Constructivism theory (0)

As a paradigm or worldview, constructivism (as a learning theory) states that learning is an active , contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation. Each person has a different interpretation and construction of knowledge process. The learner is not a blank slate ( tabula rasa) but brings past experiences and cultural factors to a situation
The term „Constructivism“ was first introduced to IR theory in 1989 by Nicholas Onuf. It was first considered as an interpretive meta-theory, a reflectivist approach . It emphasizes the social construction of world affairs as opposed to the claim of (neo)realists that international politics is shaped by the rational - choice behaviour/ decisions of egoist actors who pursue their interests by making utilitarian calculations to maximize their benefits and minimize their losses , hence the materiality of international structures . In spite of itself currently forming “a new mainstream” in international relations theory as some scholars maintain , constructivism might still be seen as “an oppositional movement within IR theory” and “a genuinely radical alternative ” to such conventionally entrenched IR theories as neorealism and neoliberalism, or a “distinctive approach” to international relations that stresses the social, ideational and intersubjective character of world politics.
The major thesis of constructivism is that the international system is “socially constructed,” that is, it “consists of, “the ways in which human beings think and interact with one another .” In contrast to realism , for which international relations are driven by the states’ security and material interests defined in terms of power , and to liberal internationalism that concentrates upon the interdependency of international actors and their operation within institutional constraints , constructivism considers international politics as a sphere of interaction which is shaped by the actors’ identities and practices and influenced by constantly changing normative institutional structures. 
For all theories of international relations, the world is in anarchy , and because of this it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. Anarchy, for theories that deal with international relations, refers to the world as a whole having no government . There are individual states that have varying degrees of power and sovereignty in their own land , but clearly there is no single state that makes laws for the whole world. This presents problems and dangers for entities operating in the anarchic world and a need for a system that will guide the actions of these entities. 
While for neorealists “anarchy” is a determining condition of international system that by itself interprets competition and conflict as endless strong possibilities, and thus the international system a more conflictual than peaceful environment, for constructivists anarchy alone does not make much sense as it cannot by itself bring about a predetermined state of affairs among state actors. Rather, what makes much sense for the constructivist is that under anarchy different social structures and arrangements , cooperative and conflictual, can be formed and defined on the basis of actors’ social identities, and accordingly, the way they construct their national interests and security.
In other words , as Alexander Wendt puts it, “anarchy is what states make of it,” that is, the “ nature ” of international anarchy appears to be conflictual if states show a conflictual behaviour towards each other, and cooperative if they behave cooperatively towards one another. Some words about Alexander Wendt – he is a political scientist and one of the core social constructivist scholars in international relations. The critical questions about the nature of anarchy and the extent to which actions and behaviours of states result from an interplay between the international “structure” of power and the “process” of state-to-state interaction were raised by Wendt in 1992, in his path -breaking article “Anarchy is what States make of it: The Social construction of power politics.” Does the absence of centralized political authority force states to play competitive power politics? Can international conditions overcome this logic and under what conditions? What in anarchy is given and immutable and what is amenable to change ? The general neorealist and neoliberal answer to these questions is that “anarchies are necessarily ‘self-help’ systems” in which states have to struggle for their security and survival due to the absence of a security- providing central order as well as a lack of collective security guarantees; a condition which gives rise to the “inherently competitive dynamic of security dilemma and collective action problem.” In answering so, therefore , Wendt contends , neorealist and neoliberal scholars of international relations ignore “questions of identity - and interest -formation.”Wedndt’s argument: [S]elf-help and power politics do not follow either logically or causally from anarchy and that if today we find ourselves in a self-help world, this is due to process, not structure. There is no “logic” of anarchy apart from the practices that create and instantiate one structure of identities and interests rather than another; structure has no existence or causal powers apart from process. Self-help and power politics are institutions , not essential features of anarchy. Anarchy is what states make of it.
While identities tell “who or what actors are,” interests designate “what actors want” and show their behavioral motivations. “Interests,” argues Wendt, “presuppose identities because an actor cannot know what it wants until it knows who it is, and since identities have varying degrees of cultural content so will interests.” Without interests, however , identities lack “motivational force” and cannot explain action which results from a combination of “ desire ” and “ belief .”
In his groundbreaking Social Theory of International Politics (1999), he articulates the central tenets of constructivism and, drawing on the philosophical views of Thomas Hobbes (realism), John Locke (father of classical liberalism) and Immanuel Kant , theorizes three cultures of anarchy characterized respectively by “enmity (hostility),” “rivalry,” and “ friendship .” 
Other influencial constructivists are Emanuel Adler, Michael Barnett, John Gerard Ruggie, Martha Finnemore, Peter Katzenstein