Realism V Constructivism

Two of the major IR theories we have studied to this point have been Realism and Constructivism, each of which have merit and can be applied to modern international politics. I would argue, however, that despite the important aspects of each, Constructivism is better suited to today’s global stage. This argument stems from major issues in the realist theory. The argument that the physical survival of the state through security is the paramount goal and worry of a nation in conjunction with the ideal that nongovernment organizations are not important in international politics cannot be applied to our modern society. While security is important and the possibility of losing a war due to lack of security is a serious issue, this cannot be the nation’s only focus because the value of a NGO must be accounted for. The constructivist theory argues these two points about security, claiming that the reality and validity of NGOs actually lowers the security threats to a nation. This lowered threat stems from the idea that security communities can create alliances between states making war amongst themselves impossible. As a result of this, arms races between many countries, such as England and France, which would exist under realist theory, are not even a factor in the modern world discounting the Realist theory.

Furthermore, the Constructivist theory places importance in the idea of social norms, another nonexistent factor in the Realist theory. This is an aspect that cannot be ignored in our world because of the importance of respect between nations that can be lost if social norms are broken. For example, realists would believe the prospect of the United States declaring war with China would be extremely high as a result of China’s increasing power and security that threaten the US as a world power. Constructivists, however, there is no possibility at all. This is based on the idea if social norms and that it is no longer the social norm to simply attack another country without a concrete reason. If the United States were to attack China it would likely be condemned by the rest of the world, causing the US more harm than the progress China would make if left uninhibited.

The concept of a war between the United States and China displays the issue of interdependence, or the idea that the US and China both rely on the other for survival. This idea is discounted in Realism when thinking about war because of the thought that physical survival of the nation is paramount before all else. For a Constructivist, however, interdependency is factor that cannot be overlooked for one major reason; a victory at war could still cause the physical destruction of the state due to the loss of a huge economic partner for the US.

Realism provides an excellent theory that cannot be discounted as a result of its explanations of things like why arms races have occurred in our history. While it is important to think about this, there are gaps in the theory that are evident when one looks at the modern political landscape. As a result, I argue that the better of the two theories to use when looking at the modern political stage is constructivism. Most specifically, because of the inclusion of NGOs, interdependence and the various other factors which lower the high possibility of war under the Realist theory.