The Contingency of Constructivism: On Norms, the Social, and the Third
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829816655879 |
| Author | Oliver Kessler |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2016, Vol. 45(1) 43 –63
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829816655879
mil.sagepub.com
1. I use ‘strange’ in the same way as Nicholas Onuf, ‘Worlds of Our Making: the Strange Career
of Constructivism in International Relations’, in Visions of International Relations: Assessing
an Academic Field, ed. Donald J. Puchala (Columbia: University of South Caroline Press,
2002), 119–41.
The Contingency of
Constructivism: On Norms,
the Social, and the Third
Oliver Kessler
University of Erfurt, Germany
Abstract
This article argues that constructivism has not engaged with the concept of contingency
sufficiently. While such noted constructivists as Onuf, Kratochwil, and Wendt often refer
to ‘double contingency’, it is the concept of ‘norms’ rather than ‘contingency’ that is used to
characterise constructivist theorising in International Relations (IR). In this article, I outline how
moderate and radical constructivists differ in their take on norms and thereby establish how
the problem of contingency is actually at the core of constructivist theorising. The discussion
then shows how Kratochwil, Onuf, and Wendt have made use of double contingency while
moderate constructivists have re-introduced the single actor to show how norms ‘cause’ action.
The third part moves beyond the double contingency framework. By differentiating ‘the social’
from ‘society’, this section shows that a ‘third’ position can be identified. The concept of ‘triple
contingency’ then could be a way ahead for the theoretical discussion on constructivism itself.
Keywords
constructivism, contingency, triple contingency
Introduction
Constructivism is a strange animal in International Relations (IR).1 On the one hand, it
is considered to be one of the most important theoretical movements whose study of
Corresponding author:
Oliver Kessler, University of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Str. 63, Erfurt 99089, Germany.
Email: oliver.kessler@uni-erfurt.de
655879MIL0010.1177/0305829816655879Millennium: Journal of International StudiesKessler
research-article2016
Article
44 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45(1)
2. For constructivism and norms see Karin M. Fierke, ‘Constructivism’, in International
Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 177–94. Joshua Goldstein and Jon Pevehouse,
International Relations (Boston: Pearson, 2011). See also Cynthia Weber, International
Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2009), 77.
3. The only exception is Jeffrey Checkel in ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations
Theory’, World Politics 50, no. 2 (1998): 324–48.
4. See also Ted Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’,
International Security 23, no. 1 (1998): 171–200.
5. K. M. Fierke‚ ‘Constructivism’, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and
Diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010), 187.
6. Knud Erik Jørgensen, International Relations Theory: A New Introduction (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 163. Stefano Guzzini, ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism’,
European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 2 (2000): 156 .
7. See Oliver Kessler, ‘World Society and the Problem of Practices,’ Millennium – Journal of
International Studies 44, no. 2 (2016): 269–77.
8. This ambiguity might be due to the fact that differences refer to different inter-discipli-
nary projects and are never confined to IR’s boundaries like in Realism and Liberalism
– where differences can be dealt with ‘internally’. I thank Timo Walter for insisting on
this point.
9. See for example Emanuel Adler, ‘Constructivism and International Relations’, in Handbook
of International Relations, eds. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons
(London: SAGE Publications, 2002), 95–118; Jeffrey Checkel, ‘Norms, Institutions, and
National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly 43, no. 1
(1987): 83–114; Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and
Political Change’, International Organization 52, no. 4: 887–917; Alexander Wendt, ‘The
Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization 41,
no. 3 (1987): 335–70; Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999).
norms, intersubjectivity, and ‘the social’ has changed the conceptual apparatus of IR
profoundly.2 On the other hand, as a field of study, it is characterised by its fragmenta-
tion and internal diversity.3 Ted Hopf, for example, distinguishes between conventional
and critical constructivism;4 Karin Fierke separates consistent (critical) from in-consistent
(conventional) constructivism;5 Stefano Guzzini and Knud Erik Joergensen both
identify an ‘epistemological’ and an ‘ontological’ approach;6 while others refer to ‘mod-
erate’ and ‘radical’ modes of constructivist theorising.7 It seems that norms, intersub-
jectivity, and ‘the social’ can mean utterly different ‘things’ and so it is far from clear
what constructivism stands for. Its success seems to be based on an increasingly ‘ambig-
uous’ conceptual apparatus, and hence it is no surprise that the core of constructivism is
now difficult to characterise.8 Of course, there appears to be a broad consensus that the
moderate-conventional constructivism is associated with both Alexander Wendt’s rump
materialism and the liberal norms-based analyses by Audie Klotz, Martha Finnemore,
Kathryn Sikkink and Thomas Risse,9 while the radical-critical-epistemological stream
To continue reading
Request your trial