1. Plan for Today: Constructivism 1. Midterm exam format. 2. Continuing introduction to constructivism: what kinds of arguments about norms/ identities? 3. Detailed example: Wendt’s constructivist interpretation of anarchy.

2. Midterm Exam Format 2 sections 2 sections Total: 30 points. Total: 30 points. Section 1: short-paragraph answer on a concept. Section 1: short-paragraph answer on a concept. Answer 1 out of 3. (10 points – 15 minutes) Answer 1 out of 3. (10 points – 15 minutes) Section 2: essay question. Section 2: essay question. Answer 1 out of 3. (20 points – 30 minutes) Answer 1 out of 3. (20 points – 30 minutes) Comparing two viewpoints on a topic (two authors or two sides of an argument). Comparing two viewpoints on a topic (two authors or two sides of an argument).

3. Midterm Exam Format Example essay question: Example essay question: o Contemporary theorists of the democratic peace share certain ideas with the work of Immanuel Kant, but in other respects differ from his vision of the perpetual peace. What ideas do they share, and where do they part ways with Kant’s theory?

4. Constructivism

5. Logic of Consequences vs. Logic of Appropriateness (March & Olsen) Two potential logics of action in any social environment: Two potential logics of action in any social environment: 1. Logic of consequences: political action from rational calculation by actors to maximize preferences. Interests  choices  outcomes. Interests  choices  outcomes. 2. Logic of appropriateness: political action from norms and identities suggesting appropriate action in given situation. Identities & norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift. Identities & norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift.

6. Logic of Consequences vs. Logic of Appropriateness Two potential logics of action in any social environment: Two potential logics of action in any social environment: 1. Logic of consequences: political action from rational calculation by actors to maximize preferences. (Realism, Neoliberalism, Decisionmaking) Interests  choices  outcomes. Interests  choices  outcomes. 2. Logic of appropriateness: political action from norms and identities suggesting appropriate action in given situation. (Constructivism) Identities + norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift. Identities + norms  choices  outcomes  further identity shift.

7. Constructivist Logic – Norms/ Identities as Dependent Variable E.g. Finnemore on how and why norms of humanitarian intervention have changed.E.g. Finnemore on how and why norms of humanitarian intervention have changed. Pre-20th century: intervention involved protection of Christians from Ottoman Turks. Pre-20th century: intervention involved protection of Christians from Ottoman Turks. 20th century: humanity becomes universalized. 20th century: humanity becomes universalized. Post-1945: virtually all instances of intervention involve protecting non-Christians and/or non- Europeans. Post-1945: virtually all instances of intervention involve protecting non-Christians and/or non- Europeans.

8. Constructivist Logic – Norms/ Identities as Independent Variable 1. Different international systems  identities and norms  different behaviour by actors (systemic-level argument): Contemporary sovereign states system vs. Nomadic tribal system vs. Feudal system Contemporary sovereign states system vs. Nomadic tribal system vs. Feudal system People living under different systems have differing ideas about appropriate behaviour. People living under different systems have differing ideas about appropriate behaviour.

9. Constructivist Logic – Norms/ Identities as Independent Variable 2. Domestic politics arguments about states’ identities (unit-level argument): E.g. Katzenstein on terrorism policies: E.g. Katzenstein on terrorism policies: Germany: rule of law  pass new, tough laws. Germany: rule of law  pass new, tough laws. Japan: rule by consensus  teach citizens that terrorism morally wrong and anti-Japanese. Japan: rule by consensus  teach citizens that terrorism morally wrong and anti-Japanese.

10. Alexander Wendt Example of a Systemic-Level Argument Q: How does the condition of anarchy necessarily define the identities of the actors in the system? Q: How does the condition of anarchy necessarily define the identities of the actors in the system? Wendt: self-help isn’t automatic. Wendt: self-help isn’t automatic. If correct, realism may be wrong about competition and conflict as natural. If correct, realism may be wrong about competition and conflict as natural.

11. Alexander Wendt Example of a Systemic-Level Argument Wendt tries to demonstrate that: Wendt tries to demonstrate that: 1. Self-help not a constitutive property of anarchy; and 2. Self-help and competitive power politics may be created through practice over time.

12. Alexander Wendt Example of a Systemic-Level Argument Continuum of potential security systems under anarchy: Continuum of potential security systems under anarchy: “Competitive” “Cooperative”“Individualistic”

13. Alexander Wendt Example of a Systemic-Level Argument Wendt agrees current system is self-help and difficult to change because: Wendt agrees current system is self-help and difficult to change because: 1. Once created, system exists objectively and rewards competition, punishes altruism. 2. Actors want to maintain stable identities once created to avoid costs of change and uncertainty.