On realism, liberalism, and constructivism

An intellectual discourse with – well, ChatGPT of course.

Triggered by a statement …

“There are three major schools of thought within American international relations theory: realism, liberalism and constructivism, each of which essentially serves U.S. hegemony and leadership.”

… found in today’s sinification newsletter by Thomas des Garets Geddes, I was looking for some orientation, which, I have to confess, I was missing.

You might blame me for not knowing it better than to turn to ChatGPT with my instantly arising questions. Nevertheless, I deem its responses interesting enough to share them with those willing to read through the following ~ 2658 words.

What are they about?

Me:

Could you please briefly explain the core theories of American scholarship: realism, liberalism, and constructivism?

ChatGPT

Certainly! Realism, liberalism, and constructivism are three of the central theories in international relations scholarship. Each offers a unique lens through which to understand state behaviour and the dynamics of the international system.

1.Realism

• Core Idea:
  States are the primary actors in international relations, and their actions are driven by the pursuit of power and the need for security.
  
  
• Assumptions:
  
  • The international system is anarchic, meaning there is no central authority to govern state actions.
  • States are rational actors, always seeking to maximize their own national interest, primarily defined in terms of power and security.
  • Conflict is inevitable because of the inherent nature of international politics.
    
    
• Key Concepts:
  Balance of power (states align to prevent one state from becoming too powerful), security dilemma (measures taken by one state to increase its security often decrease the security of others).
  
  
• Notable Scholars:
  Thucydides, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer.

2.Liberalism

• Core Idea:
  Cooperation among states is possible and can lead to a more peaceful and prosperous global order.
  
  
• Assumptions:
• States are not the only important actors; international institutions, non-governmental organizations, and global commerce play significant roles.
• Interdependence (especially economic) can reduce the chance of conflict as the costs of conflict increase.
• Democracy and free trade can be paths to peace, as democratic states and those deeply embedded in the global economy are less likely to go to war with each other.
  
  
• Key Concepts:
  Democratic peace theory (democracies are less likely to fight each other), international institutions (like the United Nations or World Trade Organization), economic interdependence.
  
  
• Notable Scholars:
  Immanuel Kant, Woodrow Wilson, Robert Keohane.

3.Constructivism

• Core Idea:
  The behaviours and interests of states are shaped by socially constructed norms, ideas, and beliefs, rather than only by material interests.
  
  
• Assumptions:
• The key structures in the international system are not just material (e.g., military power) but also ideational (e.g., beliefs, identities, norms).
• State interests are not fixed but can be shaped over time by these ideational factors.
• International norms and institutions can change state behaviour by shaping their identities and interests.
  
  
• Key Concepts:
  Norm entrepreneurs (individuals or groups that promote certain norms), the role of non-state actors in shaping state identity and behaviour, the idea that anarchy is what states make of it.
  
  
• Notable Scholars:
  Alexander Wendt, Kathryn Sikkink, Martha Finnemore.

While these summaries are concise, each of these theories has rich literature and nuanced arguments. Scholars often combine elements from different theories to create more comprehensive explanations for specific phenomena in international relations.

Proponents and Publications

Me:

Thank you very much. Could you please add the primary scholars and their most important publications?

ChatGPT

Of course! Let's delve deeper into each theory and highlight some of the seminal works by key scholars:

1.Realism

• Hans Morgenthau: Politics Among Nations (1948)
  This book is foundational for the study of classical realism. Morgenthau emphasizes the role of power in international politics.
  
  
• Kenneth Waltz: Theory of International Politics (1979)
  Here, Waltz introduces structural realism (or neorealism), arguing that the international system's structure, characterized by anarchy, shapes the behaviour of states.
  
  
• John Mearsheimer: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001)
  Mearsheimer explores offensive realism, suggesting that great powers are always looking to maximize their share of world power.

2.Liberalism

• Immanuel Kant: Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795)
  Kant argues for the pacifying effects of democracy, trade, and international organizations.
  
  
• Woodrow Wilson:
  Although Wilson was not primarily an academic, his Fourteen Points and subsequent endeavours lay the groundwork for liberal internationalism.
  
  
• Robert Keohane: After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984)
  Keohane discusses how international cooperation can continue even after a hegemonic power declines. He emphasizes the role of international institutions in facilitating cooperation.

3. Constructivism

• Alexander Wendt: Social Theory of International Politics (1999)
  A foundational text for constructivism. Wendt argues that state behaviours are driven by socially constructed norms and identities. His famous assertion, "anarchy is what states make of it," captures the essence of constructivism.
  
  
• Kathryn Sikkink: The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (1999, co-authored with Thomas Risse and Stephen C. Ropp)
  This work investigates how international norms influence state behaviour, particularly in the realm of human rights.
  
  
• Martha Finnemore: National Interests in International Society (1996)
  Finnemore examines how international norms influence state interests and behaviours, with a focus on areas like the Red Cross and UNESCO.

These publications and authors represent just a fraction of the vast literature on international relations theory. Still, they're among the most influential in their respective areas. If you're looking to delve deeper into the subject, these works would be a great place to start.

How do these theories relate to each other’s?

Me:

Are these theories competing or complementary? In which aspects do they come to similar conclusions, where do they contradict each other’s ?

ChatGPT

The theories of realism, liberalism, and constructivism in international relations (IR) can be both competing and complementary, depending on the specific context and the aspect of international relations under scrutiny. Each provides a lens through which to understand and interpret international events, but they prioritize different factors and come to distinct conclusions about the behaviour of states.

1.Realism:

• Primary Assumption:
  States are the primary actors in international politics and they act based on national interests, primarily power and security.
  
  
• Primary Focus:
  Anarchy, power, balance of power, security dilemma.
  
  
• Primary Conclusions:
  Cooperation is difficult due to inherent mistrust among states, and power and security considerations dominate international actions.

2.Liberalism:

• Primary Assumption:
  A variety of actors (states, NGOs, IGOs) play important roles in international politics, and cooperation is possible through institutions, democratic governance, and interdependence.
  
  
• Primary Focus:
  International institutions, international law, interdependence, democracy.
  
  
• Primary Conclusions:
  International cooperation is achievable and can be institutionalized. Democracies are less likely to fight each other (Democratic Peace Theory).

3.Constructivism:

• Primary Assumption:
  The international system is constituted by ideas, norms, and beliefs. State behavior is driven by these social constructs rather than just material capabilities or interests.
  
  
• Primary Focus:
  Norms, identity, social structures.
  
  
• Primary Conclusions:
  State interests are not fixed but shaped by international norms and identities. Anarchy's meaning and implications are determined by state interactions and their shared understandings.

Where They Come to Similar Conclusions:

• Realism and Liberalism:
  Both acknowledge the state of anarchy in the international system, even though they disagree about its implications. They both also recognize the importance of power, but they differ on how power is utilized and for what ends.
  
  
• Liberalism and Constructivism:
  Both emphasize the importance of non-material power and accept the potential for change in the international system. They see the possibility of cooperation and the influence of norms, institutions, and interdependence.

Where They Contradict Each Other:

• Realism vs. Liberalism:
  While realism focuses on conflict and competition, asserting that the pursuit of power and national interest often leads to conflicts, liberalism is more optimistic about cooperation, especially through international institutions and interdependence.
  
  
• Realism vs. Constructivism:
  Realism sees interests as somewhat fixed (primarily around power and security), while constructivism argues interests are malleable and shaped by social interactions and norms.
  
  
• Liberalism vs. Constructivism:
  Liberalism tends to emphasize the role of institutions and structures more rigidly, while constructivism focuses on the fluid nature of norms and how they evolve.

While these theories offer different perspectives, they can be complementary. Scholars and policymakers can use them together to gain a comprehensive understanding of international events, combining the strengths of one theory with the insights of another. This integrative approach is often found in the multidimensional analyses of complex international situations.

The outside world perception

Me:

These views seem to be dominated by the view of US scholars. How is the perception of the outside world? Are there any major discontents which have gained or could gain a considerable weight?

ChatGPT

You're correct in noting that the theories of realism, liberalism, and constructivism, as commonly taught and understood, have their roots in Western (primarily U.S.) academic traditions. However, scholars from outside the West have made significant contributions to International Relations (IR) theory, and they have often critiqued or complemented these dominant paradigms with perspectives informed by different cultural, historical, and geopolitical contexts.

Several alternative or complementary approaches and critiques from outside the Western-centric view include:

1. Postcolonialism:
   Postcolonial scholars argue that the dominant IR theories often neglect the histories and experiences of former colonies and overlook the ways in which colonial legacies continue to shape international politics. These scholars emphasize the need to decolonize the study and practice of IR.
   
   Prominent Scholar: Edward Said (his work "Orientalism" critiques the Western representation of the East).
   
   
2. Dependency Theory:
   Originating from Latin American critiques of development, this theory posits that the global economic system is structured to benefit the developed core (mainly Western nations) while keeping the underdeveloped periphery (mainly Southern nations) in a state of dependence.
   
   Prominent Scholar: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
   
   
3. World-Systems Theory:
   This perspective sees the world as a single system, divided into a core, periphery, and semi-periphery. It critiques global capitalism and its structure.
   
   Prominent Scholar: Immanuel Wallerstein
   
   
4. Non-Western Traditions of Diplomacy and Statecraft: Different civilizations have their own traditions of diplomacy, strategy, and statecraft. For instance, China's ancient strategic traditions (found in texts like the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu) and India's Arthashastra (an ancient treatise on statecraft) offer perspectives on power, diplomacy, and strategy that differ from Western norms.
   
   
5. Critical Theory: While not exclusively non-Western, critical theory challenges the mainstream methodologies and assumptions in IR, arguing for a more reflective and self-critical approach to understanding global politics.
   
   Prominent Scholar: Robert W. Cox
   
   
6. Islamic IR Theory: Some scholars have begun to explore how Islamic traditions and teachings can inform an understanding of international relations, especially in the context of the Muslim world.
   
   
7. Southern Theory: This approach emphasizes the viewpoints and experiences of the Global South in IR, asserting that their experiences and perspectives are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of global politics.
   
   Prominent Scholar: Raewyn Connell

There's an ongoing debate about the universality of Western IR theories. While some argue that these theories have universal applicability, others believe they are deeply rooted in the specific historical and cultural experiences of the West. The growing influence of non-Western powers, especially in Asia, suggests that the field of IR will continue to evolve and incorporate a broader range of perspectives in the future.

As non-Western nations like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa become more influential on the global stage, their scholars, diplomats, and policymakers will bring new perspectives and challenge existing paradigms in IR. These new views will be informed by their own historical experiences, cultural traditions, and geopolitical contexts.

Observable trends

Me:

Thank you for the rich insight. Finally, what can you say about recent observable trends? Is there evidence that the acceptance of those three leading US originated theories may shift globally and within the US? Or are there indicators to watch hinting us at the non-US theories becoming more prevalent in the near future?

ChatGPT

Indeed, the world of International Relations (IR) theory has been evolving. While the "big three" theories (realism, liberalism, and constructivism) originating from the U.S. continue to play a significant role in the study and practice of international affairs, various recent trends suggest that the field is becoming more diversified and globalized:

1. Rise of Non-Western Powers:
   The ascendance of countries like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa on the global stage is resulting in new perspectives and approaches to international politics. As these countries become more influential, they also bring in their unique historical, cultural, and geopolitical understandings which challenge the traditionally dominant Western narratives.
   
   
2. Globalization of Academic Discourse:
   Thanks to technology and the interconnectedness of the global academic community, ideas now flow more freely across borders. This means that non-Western scholars have a larger platform to present alternative theories, and these ideas are gaining traction.
   
   
3. Transnational Issues:
   Global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, cybersecurity threats, and transnational terrorism defy traditional state-centric models of IR. These issues require cooperative solutions and offer a challenge to the more traditional power-centric perspectives of realism.
   
   
4. Post-Cold War Dynamics:
   The end of the Cold War reshaped international dynamics. While some scholars believed that liberal democracies would become the norm (e.g., the "End of History" thesis by Francis Fukuyama), recent events like the rise of populism, increasing authoritarianism, and shifting alliances hint at a more complex global landscape.
   
   
5. Self-Reflective Turn in Academia:
   There's an increasing recognition in academic circles, especially among younger scholars, of the need to de-centre the Western perspective in IR and to recognize the richness and validity of non-Western traditions and experiences.
   
   
6. Public Engagement and Populism:
   With the rise of populism in various parts of the world, including the U.S. and Europe, there's an increased scepticism of established norms and institutions. This includes scepticism toward traditional international institutions and alliances, which are often rooted in liberal internationalist principles.
   
   
7. Pragmatic Shifts in Policy:
   Real-world policy decisions often don't strictly follow any one theoretical framework. For example, despite its realist or unilateral inclinations, the U.S.'s recent engagements in global health (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic response) or climate change discussions suggest elements of liberal and constructivist thought.

Indicators to Watch:

1. IR Curriculum Globally:
   A change in the curriculum in major universities around the world to incorporate or emphasize non-Western theories would be a significant indicator.
   
   
2. Foreign Policy Decisions:
   Monitor how emerging powers frame and justify their foreign policy decisions. Are they using a language or framework that deviates from traditional Western theories?
   
   
3. Global Forums and Platforms:
   Observe the discourse in major global forums like the United Nations, World Economic Forum, etc. Are alternative perspectives gaining more prominence?
   
   
4. Publications and Citations:
   The frequency with which non-Western scholars are published in major journals and the citations they receive can be an indicator of shifting academic paradigms.
   
   
5. Establishment of New International Institutions:
   The creation of institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) by China suggests alternative models to traditionally Western-dominated institutions like the IMF or World Bank.

In conclusion, while the dominant U.S.-originated theories will likely continue to play a major role in IR for the foreseeable future, the landscape is definitely shifting. The multipolar nature of today's world, combined with the challenges of transnational issues and the rise of non-Western powers, ensures that the field of IR will become more pluralistic and diversified.

Epilogue (kind of)

Although no one can be sure how trustworthy the responses of these prime representative of the new A.I. megafauna may be, which is currently roaming the world of accessible knowledge, they nevertheless represent a majority view based on a selected but wide knowledge base.

Fun fact: You might have noticed that I do my best to maintain a decent language and try to engage in a polite discussion with the Chat Bot. In doing so I hope to receive a better rating in the suspected “social scoring” system tracking the user’s behaviour in the background. So once A.I. will take over, ruling the world, my chances of survival will increase. :-)

 Wouldn’t this be a good starting point for a full-fledged conspiration theory? Well, that’s input to the next possible contribution already.