International Relations Theory: Neorealism vs. Constructivism

Introduction:

International Relations (IR) theory provides frameworks for understanding and analyzing the complex interactions between states and other actors on the global stage. Among the various theoretical approaches in IR, two prominent schools of thought have emerged as particularly influential and contrasting: Neorealism and Constructivism. This article aims to provide a comprehensive exploration of these two theories, their key concepts, proponents, and implications for understanding world politics.
Neorealism, also known as structural realism, emerged in the late 1970s as a refinement of classical realism. It emphasizes the importance of the international system’s structure in shaping state behavior. On the other hand, Constructivism, which gained prominence in the 1980s and 1990s, focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and social interactions in shaping international relations.
This article will delve into the core principles of both theories, their historical development, key theorists, and how they explain various phenomena in international relations. We will also explore the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, their practical applications in foreign policy analysis, and their relevance in understanding contemporary global issues.

1. Neorealism 1.1 Historical context and development

Neorealism, also known as structural realism, emerged as a prominent theory of international relations in the late 1970s, largely in response to the perceived shortcomings of classical realism. The foundations of realist thought can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophers like Thucydides, as well as more modern thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. However, the modern realist tradition was significantly shaped by scholars in the aftermath of World War II, including E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Kenneth Waltz.

Waltz’s seminal work, “Theory of International Politics” (1979), is widely regarded as the foundational text of neorealism. Waltz sought to develop a more systematic and parsimonious theory of international relations, moving away from the state-centric focus of classical realism towards a structural analysis of the international system. This shift in emphasis from the unit level (individual states) to the systemic level (the distribution of power in the international system) became a defining characteristic of neorealism.

1.2 Key principles and assumptions

Neorealism is based on several key principles and assumptions:

1. Statism: Neorealists view states as the primary actors in the international system, with other entities (such as international organizations or non-state actors) playing a secondary role.
2. Anarchy: The international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning the absence of a central authority or government that can enforce rules and norms. This anarchic structure is seen as a key driver of state behavior.
3. Self-help: In the absence of a central authority, states must rely on their own capabilities and resources to ensure their security and survival. This leads to a self-help mentality, where states are primarily concerned with maximizing their own power and influence.
4. Power and security: Neorealists believe that states are primarily motivated by the pursuit of power and the desire to ensure their own security. This often leads to a zero-sum view of international relations, where one state’s gain is another’s loss.
5. Structural determinism: Neorealists argue that the structure of the international system, particularly the distribution of power, is the primary determinant of state behavior and the outcomes of international politics.

1.3 Major theorists and their contributions

The most influential neorealist theorists include Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt.

Kenneth Waltz: Waltz is widely regarded as the founder of neorealism. In his seminal work, “Theory of International Politics,” he developed a structural theory of international relations that focused on the distribution of power in the international system as the key determinant of state behavior. Waltz’s theory emphasized the importance of the balance of power and the tendency of states to balance against the most powerful state or coalition in the system.

John Mearsheimer: Mearsheimer is a prominent proponent of offensive realism, a variant of neorealism that emphasizes the aggressive and expansionist tendencies of states. In his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” Mearsheimer argues that states are primarily motivated by the desire to maximize their relative power and influence, often at the expense of other states.

Stephen Walt: Walt is known for his balance of threat theory, which builds on Waltz’s balance of power theory. Walt argues that states are more likely to balance against threats, rather than simply power. This includes factors such as geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and perceived intentions, in addition to the distribution of power.

1.4 The concept of anarchy and its implications

The concept of anarchy is central to neorealist thought. Neorealists view the international system as inherently anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority or government that can enforce rules and norms. This anarchic structure is seen as a key driver of state behavior, leading to a self-help mentality and a focus on power and security.

Neorealists argue that the absence of a central authority forces states to rely on their own capabilities and resources to ensure their survival. This creates a competitive and often adversarial dynamic in international relations, as states seek to maximize their power and influence in order to protect themselves from potential threats.

The implications of anarchy for neorealists include the prevalence of security dilemmas, arms races, and the potential for conflict and war. Neorealists believe that states must constantly be vigilant and prepared to defend themselves, as they cannot rely on the benevolence of other states or the existence of a higher authority to guarantee their security.

1.5 Balance of power theory

Balance of power theory is a central tenet of neorealist thought. Neorealists argue that states will seek to balance against the most powerful state or coalition in the international system, in order to prevent the emergence of a hegemonic power that could threaten their own security and survival.

According to balance of power theory, states will either engage in internal balancing (by increasing their own military and economic capabilities) or external balancing (by forming alliances with other states) to counter the power of a dominant state or group of states. This balancing behavior is seen as a natural and necessary response to the anarchic structure of the international system.

Neorealists believe that the balance of power is a key mechanism for maintaining stability and preventing the outbreak of major wars in the international system. They argue that the constant jockeying for power and the formation of balancing coalitions help to prevent any single state or group of states from becoming too dominant.

1.6 Offensive vs. defensive realism

Within the neorealist tradition, there is a debate between offensive and defensive realism. Offensive realists, such as John Mearsheimer, believe that states are primarily motivated by the desire to maximize their power and influence, often at the expense of other states. They argue that states will engage in aggressive and expansionist behavior in order to gain a competitive advantage and ensure their own survival.

In contrast, defensive realists, such as Kenneth Waltz, believe that states are primarily motivated by the desire to maintain their security and ensure their survival. They argue that states will engage in more cautious and defensive behavior, seeking to balance against potential threats rather than actively seeking to expand their power and influence.

The debate between offensive and defensive realism centers on the degree to which states are willing to take risks and engage in aggressive behavior in pursuit of their interests. Offensive realists believe that states will often take such risks, while defensive realists argue that states will generally seek to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo.

2. Constructivism 2.1 Historical context and emergence

Constructivism emerged as a prominent theory of international relations in the late 1980s and 1990s, in response to the perceived limitations of both realist and liberal approaches. While realism and liberalism had dominated the field of international relations for much of the 20th century, constructivists argued that these theories failed to adequately account for the role of ideas, norms, and social structures in shaping international politics.

The roots of constructivism can be traced back to the work of sociologists and philosophers, such as Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, who developed the concept of social construction of reality. In the field of international relations, the work of scholars like Nicholas Onuf, Friedrich Kratochwil, and Alexander Wendt was instrumental in the development of constructivist theory.

Wendt’s seminal article, “Anarchy is What States Make of It” (1992), is widely regarded as a foundational text of constructivism. In this work, Wendt challenged the neorealist assumption that anarchy necessarily leads to a self-help mentality and competitive behavior among states. Instead, he argued that the meaning of anarchy is socially constructed and can vary depending on the identities and interests of the states involved.

2.2 Core concepts and assumptions

Constructivism is based on several key concepts and assumptions:

1. Social construction of reality: Constructivists believe that the social world, including the international system, is not objectively given but is instead socially constructed through the interactions and shared understandings of actors.
2. Ideational factors: Constructivists emphasize the importance of ideational factors, such as ideas, norms, and identities, in shaping the behavior of states and other international actors. These factors are seen as equally, if not more, important than material factors like military and economic power.
3. Intersubjective meaning: Constructivists argue that the meaning of social phenomena, including the identities and interests of actors, is not fixed but rather emerges through intersubjective processes of communication and interaction.
4. Mutually constitutive agent-structure relationship: Constructivists view the relationship between agents (e.g., states) and structures (e.g., the international system) as mutually constitutive, meaning that agents shape and are shaped by the structures in which they are embedded.
5. Emphasis on change: Constructivists are particularly interested in understanding how changes in ideas, norms, and identities can lead to transformations in the international system and the behavior of states.

2.3 Prominent constructivist scholars

Several scholars have made significant contributions to the development of constructivist theory in international relations:

Alexander Wendt: Wendt is widely regarded as the most influential constructivist scholar. His work has focused on the role of ideas, identities, and social structures in shaping state behavior and the international system.

Martha Finnemore: Finnemore’s research has examined the role of international organizations and norms in shaping state behavior, particularly in the areas of humanitarian intervention and the use of force.

Emanuel Adler: Adler has explored the relationship between knowledge, social learning, and the construction of security communities, with a focus on the European Union.

Friedrich Kratochwil: Kratochwil has made important contributions to the study of international norms and the role of language and communication in international politics.

Nicholas Onuf: Onuf is credited with coining the term “constructivism” and has developed a distinctive approach to the study of international relations that emphasizes the role of rules and language.

2.4 The role of ideas, norms, and identity

Constructivists place a strong emphasis on the role of ideas, norms, and identity in shaping international politics. They argue that these ideational factors are just as important, if not more so, than material factors like military and economic power.

For constructivists, ideas refer to the beliefs, values, and worldviews that inform the behavior of states and other international actors. Norms are the shared understandings and expectations about appropriate behavior in the international system. Identity refers to the way in which actors, particularly states, define themselves and their interests in relation to others.

Constructivists believe that these ideational factors are not static or given, but are instead socially constructed through processes of interaction and communication. They argue that changes in ideas, norms, and identities can lead to significant transformations in the international system, such as the end of the Cold War or the emergence of new security communities.

2.5 Social construction of international politics

Constructivists view the international system as a social construction, rather than an objective reality. They argue that the meaning and significance of international phenomena, such as anarchy, security, and power, are not inherent but are instead shaped by the shared understandings and intersubjective meanings of the actors involved.

For constructivists, the international system is not simply a given structure that determines the behavior of states. Rather, it is a dynamic and constantly evolving social context that is shaped by the actions and interactions of states and other international actors.

Constructivists emphasize the importance of language, discourse, and communication in the social construction of international politics. They argue that the way in which actors frame and articulate their interests and identities can have a significant impact on the dynamics of international relations.

2.6 The agent-structure problem

One of the key debates within constructivism is the agent-structure problem, which concerns the relationship between agents (such as states) and structures (such as the international system).

Constructivists argue that agents and structures are mutually constitutive, meaning that agents shape and are shaped by the structures in which they are embedded. This contrasts with the more deterministic view of neorealism, which sees the structure of the international system as the primary driver of state behavior.

The agent-structure problem has led to a range of different approaches within constructivism, with some scholars emphasizing the role of agency and others focusing more on the importance of structure. This debate has also led to discussions about the relative importance of material and ideational factors in shaping international politics.

3. Comparative Analysis: Neorealism vs. Constructivism 3.1 Ontological and epistemological differences

Neorealism and constructivism differ significantly in their ontological and epistemological assumptions about the nature of international relations.

Neorealists adopt a materialist ontology, viewing the international system as an objective reality that can be studied using positivist, scientific methods. They believe that the distribution of material capabilities, particularly military and economic power, is the primary determinant of state behavior and the outcomes of international politics.

In contrast, constructivists adopt an idealist ontology, viewing the international system as a social construction that is shaped by the shared ideas, norms, and identities of the actors involved. Constructivists argue that the meaning and significance of material factors are themselves socially constructed, and that ideational factors play a crucial role in shaping international politics.

Epistemologically, neorealists tend to favor a positivist approach, seeking to develop generalizable theories and causal explanations of international phenomena. Constructivists, on the other hand, often adopt a more interpretive and reflective approach, focusing on the intersubjective meanings and social processes that underlie international politics.

3.2 Views on state behavior and motivations

Neorealists and constructivists have fundamentally different views on the motivations and behavior of states in the international system.

Neorealists see states as primarily motivated by the pursuit of power and the desire to ensure their own security and survival. They believe that the anarchic structure of the international system forces states to adopt a self-help mentality, leading to competitive and often adversarial behavior.

Constructivists, in contrast, argue that the interests and identities of states are not fixed or predetermined, but are instead socially constructed through processes of interaction and communication. They believe that states can have a wide range of motivations, including the pursuit of status, the promotion of norms and values, and the construction of shared understandings with other actors.

Constructivists also emphasize the role of non-material factors, such as ideas and norms, in shaping state behavior. They argue that states may act in ways that are not solely driven by material interests, but are also influenced by their social and ideational environment.

3.3 Approaches to power and security

Neorealists and constructivists have different conceptions of power and security in the international system.

Neorealists view power primarily in material terms, focusing on the distribution of military and economic capabilities among states. They believe that the balance of power is a key determinant of international stability and that states must constantly strive to maximize their relative power in order to ensure their security.

Constructivists, on the other hand, have a broader understanding of power, seeing it as the ability to shape the social and ideational environment in which states operate. They argue that power can also be exercised through the construction of norms, the shaping of identities, and the framing of issues.

In terms of security, neorealists see it as a zero-sum game, where one state’s gain in security is another’s loss. They believe that the anarchic structure of the international system forces states to prioritize their own security, often at the expense of others.

Constructivists, in contrast, view security as a more complex and socially constructed phenomenon. They argue that the meaning of security is not fixed, but can change over time and across different social contexts. Constructivists also emphasize the role of non-military factors, such as environmental and human security, in shaping the security concerns of states and other international actors.

3.4 Explanations of change in the international system

Neorealists and constructivists have different approaches to explaining change in the international system.

Neorealists tend to focus on changes in the distribution of material capabilities, such as shifts in the balance of power or the emergence of new military technologies. They believe that these material changes are the primary drivers of international politics and that states will respond to them in predictable ways, such as by engaging in balancing behavior.

Constructivists, on the other hand, emphasize the role of ideational factors in driving change. They argue that changes in ideas, norms, and identities can lead to significant transformations in the international system, such as the end of the Cold War or the emergence of new security communities.

Constructivists also highlight the importance of social learning and the diffusion of ideas in shaping international politics. They believe that the way in which actors frame and articulate their interests and identities can have a significant impact on the dynamics of international relations.

3.5 Treatment of non-state actors

Neorealists and constructivists have different approaches to the role of non-state actors in international relations.

Neorealists tend to focus primarily on states as the key actors in the international system, viewing other entities, such as international organizations or non-governmental organizations, as playing a secondary or supporting role. They believe that the distribution of power among states is the primary determinant of international outcomes, and that non-state actors are largely constrained by the structural forces of the international system.

Constructivists, in contrast, have a more expansive view of international politics, recognizing the important role played by a wide range of non-state actors. They argue that these actors can shape the social and ideational environment in which states operate, and that their actions and interactions can have a significant impact on the dynamics of international relations.

Constructivists have examined the role of non-state actors in areas such as human rights, environmental protection, and the promotion of norms and values. They have highlighted the ways in which these actors can influence state behavior and contribute to the construction of new social identities and understandings.

However, it is important to note that both neorealists and constructivists recognize the continued importance of states as key actors in international relations. Even constructivists acknowledge that states remain central to the functioning of the international system, even if their behavior is shaped by a wider range of factors than material power alone.

4. Applications and Case Studies 4.1 The Cold War through neorealist and constructivist lenses

Neorealists and constructivists have offered different interpretations of the Cold War and its aftermath.

Neorealists have emphasized the role of the bipolar distribution of power in shaping the dynamics of the Cold War. They argue that the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union was a key determinant of international stability during this period, and that the end of the Cold War was largely a result of changes in the distribution of material capabilities.

Constructivists, on the other hand, have highlighted the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping the Cold War and its aftermath. They have examined the ways in which the ideological competition between capitalism and communism shaped the behavior of the two superpowers, and how the end of the Cold War was accompanied by a transformation in the social and ideational environment of international politics.

Constructivists have also explored the role of non-state actors, such as human rights organizations and peace movements, in challenging the dominant ideologies of the Cold War and contributing to its eventual end.

4.2 Explaining the end of the Cold War

The end of the Cold War has been a major focus of both neorealist and constructivist analysis.

Neorealists have argued that the end of the Cold War was largely a result of changes in the distribution of material capabilities, particularly the economic decline of the Soviet Union relative to the United States. They have emphasized the role of factors such as the arms race and the costs of maintaining a global empire in contributing to the collapse of the Soviet system.

Constructivists, in contrast, have highlighted the role of ideational factors in shaping the end of the Cold War. They have examined the ways in which changes in ideas, norms, and identities, such as the rise of new thinking in Soviet foreign policy under Gorbachev and the growing influence of human rights norms, contributed to the transformation of the international system.

Constructivists have also explored the role of social learning and the diffusion of ideas in the end of the Cold War. They have argued that the interactions between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as between these states and other international actors, led to a gradual transformation in their understandings of each other and their respective roles in the international system.

4.3 The rise of China and shifting power dynamics

The rise of China and the shifting power dynamics in the international system have been a major focus of both neorealist and constructivist analysis.

Neorealists have argued that the rise of China represents a potential threat to the existing balance of power, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. They have emphasized the need for the United States and its allies to engage in balancing behavior in order to counter China’s growing influence.

Constructivists, on the other hand, have highlighted the role of ideational factors in shaping the rise of China and its impact on international politics. They have examined the ways in which China’s growing economic and political influence has been accompanied by the promotion of new norms and values, such as the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs and the concept of a harmonious world.

Constructivists have also explored the role of identity politics in shaping the rise of China and its relations with other states. They have argued that China’s growing assertiveness on the international stage is partly a result of its desire to assert its own identity and to challenge the existing Western-dominated international order.

4.4 International institutions and regimes

The role of international institutions and regimes in international politics has been a key area of focus for both neorealists and constructivists.

Neorealists have argued that states create and participate in international institutions primarily for instrumental reasons, such as to manage security dilemmas, facilitate cooperation, or enhance their own power and influence. They have emphasized the role of power asymmetries and the distribution of benefits in shaping the creation and evolution of international institutions.

Constructivists, in contrast, have highlighted the role of ideational factors in shaping the creation and evolution of international institutions. They have examined the ways in which international institutions can contribute to the construction of new norms, identities, and understandings, and how these ideational factors can in turn shape the behavior of states and other international actors.

Constructivists have also explored the role of international institutions in promoting social learning and the diffusion of ideas. They have argued that the interactions and deliberations that take place within international institutions can contribute to the transformation of state interests and identities over time.

4.5 Terrorism and non-traditional security threats

The emergence of new security threats, such as terrorism and climate change, has posed challenges for both neorealist and constructivist approaches to international relations.

Neorealists have argued that these non-traditional security threats require states to adapt their security strategies and to engage in new forms of cooperation. They have emphasized the need for states to pool their resources and capabilities in order to address these shared challenges.

Constructivists, on the other hand, have highlighted the role of ideational factors in shaping the emergence and evolution of these new security threats. They have examined the ways in which the framing and articulation of these issues can contribute to the construction of new identities and understandings, and how these ideational factors can in turn shape the behavior of states and other international actors.

Constructivists have also explored the role of non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations and environmental movements, in shaping the dynamics of international security. They have argued that these actors can challenge the traditional state-centric focus of international relations and contribute to the emergence of new forms of security governance.

5. Critiques and Debates 5.1 Neorealist critiques of constructivism

Neorealists have offered several critiques of constructivism:

1. Lack of parsimony: Neorealists argue that constructivism lacks the parsimony and predictive power of neorealist theory, as it incorporates a wide range of ideational factors that can be difficult to measure and operationalize.
2. Neglect of material factors: Neorealists contend that constructivists place too much emphasis on ideational factors and neglect the importance of material factors, such as military and economic power, in shaping international politics.
3. Difficulty in testing hypotheses**: Neorealists argue that constructivist hypotheses are difficult to test empirically, as they often rely on interpretive methods and case studies rather than large-N statistical analysis.
4. Relativism: Some neorealists have accused constructivists of falling into a form of relativism, where all ideas and norms are seen as equally valid and there is no objective basis for evaluating them.

5.2 Constructivist critiques of neorealism

Constructivists have also offered several critiques of neorealism:

1. Neglect of ideational factors: Constructivists argue that neorealism neglects the importance of ideational factors, such as ideas, norms, and identities, in shaping international politics. They contend that neorealism presents an overly materialist and deterministic view of the international system.
2. Ahistorical and static: Constructivists argue that neorealism presents an ahistorical and static view of the international system, failing to account for the ways in which the meaning and significance of material factors can change over time and across different social contexts.
3. Reification of the state: Constructivists contend that neorealism reifies the state as a unitary actor with fixed interests, neglecting the ways in which state identities and interests are socially constructed through processes of interaction and communication.
4. Lack of agency: Some constructivists argue that neorealism presents a view of international politics that is overly deterministic and leaves little room for human agency and the ability of actors to shape their social environment.

5.3 Internal debates within each school

Both neorealism and constructivism have experienced internal debates and disagreements over the years.

Within neorealism, there has been an ongoing debate between offensive and defensive realists over the degree to which states are motivated by the desire to maximize their power and influence versus the desire to maintain their security and ensure their survival. Offensive realists, such as John Mearsheimer, argue that states are inherently aggressive and expansionist, while defensive realists, such as Kenneth Waltz, contend that states are more cautious and focused on maintaining the status quo.

Constructivism has also experienced internal debates, particularly over the degree to which ideational factors should be prioritized over material factors in explaining international politics. Some constructivists, such as Alexander Wendt, have argued for a more balanced approach that recognizes the importance of both ideational and material factors, while others have placed a greater emphasis on the role of ideas and norms in shaping international relations.

There have also been debates within constructivism over the appropriate methods and approaches for studying international politics. Some constructivists have favored interpretive and qualitative methods, while others have sought to develop more systematic and quantitative approaches to the study of ideational factors.

5.4 Attempts at theoretical synthesis

In recent years, there have been several attempts to synthesize neorealist and constructivist approaches to international relations.

One notable example is the work of Jeffrey Checkel, who has argued for a “middle-ground” approach that combines elements of both neorealism and constructivism. Checkel contends that ideational factors can shape state interests and behavior, but that the impact of these factors is mediated by material structures and power asymmetries.

Another example is the work of Alastair Iain Johnston, who has sought to integrate neorealist and constructivist approaches in his analysis of Chinese foreign policy. Johnston argues that China’s behavior is shaped by both material factors, such as the distribution of power in the international system, and ideational factors, such as traditional Chinese strategic culture.

These attempts at theoretical synthesis reflect a growing recognition among scholars that both material and ideational factors play important roles in shaping international politics. They also suggest that a more eclectic and multi-causal approach to the study of international relations may be necessary to capture the complexity of the contemporary international system.

6. Contemporary Relevance and Future Directions 6.1 Neorealism and constructivism in the 21st century

Both neorealism and constructivism continue to be relevant and influential in the study of international relations in the 21st century.

Neorealism remains a dominant paradigm in the field, particularly in the United States, and continues to offer important insights into the dynamics of power and security in the international system. The rise of China and the shifting balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region, for example, have reinvigorated neorealist debates about the potential for conflict and the need for balancing behavior.

Constructivism has also gained increasing traction in recent years, particularly in Europe and among scholars interested in the role of norms, identities, and social structures in shaping international politics. The growing importance of non-state actors, such as international organizations and transnational advocacy networks, has highlighted the need for approaches that can capture the complexity of contemporary international relations.

At the same time, both neorealism and constructivism have faced challenges in adapting to the changing nature of the international system in the 21st century. The emergence of new security threats, such as climate change and cyber attacks, has highlighted the need for more flexible and multi-causal approaches to international relations.

6.2 Addressing global challenges: climate change, pandemics, and cyber threats

The emergence of new global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, and cyber threats, has posed significant challenges for both neorealism and constructivism.

Neorealists have struggled to explain why states would cooperate to address these shared challenges, given the anarchic structure of the international system and the potential for free-riding behavior. Some neorealists have argued that states may cooperate to address these threats if they perceive it to be in their own self-interest, but this view has been criticized for neglecting the role of ideational factors and the potential for transformative change.

Constructivists, on the other hand, have highlighted the importance of ideational factors, such as norms and identities, in shaping state responses to these global challenges. They have argued that the construction of new norms around environmental protection or global health, for example, can contribute to the emergence of new forms of cooperation and governance.

However, constructivists have also acknowledged the limitations of their approach in addressing the material realities of these global challenges. The need for large-scale technological and economic transformations to address climate change, for example, highlights the importance of material factors and the potential for conflict over the distribution of costs and benefits.

6.3 The impact of technology on international relations

The rapid pace of technological change in the 21st century has also posed challenges for both neorealism and constructivism.

Neorealists have grappled with the implications of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems, for the balance of power and the dynamics of military competition. Some neorealists have argued that these technologies will lead to a more unstable and unpredictable international system, while others have contended that they will reinforce existing power structures and patterns of behavior.

Constructivists, on the other hand, have explored the ways in which new technologies can shape the social and ideational environment of international relations. They have examined the role of social media and digital communication in shaping the construction of identities and the diffusion of norms, as well as the potential for new technologies to challenge traditional state-centric models of governance.

However, both neorealists and constructivists have acknowledged the need for more nuanced and multi-causal approaches to understanding the impact of technology on international relations. The complex interplay between material and ideational factors in shaping the development and use of new technologies highlights the limitations of single-factor explanations.

6.4 Emerging theoretical perspectives and hybrid approaches

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in developing new theoretical perspectives and hybrid approaches that draw on elements of both neorealism and constructivism.

One example is the rise of critical security studies, which seeks to challenge the state-centric and military-focused assumptions of traditional security studies. Critical security scholars have drawn on constructivist insights to highlight the social construction of security threats and the need for a broader conception of security that includes non-military issues such as the environment, development, and human rights.

Another example is the emergence of complexity theory approaches to international relations, which seek to capture the dynamic and non-linear nature of the international system. Complexity theorists have argued for the need to move beyond the linear and deterministic assumptions of neorealism and constructivism, and to develop more flexible and adaptive approaches to understanding international politics.

These emerging theoretical perspectives and hybrid approaches reflect a growing recognition among scholars that the study of international relations requires a more eclectic and multi-causal approach that can capture the complexity and dynamism of the contemporary international system. They also suggest that the traditional divide between neorealism and constructivism may be less stark than it once appeared, and that there is potential for greater dialogue and synthesis between these two influential schools of thought.

Conclusion

Neorealism and constructivism represent two of the most influential and enduring schools of thought in the field of international relations. While they share a common concern with understanding the dynamics of power and security in the international system, they differ significantly in their ontological and epistemological assumptions, their views on state behavior and motivations, and their approaches to key issues such as change, non-state actors, and the role of ideational factors.

Neorealism has been a dominant paradigm in the field, particularly in the United States, and continues to offer important insights into the material realities of international politics. Constructivism has gained increasing traction in recent years, particularly in Europe and among scholars interested in the social construction of international relations.

However, both neorealism and constructivism have faced challenges in adapting to the changing nature of the international system in the 21st century. The emergence of new global challenges, the rapid pace of technological change, and the growing importance of non-state actors have highlighted the need for more flexible and multi-causal approaches to international relations.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in developing new theoretical perspectives and hybrid approaches that draw on elements of both neorealism and constructivism. These emerging approaches reflect a recognition that the study of international relations requires a more eclectic and multi-causal approach that can capture the complexity and dynamism of the contemporary international system.

As the field of international relations continues to evolve, it is likely that neorealism and constructivism will continue to play important roles in shaping our understanding of international politics. However, it is also clear that the future of the field will depend on our ability to develop new approaches that can adapt to the changing realities of the 21st century and that can offer innovative solutions to the complex challenges we face as a global community.

Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28international_relations%29
[3] https://edubirdie.com/examples/the-theories-of-constructivism-and-neorealism-in-the-terms-of-international-relations/
[4] https://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/03/explaining-war-a-comparison-of-realism-and-constructivism/
[5] https://mises.org/power-market/realism-liberalism-and-constructivism-primer-international-relations-theory