email@example.com_id: 123521 | ORCID: 0000-0002-4845-1391 |
Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, MGIMO University, firstname.lastname@example.org_id: 639897 |
The reported study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research according to the research project № 19-011-31119.
The article studies some characteristics of contemporary constructivism and its role in development of IR theory today. Constructivism has been described as a methodology that studies “subjective” aspects of IR: identities, values, beliefs, world views. The notion of constructivism here includes a body of critical theories of IR that embraces more moderate variants (as constructivism in a narrow sense making some concessions to scientism) and more radical variants such as postmodernism, feminism, postcolonialism and different “critical theories”. Here, analysis of debates between constructivists on the one hand, and proponents of neoliberalism and neorealism on the other is conducted from the perspective of notions studying “subjective” and “objective” aspects of IR. A multifaceted analysis of the reasons of constructivism’s crisis is conducted in the article. The authors come to the conclusion that the crisis of constructivism in the West is connected to the general crisis of IR theory. This includes: 1) the decline of practical expert activities in universities and its shift to think tanks; 2) the spread of methodological eclecticism in experts’ works; 3) lowering prestige of international area studies in the universities; 4) the relative decline of general humanitarian culture within IR studies in universities; 5) prioritizing quantitative methods over qualitative ones in universities, occasionally without even a clear understanding of the tasks, for which this methods are applied. The article justifies the view that, in the European continent, constructivism in IR still plays an important role as opposed to in US universities. Since today the issues of cultural and inter-civilization conflicts, collisions of ideologies and value systems, and information wars are so widespread (which corresponds to the subject of constructivism), the authors defend the point of view that studying the theory and methodology of constructivism is topical in Russia today.
Alker H. 1996. Rediscovery and Reformulations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geertz C. 1993. The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana press.
Gilpin R. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kassirer E. 1944. An Essay on Man. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Kazantsev A., Sakwa R. 2012. New ‘Dividing Lines’ in Europe: A Crisis of Trust in European–Russian Relations. – Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol. 45. No. 3-4. P. 289-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. postcomstud.2012.07.003
Keohane R.O., Nye J.S. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Kindleberger Ch. 1986. The World in Depression 1929-1939. Berkeley: University of California Press.
King C. 2015. The Decline of International Studies: Why Flying Blind is Dangerous. – Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-06-16/decline-international-studies (accessed 17.06.2019).
Koch N. 2016. Is a “Critical” Area Studies Possible? – Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Vol. 34. No. 5. P. 807-814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816656524
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511559044
Kratochwil F., Hall R. 1993. Medieval Tales: Neorealist ‘Science’ and the Abuse of History. – International Organization. Vol. 47. No. 3. P. 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300028034
Kubik J. 2015. Between Contextualization and Comparison: A Thorny Relationship between East European Studies and Disciplinary “Mainstreams”. – East Europeans Politics and Societies: and Cultures. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 352-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325414556128
Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400009061
Lapid Y. 1989. The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era. – International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 235-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
Nye J.S. 2002. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. London: Longman.
Onuf N. 1989. World of Our Making. Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South California Press.
Onuf N. 1995. Intervention for a Common Good. – Beyond Westphalia? State Sovereignty and International Intervention. Ed. by Mastanduno M., Lyons G. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. P. 34-58. https://doi.org/10.7202/703607ar
Rosenau J.N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schelling T. 1960. The Strategy of Conflicts. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Smith S. 2000. The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science? – British Journal of Politics & International Relations. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 374-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856x.00042
Smith S. 2007. Introduction. – International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Ed. by T. Dunne, M. Kuki, S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stigler G.J. 1984. Economics – the Imperial Science? – Scandinavian Journal of Economics. Vol. 86. No. 3. P. 301-313.
Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wendt A. 1999. Social Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alekseeva T.A. 2016. Evristicheskij potencial konstruktivizma v miropoliticheskih i mezhdunarodnyh issledovaniyah [Heuristic Potentiality of Constructivism in Political and International Studies]. – Politicheskaya nauka pered vyzovami global’nogo i regional’nogo razvitiya [Political Science and Challenges of Global and regional Development]. Ser. “Rossijskaya politicheskaya nauka. Istoriya i perspektivy”. Moscow: Aspect Press. P. 66-90. (In Russ.)
Alekseeva T.A. 2019. Konstruktivizm v mezhdunarodno-politicheskih issledovaniyah [Constructivism in International and Political Studies]. – Sovremennaya politicheskaya nauka: metodologiya [Modern Political Science: Methodology]. Ed. by O.V. Gaman-Golutvina, A.I. Nikitin. Moscow: Aspect Press. P. 293-315. (In Russ.)
Dilthey W. 1996. Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie (Russ. ed.: Dilthey W. Opisatel’naya psihologiya. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia).
Foucault M. 1994. Les Mots et les Choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines (Russ. ed.: Foucault M. Slova i veshchi: arheologiya gumanitarnyh nauk. Saint Petersburg: A-cad).
Husserl E. 1986. Krizis evropejskogo chelovechestva i filosofiya (Crisis of Europian Mankind and Philosophy). – Voprosy filosofii. № 3. P. 101-116.
Husserl E. 2002. Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. – Logos. No. 1. P. 132-143. (In Russ.)
Kasatkin P.I., Silantieva M.V. 2017. The Anthropological Aspect of Global Education Models: Problems and Solutions. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 137-149. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.06.10
Rickert H. Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft (Russ. ed.: Rickert H. Nauki o prirode i nauki o kul’ture. Moscow: Respublika).
Sergeyev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Petrov K.E. 2017. The Policy of “Mainstream” and Its Alternatives in the Modern Western World: on the Way from the World Economic Crisis to “Impossible Politics?” – Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 8-29 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.03.02
Sergeev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Petrov K. E., Medvedeva S.M. 2018. The Crisis of Contemporary U.S. and EU Party Systems: Causes and Characteristics. – Polis. Political studies. No. 2. P. 130-149. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.02.10
Weber M. 1980. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Herausgegeben von Johannes Winckelmann (Russ. ed.: Weber M. Issledovaniya po metodologii nauk (Studies on Methodology of Science). Vol. 1. Moscow: INION).
Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A.,
International relations theory: on the threshold of new «Great Debates»?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2
Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M.,
What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1
Pavlova E.B., Romanova T.A.,
Debates in International Relations Theory: Rethinking Interdisciplinarity. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No2
Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A.,
“The Great Debates”: The Means of Structuring or Periodization of International Relations Theory?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No4
The Debates about “Great Debates”: How to Structure the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No6