Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 3

Constructivist Approaches in International Relations

Uluslararası İlişkilerde Konstrüktivist Yaklaşımlar

Pages
83–111
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The said approach makes the participation of the socio-cultural factors such as identity, culture, discourse and languages, which are ignored by the positivist theories constitutes the main-stream of the discipline, into the international relations analyses possible.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Starting with the 1990’s, a new theoretical approach has emerged in the field of International Relations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This approach, which was positioned between the positivist theories and post-positivist theories and thus described as the ‘third way’, is also named as social constructivism due to the emphasis it puts on the social aspect of the international relations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The said approach makes the participation of the socio-cultural factors such as identity, culture, discourse and languages, which are ignored by the positivist theories constitutes the main-stream of the discipline, into the international relations analyses possible.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Starting with the 1990’s, a new theoretical approach has emerged in the field of International Relations. This approach, which was positioned between the positivist theories and post-positivist theories and thus described as the ‘third way’, is also named as social constructivism due to the emphasis it puts on the social aspect of the international relations. Because of the differences in the epistemological positions adopted, there are different types of constructivism, which is different from the main-stream of the discipline in many ways. The said differences makes the place of the approach in question within the International Relations theories and thus its position as the ‘third way’ controversial. The most distinctive aspect of this approach is its suggestion of different ontology towards the international relations analyses. Suggesting that the basic structures of the international policy are social, rather than material, constructivism argues for the priority of the normative structures over the material ones. The said approach makes the participation of the socio-cultural factors such as identity, culture, discourse and languages, which are ignored by the positivist theories constitutes the main-stream of the discipline, into the international relations analyses possible.

Özet

1990’lı yıllarla birlikte Uluslararası İlişkiler alanında yeni bir teorik yaklaşımın ortaya çıktığı görülür. Pozitivist teoriler ile post-pozitivist teoriler arasında konumlandırılan ve bu nedenle ‘üçüncü yol’ olarak nitelendirilen bu yaklaşım, uluslararası ilişkilerin sosyal yanına yaptığı vurgu nedeniyle sosyal konstrüktivizm olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Disiplinin ana-akımından birçok açıdan ayrılan konstrüktivizmin, benimsenen epistemolojik pozisyonlarındaki farklılıklar nedeniyle değişik türleri bulunmaktadır. Bu farklılaşma ilgili yaklaşımın Uluslararası İlişkiler teorileri içindeki yerini ve dolayısıyla ‘üçüncü yol’ olma pozisyonunu tartışmalı hale getirmektedir. Bu yaklaşımın en ayırt edici yanı, uluslararası ilişkiler analizlerine yönelik farklı ontoloji önerisidir. Uluslararası siyasanın temel yapılarının maddi olmaktan çok sosyal olduğunu ileri süren konstrüktivizm, normatif olanın maddi yapılar üzerindeki önceliğini savunur. İlgili yaklaşım, disiplinin ana-akımını oluşturan pozitivist teorilerin göz ardı ettiği kimlik, kültür, söylem ve dil gibi sosyo-kültürel faktörlerin uluslararası ilişkiler analizlerine katılmasını olanaklı kılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, S. (2022). Constructivist Approaches in International Relations. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 3, 83–111. https://ajindex.com/articles/443186

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. ADLER, Emanuel (1997), “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 3/3: 319-363.
  2. ARI, Tayyar (2004), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri: Çatışma, Hegemonya, İşbirliği, 3. Baskı. (İstanbul: ALFA) BIERSTEKER, Thomas J. / WEBER, Cynthia (1996), “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty,” BIERSTEKER, Thomas, J. / WEBER, Cynthia (ed.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press): 1-21.
  3. CHECKEL, Jeffrey T. (2003). “Social Constructivism in Global and European Politics,” ARENA Working Papers, WP 15/03. DEVETAK, Richard (1996), “Critical Theory,” BURCHILL, Scot / LINKLATER, Andrew (eds.), Theories of International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press): 145-177.
  4. FRIEDRICHS, Jörg (2004), European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions (London: Routledge). GIDDENS, Anthony (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press). GOULD, Harry D. (1998), “What is at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?,” Vendulka KUBALKOVA, Vendulka / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (eds.), International Relations In A Constructed World (New York: M. E. Sharpe): 79-98.
  5. GUZZUNI, Stefano (2000), “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, 6/2: 147-182.
  6. KAHLER, Miles (1997), “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945,”
  7. DOYLE, W. / IKENBERRY, G. John (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Colorado: Westview Press): 20-53.
  8. KEYMAN, Fuat E. (2005), “Kimlik ve Demokrasi,” ERALP, Atila (der.), Devlet ve Ötesi (İstanbul: İletişim): 217-250.
  9. KEOHANE, Robert (1988), “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, 32/4: 379-396.
  10. KUBALKOVA, Vendulka / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (1998), “Constructing Constructivism,” KUBALKOVA, Vendulka / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (eds.), International Relations In A Constructed World (New York: M. E. Sharpe): 3-21.
  11. LAPID, Yosef (1989), “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post- Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly, 33/3: 235-254.
  12. McSWEENEY, Bill (1999),
  13. Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press). NAVON, Emmanuel (2001), “The ‘Third Debate’ Revisted,” Review of International Studies, 27: 611-625.
  14. NEUFELD, Mark A. (1995), The Restructuring o