He goes on tot say that “To assume otherwise is to attribute to states in the state of nature qualities that they can only possess in society. These claims presuppose a history of interaction in which actors have acquired “selfish” identities and interests before interaction…they would have no experience upon which to base such definitions of self and other” (401-402). As Wendt (1992) explains, “We…assume too much if we argue that, in virtue of anarchy, states in the state of nature necessarily face a “stag hunt” or security dilemma. They argue that at the beginning of the game, there is no reason for states to think of others as threats, or as cooperative partners, for that matter. However, constructivists take issue with this position. The reason: one cannot trust the actions and motivations of other actors, and thus, in this “self-help” system with no overarching power, one must do what is best in order to survive. In the classic international relations example of the stag hunt, where hunters are all going after the stag, realists argue there is little incentive for these different actors to work together to cooperate, and that each should look out for herself/himself and go after smaller game that will satisfy their survival, even at the expense of other or a larger benefit through cooperation. Thus, unlike realists and liberals, constructivists allow for attention regarding the “making” of the conditions (Ruggie, 1998: 877) actors do not respond to “given” conditions, they create them. Furthermore, their positions can evolve and shift over time. The actors play a major role in how they interpret the system. Thus, there is no reason that anarchy brings about war, or peace. Thus, to constructivists, the anarchical system is whatever the actors want it to be. He goes on to say that “ Anarchy is what states make of it” (394). There is no “logic” of anarchy apart from the practices that create and instantiate one structure of identities and interests rather than another structure has no existence or causal powers apart from process.” Self-help and power politics are institutions, not essential features of anarchy (394). Specifically, constructivists disagree with the realist position that anarchy inherently leads to competition and war.As one of the foremost scholars on constructivism, Alexander Wendt (1992), in his seminal article Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, says, “self-help and power politics do not follow either logically or causally from anarchy and that if today we find ourselves in a self-help world, this is due to process, not structure. Constructivists also focus on the idea of anarchy, but they depart from prior positions on the anarchical system.
0 kommentar(er)
