Challenging the Realist Paradigm in International Relations: Social Constructionist and Feminist Approaches

There are many theories to explain international relations. The Realist approach, which established strong arguments and grounds its claims stands out among these. According to Realism, the anarchy that dominates the international system has turned states into power maximizers. Realism defines power through material elements; states’ primary purpose is to increase their military-political power and protect their interests. Realists see the explanation of this state of affairs in objective laws inherent in man’s selfish and self-seeking nature (Gözen 2019).

Although its scope is broader than International Relations (IR), one of the views that cross the IR discipline and finds the Realist approach inadequate is Feminism. Feminism is a revolt against the form of socialization that constrains and dominates women, sees them as subjects to be exercised authority in the context of power relations, and causes them to be suppressed under a masculine hierarchy. In this context, the focus of Feminism is not sex but gender. The role of Feminism in IR is to undermine the established power relations by interpreting the dominant order from another perspective (Gözen 2019).

Another view that sees the Realist approach as inadequate is social constructionism. Although it is not primarily an IR theory, it illuminates many points within the discipline. Social constructionism emphasizes human consciousness and awareness in world politics (Kıran & Arı 2011). Social constructionism rejects rationalist theory and treats world politics in a more normative way. It highlights identity from a sociological perspective and emphasizes the role of identity in the occurrence of interests and actions.

In this article, these two views questioning the basic assumptions of Realism and producing different answers will be discussed, and the points where they challenge Realism will be examined. Then, it will be tried to decide which view has more persuasive arguments.

First, as Rebecca Grant has said, according to Feminism, classical IR theories are based on Western and masculine acceptance, not objective (Gözen 2019). The object of analysis of the discipline is not the states that act rationally as Realism claims, but the subjects that make it up, namely people and society (İmançer 2002). Taking analysis from the structural dimension to the human domain, feminists emphasize how gender affects thought patterns in international politics (Tür & Koyuncu 2010). Rejecting the vulnerable roles assigned to women, feminists try to erase the boundary between the public and private sphere, where women are deliberately kept away, saying “the personal is the political” (Sylvester 2002). Realism is criticized for not using gender as a unit of analysis.

The anarchy discourse of Realism and the concepts of power and security defined accordingly constitute the focal points of Feminism’s criticism. The power defined according to material elements has been identified with men in line with assigned gender roles (Goldstein 2001). In the male body, the definition of power based on muscle power turns into an army power held by states within realistic politics. Besides, a homeland to be protected and defended is fictionalized. In security, that is the military’s duty; the reference point is not women. The gender inequality within the discipline emphasized by Tickner (Tickner 2001) is reproduced at the point where masculinity meets militarism.

The idea of social constructivism implies that people construct their reality and knowledge through the outcome of culture, language, and society’s norms and discourses (Ruggie 1998). Social constructionism intersects with IR, and the emphasis on the role of identity and social practices emerges (Katzenstein 1996). The concept of conflict of interest and anarchy, which realists see as a natural or pre-given situation, hits the wall of social constructionists at this point because the understanding of interest is shaped around norms. They do not deny anarchic order, but anarchic order exists because states perceive it as such and do not necessarily create competition.

Another criticism is against the acceptance that states are rational. The social structure, historical background, and political atmosphere that make up states’ identities cannot be the same in every state. Therefore, existing structures, including the interstate system, are not a natural formation but the product of social practices. In line with the state identity shaped by all these factors, what states understand from the concept of interest will vary (McGlinchey, Walters & Scheinpflug 2017). The most fundamental distinction between constructors and realists emerges here. As Wendt said, while Realists base the structure on military and economic power, what is essential for the builders is social relations and social transformations (Wendt 1995).

Social constructivism and Feminism that challenged the realist paradigm did not try to repair the gaps but instead tried to establish new perspectives. The more convincing of their claims belongs to the social constructors. It does not accept human beings and their product, state, as autonomous and rational, since they are social beings. It is more plausible that the concept of interest means something different for each state when explained in the context of state identity. According to realists who see the only purpose of states increasing their power, there is the possibility of cooperation in the anarchic international order. However, the formation of the European Union, which Realism is insufficient to explain, can be explained by understanding social constructionism.

As a result, the discourses and claims of Realism such as conflict of interest, power competition based on material elements, and anarchic order, have been criticized by various theories. Feminism says its criticism is that IR theories are based on implicitly reproducing patriarchy in the existing order through gender roles. Although Feminism gives a brand new perspective to IR, it remains insufficient to offer a solution. However, social constructionism, with its emphasis on social structure, language, norms, and identity, reminds us that human beings are social beings and that there may be variability in the systems created by them. The social constructionist view explaining the formation of structures with the transformations brought about by social relations is more persuasive.

Bibliography

Goldstein J S 2001, International Relations, Longman, New York.

Gözen, R 2019, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.

İmançer, D 2002, ‘Feminizm ve Yeni Yönelimler’, Doğu-Batı Düşünce Dergisi, vol.5, no.19.

Katzenstein, P 1996, The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, Columbia University Press, New York.

Kıran, A & Arı, Ö 2011, ‘Uluslararası İlişkilerde Sosyal İnşacılık’, Ekev Akademi, no.46, pp. 49-54.

McGlinchey, S, Walters, R & Scheinpflug, C 2017, ‘International Relations Theory’, International Relations Publishing, pp. 36-42.

Özlem, T & Aydın Koyuncu, Ç 2010, ‘Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımı: Temelleri, Gelişimi, Katkı ve Sorunları’, Uluslararası İlişkiler, vol.7, no.26, pp. 3-24.

Ruggie, J G 1998, Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, Routledge, London.

Sylvester, C 2002, Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tickner, J A 2001, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, Columbia University Press, New York.

Wendt, 1995, ‘Constructing International Politics, International Security, vol.20, no.1.