Constructivism Explains More Than States' Actions

Wendt’s “Anarchy is what States Make of It” presents a unique new way to consider IR theory. Wendt’s constructivist claim is that states behave the way they do because of themselves, not because of the nature of the system. For example states only act, as realists maintain, out of survival-interest because that just what sates choose to do. Wendt’s analysis says that states can stop behaving in this way if they would just stop acting in the interest of their own security in all their actions. This leads then to the questioning of our current perceptions of IR theory. Scholars often discuss the rise and fall of certain IR theories, and it is this rise and fall in which constructivism finds it niche. Theories rise and fall as the actions of states that reflect those theories rise and fall. The behavior of states is not an exact science and as such is always changing, along with theories that explain those actions. If the system was always the same and states were the result of it, it would not make sense that the nature of the system would remain constant while explanations of it gained or lost popularity. In the world of science gravity is gravity, new theories about what gravity is do not rise and fall, that does not make sense. The same goes for IR, the system changes with the action preferences of states and other actors and these actions run parallel to IR theories that explain those actions. Realism gains strength in a hostile, isolationist world while functionalism gains popularity in a world in which state actions reflect a premium placed on international institutions. To me it seems that constructivism serves a greater purpose than as just another IR theory. Constructivism helps to explain why theories exist and can aid in the explanation and prediction of not only states’ actions, but the rise and fall of IR theories.