Constructivism

Anarchy Is What States Make of It

8 min read 1,663 words theory international-relations norms identity political-theory 0% read

In 1992, the political scientist Alexander Wendt published an article with a title that became the most famous slogan in international relations theory: “Anarchy Is What States Make of It.” The claim was a direct challenge to realism’s central proposition—that the anarchic structure of the international system (the absence of a world government) produces inevitable competition and conflict among states. Wendt argued that anarchy itself has no inherent logic. The same condition—the absence of a central authority—produces bitter rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, close partnership between the United States and Canada, and the deep institutional integration of the European Union. The difference lies not in the material structure of anarchy but in the ideas, identities, and norms that states bring to their interactions. American nuclear weapons mean something fundamentally different to Canada than to North Korea—not because the weapons are different but because the relationships are.

Constructivism is the theoretical framework built on this insight: that the structures of international politics—alliances, rivalries, institutions, norms against genocide, expectations of Sovereignty—are socially constructed rather than materially determined. They are products of human belief, practice, and interaction, which means they can be changed through human belief, practice, and interaction. This is constructivism’s most radical implication: if the international system is made by states, it can be remade. The patterns of conflict, competition, and cooperation that realists treat as permanent features of world politics are, for constructivists, contingent products of history that could have been otherwise and might yet change.

Core Claims

Ideas Matter

Constructivism’s foundational claim is that ideas—beliefs, norms, values, identities—are as important as material forces (military power, economic resources, geography) in shaping international politics. This is not the naive claim that ideas are all that matter or that material power is irrelevant. It is the claim that material forces acquire meaning only through the ideas that interpret them:

A nuclear weapon is a physical object with specific destructive capabilities. But its political significance depends entirely on context. British nuclear weapons do not cause French anxiety; North Korean nuclear weapons cause intense American and Japanese anxiety. The difference cannot be explained by the weapons themselves—it depends on the relationships between the states, the identities they have constructed, and the norms that govern their interactions.

Similarly, the borders between France and Germany are not defended by fortifications or minefields—a situation that would have seemed absurd in 1914 or 1940. The Franco-German peace is not maintained by the Balance of Power (the two countries are roughly comparable in power) but by transformed identities. Germany after 1945 constructed a new national identity—democratic, multilateral, anti-militarist—that makes war with France literally unthinkable. For realists, who attribute conflict to the distribution of material capabilities, this transformation is difficult to explain. For constructivists, it is the paradigmatic case: proof that international politics can be fundamentally transformed when identities change.

Identities Shape Interests

Realism assumes that states’ interests are given—primarily survival and security in an anarchic world. Constructivism argues that interests are constructed through identity. What a state wants depends on what kind of state it believes itself to be:

Germany in 1914 identified itself as a rising great power entitled to a “place in the sun”—colonies, naval power, continental dominance. Germany in 2024 identifies itself as a responsible European partner committed to multilateralism, human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution. The material capabilities are comparable; the interests are radically different—because the identity has changed.

Japan’s postwar identity as a “peace state” (平和国家) constrains its military behavior in ways that its material capabilities alone would not predict. Japan has the world’s third-largest economy and could rapidly become a nuclear power—yet it spends barely 1% of GDP on defense (recently increased to 2%) and relies on the American alliance for security. This restraint reflects not strategic calculation alone but a deep-seated national identity forged in the trauma of World War II.

Norms Evolve

Constructivism draws attention to the evolution of international norms—shared expectations about appropriate behavior that constrain and enable state action:

Slavery: For millennia, slavery was a normal feature of human societies. By the 19th century, an international norm against slavery emerged—driven not by changes in the distribution of power but by moral persuasion, activist movements, and shifting ideas about human dignity. Today, slavery is universally condemned, though not universally eliminated.

Territorial conquest: For centuries, states regularly conquered territory from their neighbors. After World War II, a strong norm against territorial acquisition by force developed. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990) and Russia’s annexation of Crimea (2014) were internationally condemned precisely because they violated this norm. The norm has not prevented all territorial aggression—but it has raised the costs dramatically.

Sovereignty and non-intervention: The norm of Sovereignty—that states should not interfere in each other’s internal affairs—emerged from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and has been progressively challenged by norms of human rights and the Responsibility to Protect. These competing norms are not resolved by material power but by ongoing social contestation.

Chemical and nuclear weapons: The taboo against the use of chemical and nuclear weapons—maintained since 1945 despite thousands of warheads remaining on alert—is a norm, not a material constraint. Nothing physically prevents a state from using these weapons; social expectations (and the fear of retaliation that those expectations support) are what prevent their use.

Constructivism and Its Rivals

Against Realism

Constructivism’s primary target is realism’s claim that the international system’s structure—anarchy and the distribution of material capabilities—determines state behavior regardless of ideas, identities, or norms. Constructivists challenge realism on several fronts:

Realism cannot explain change. If anarchy and power distribution determine behavior, why has the character of international politics changed so dramatically over centuries? The European state system of 1648 operated very differently from the European state system of 2024, despite both being “anarchic.” Realism’s variables (anarchy, power) are essentially constant; the outcomes vary enormously. Something else must be doing the explanatory work.

Realism cannot explain variation. Why do states with similar power positions behave so differently? Why does democratic Germany behave differently from Nazi Germany? Why does democratic India pursue different foreign policies than authoritarian China, despite both being rising Asian powers? Realism’s structural variables predict similar behavior from similarly positioned states; constructivism explains variation through differences in identity, norms, and domestic politics.

Against Liberalism

Constructivism shares some ground with liberal theory—both emphasize that international institutions and cooperation matter—but differs on the mechanism. Liberals argue that institutions work because they reduce transaction costs, provide information, and create mutual benefits. Constructivists argue that institutions work because they shape identities and construct shared norms. NATO, for constructivists, is not merely a military alliance—it is a community of shared identity that defines its members’ interests and self-understandings.

Criticisms

Is It a Theory?

The most persistent critique is that constructivism is more a meta-theoretical perspective than a testable theory. It tells us that ideas matter, that norms evolve, and that identities shape interests—but it does not predict which ideas will triumph, how norms will change, or what identities states will construct. Without predictive power, critics argue, constructivism is less a theory than a reminder to take ideas seriously.

The Problem of Power

Constructivists are sometimes accused of underestimating the role of material power. Norms against territorial conquest did not prevent Russia from annexing Crimea. The norm of sovereignty did not prevent the United States from invading Iraq. Ideas may matter, but they matter less when they conflict with the vital interests of powerful states. Realists charge that constructivism describes the surface of international politics (the norms states invoke) while missing its substance (the power they deploy).

Agency and Change

If norms are socially constructed, who constructs them? Constructivism sometimes struggles to explain agency—why particular norms emerge at particular times. The abolition of slavery, the development of human rights norms, and the European integration project all had specific agents (abolitionists, diplomats, visionary leaders) operating in specific circumstances. Constructivism’s emphasis on structure (the normative environment) can obscure the role of individual agency in creating and changing norms.

Contemporary Relevance

Constructivism offers distinctive insights into contemporary geopolitical dynamics:

The rise of China is not merely a shift in the distribution of material power—it is a contest over the norms and identities that will govern the international order. China’s challenge to the existing order is partly material (military modernization, economic weight) but partly ideational: the assertion that the Western liberal model is not universal, that “Asian values” or “socialism with Chinese characteristics” represent legitimate alternatives, and that the norms of sovereignty and non-interference should take precedence over human rights.

The resurgence of Nationalism worldwide—from Brexit to Trump to Modi to Erdogan—represents a transformation of identities that is reshaping international politics. Constructivism’s emphasis on identity as a driver of foreign policy provides tools for understanding these phenomena that structural theories lack.

The evolving norms around Cyber Warfare, artificial intelligence, and climate change are being constructed in real time. What counts as an “act of war” in cyberspace? What obligations do states have regarding carbon emissions? These questions will be answered not by material realities alone but by the norms that states collectively construct through practice, negotiation, and contestation.

Sources & Further Reading

  • Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt — The most systematic statement of constructivist theory, arguing that state identities and interests are constructed through interaction rather than given by anarchy.

  • “Anarchy Is What States Make of It” by Alexander Wendt (International Organization, 1992) — The foundational article that launched constructivism as a major IR theory, challenging realist assumptions about the inevitability of competition under anarchy.

  • National Interests in International Society by Martha Finnemore — Demonstrates how international organizations and norms shape what states want, with case studies showing that states’ interests are constructed by the international social environment.

  • The Culture of National Security edited by Peter Katzenstein — A landmark collection showing how culture, identity, and norms shape national security policy across multiple countries and historical periods.