An Interpretation Of The Migrant Crisis Constructivism Vs. Marxism

Essay: International Relations Roberta Zappulla
Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
1
An interpretation of the migrant crisis: Constructivism vs. Marxism
Introduction
This paper aims at providing an interpretation of the current migrant crisis involving Europe and the
Mediterranean countries under the perspective of two theories of international relations:
Constructivism and Marxism.
The analysis focuses on the relation between migrants and the European Union itself. The political
crisis involving the European Union’s institutions, its fundamental freedoms of movement and the
question of Schengen area as well as the Syrian civil war and the Arab Spring movements fall
beyond the scope of the paper and therefore will be dealt briefly. The flow of migrants towards
Europe has been steeply increasing since the uprising of the Arab Spring in 2011, which radically
changed the political structure in many African and Asian Mediterranean countries. Indeed, the
population in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria took the street and managed to overthrown
oppressing dictatorships. However, the peak was reached in 2013 when Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian
dictator, commenced to use the chemical weapons against the civilians. On the other hand, the flow
critically challenged the European Union’s institutions and its basic freedoms, especially the
freedom of movement of people. The main stresses have been put on the Dublin Regulation and the
Schengen Agreement1
. At the European level, the issues regarding immigration, asylum policies
and visas fell within the community2
method and as such political decision are increasingly difficult
to be reached.
The objective of the paper is to give new insight to a crisis that has been repeatedly analysed at
multilateral levels with two theories that are not deemed as relevant as realism and liberalism, the
two leading theories of international elations. Constructivism and Marxism help the reader
understand the rationale, which pushes migrants to undertake a dangerous and often lethal journey
towards Europe, in order to survive or have better quality of life. In times, when such a decision
appears more and more a necessity rather than a voluntary act.
1
The former is a series of three regulations (Dublin I, II, III) which establishes that only one member state needs to deal
with the asylum application presented by a migrant. Such country, according to the Dublin III (signed in 2013), is the
nation where the migrant fist set foot in. The Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985 and establishes the Europe’s
border-free Schengen area, where freedom of movement is ensured to citizens of countries parties to it. Some member
states, Ireland and the United Kingdom, decided to opt-out, whilst some non-member states decided to join the
agreement, namely, Norway, Island and Switzerland.
2
Until the Treaty of Amsterdam the issue regarding visa, asylum and immigration policies fell within the third pillar
(hence intergovernmental method), thereon they were under the community method. Moreover, the Treaty of Lisbon
established an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) governed by qualified majority.

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
2
1. Social construction of the European Union and migrants
Constructivism became a theory since the ‘90s, emerging as response to liberalist and realist
theories. It underlined the fundamental change brought about by the end of the Cold War and
focuses on the social ontology of international relations rather than power, outlining the importance
of norms, rules and language in such a dimension. Constructivists stress the role of agents as
political actors whose behaviour is due to social integration. International politics is a “world of our
making”3
. According to the theory, the whole social sphere is under construction, the actors in the
process of integration bring to life historical, political and cultural realities. Social beings, states,
individuals, cannot be distinguish from the normative context in which they come to life, which
shape who they are and depict their future possibilities.
The central aspect of constructivism, which fits best with the case study, is the notion of language
use in the social integration. As Wittgenstein suggested, language rests on the dichotomy between
objectivity and subjectivity: the label reflecting the objective reality and the reaction in the mental
process of the individual4
. Labels cannot stand by themselves, they are as such because of social
integration, which render them what they are in the society. Language is crucial in the interaction
among different international actors; for without it communication and interaction- attributing
meanings to objects, acting in the world- labels and identities would not be possible. It goes without
saying that language cannot be a static concept, it depend upon the context and situation of change.
The study of language goes beyond norms and rules, it concerns with the individual actors in the
international sphere and their intention. Wittgenstein clarifies that intention cannot be defined as
absolute but rather needs to be considered as “[…] embedded in its situation, in human customs and
institutions”.
In the context of language, labels and identities, the relation between migrants and the countries of
the European Union can be better conceived.
On the one side, the European Union, sui generis actor in the international sphere, composed of
states, which willingly decided to cede part of their sovereignty towards an economic and later
political integration in order to attain common functional interests. The European Union is
considered neither a nation-state nor a classical international organization. It presents itself and it is
perceived as a normative power5
, pursuing it values internally and externally. The values enshrined
in the Lisbon Treaty6
and on which the Union is based are common principles (liberty, democracy,
3
Onuf (1989) as cited in Dunne et al. 2013:189
4
Wittgenstein (1958) as cited in Bunne et al. 2013:196
5
The European Union manages to spread its value all over the world through six factors: contagion, informational
diffusion, procedural diffusion, transference, overt diffusion and cultural filter.
6
Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
3
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law) and less-common social
democratic principles (equality, social solidarity, sustainable development and global governance).
The European Union as sui generis actor of the international law has no defined identity, but has a
strong normative power, meaning that its power is not based on coercion or norms but on the
above-mentioned values. Normative power entails that the European Union has the capacity to
change the behaviour of others without recurring to the use of the force. Its uniqueness and
particularity has been internationally recognized. That could explain why it has such a massive
influence on the neighbouring countries. However the identity of the European Union, both
internally and externally, was constructed by member states in the treaties. Hence, were the member
states, which decided the normative and solidarity directions that the union would have to pursue in
its external relations. Constructivists would argue that under such circumstances social interaction
of the member states shape the union and its values, as we know it today. It is the very constructed
identity of the union that has attracting so many immigrants from the neighbouring Mediterranean
countries. And more precisely it is a deeper integration of the union, the freedom of movement for
European citizens in the Schengen area that constitutes a further incentive for migrants who want to
reach the northern European countries with the best standards of living (Germany and Sweden).
On the other side, therefore, we come to face the identities of migrants. For the purpose of the
present paper, it is examined the perception, and thus the social language, whereby Europeans
identify immigrants.
Firstly and foremost, we need to discern among economic migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. It
is important to stress the language used for their definition. Migrants in general are defined as
persons who move, either temporarily or permanently, from one place, area or country of residence
to another. Economic migrants are those migrants who choose to leave their country of origin in
order to better their future and the quality of their lives. Refugee are defined by the 1951
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as “persons who owing to a well-founded fear of
being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion, are outside the country of their nationality and are unstable or, owing to such
fear, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country; or who, not having a
nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events,
are unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”7
. Finally, asylum seekers are migrants
who have requested asylum to a host countries and are waiting for the outcome of their application.
The question on whether the migrants have to be distinguished constitutes an open debate in the
European Union, coping with the largest flow of migrants in its history, and whose main outcome is
7
Article 1(a-2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
4
to open the borders to refugees rather than to economic migrants. However, especially ensuing the
Syrian civil war, the clear distinction between the two has been blurring.
Despite having an international identity before they enter Europe, migrants acquire new social
perceptions from European citizens once they start to be integrated in the society. In this regard, it is
crucial to consider the Weberian concept of Verstehen: the action must be always understood as a
consequence of “what is in the people heads”8
. It implies that collective interpretation of the actors
is able to create meanings valid for the whole society. European citizens, as a whole, are creating
common beliefs and assumptions on the migrants and their role in the European society. Social
common construction, due to the historical and cultural European background, poses a huge
distance between European citizens and migrants. The main argument is the religion9
. Muslims are
widely associated with terrorism, especially after the 9/11. As we have seen after the attacks in
Paris of last November, such misconception is substantially growing.
The second argument regards the workplace. Migrants have often been associated with jobs that
ever more European refused to undertake. Work constitutes a crucial opportunity for migrants to be
integrated in the European societies. And still, it constitutes a threat to them. Indeed, migrants have
been accused of stealing job from European citizens and as such they are depicted as a further cause
for the impoverishment of the population in member states.
Right-wing parties are emerging all over Europe exploiting such a circumstance. In France, Marine
Le Penn and its Front National are paving the way in building hatred against migrant, deemed the
scapegoats for most of the criminal actions performed in the community. She leading a Euro-
sceptical movement along with other strong right parties in Austria (Freedom Party), Denmark
(Danish People’s Party) and Italy (Northern League). These parties are manipulating the population,
by creating new language that bolsters distrust of migrants, instigates the mass to revolt and expel
them from their countries.
Constructivism provides useful insights to explain the reasons why the integration between fleeing
people and hosting countries has proved to be so difficult and critical at times. The language in this
regard plays a fundamental role. The power of words, the power of hatred, is preventing the
European institutions from reaching, once for all, a proper political solution to the debates about the
Dublin Regulations and the Schengen Treaty.
8
Adler (1997:326) as cited in Dunne et al. 2013:192
9
On clear example comes from Hungary whose Minister of Foreign Affairs, Szijjarto, has often reiterated that they
would open the external border with Croatia only to Christians and not to Muslims.

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
5
2. A Marxist approach
Whilst Constructivism seeks to explain the social construction behind the relation between migrants
and European citizens, Marxism moves in another dimension: the economy. Thus, Marxist and
new-Marxist theories cast light on the economic relations (or better dependency, as outlined
hereafter) between the countries of origin of migrants and the member states of the European
Union.
Marx was one of the first authors who criticized realism and liberalism and focused mainly on the
economic relations among international actors rather than political interrelations.
Marx is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th
century; his ideas have had
repercussions in history, sociology, philosophy, economics and politics. He is the father of
socialism and communism, ideologies that changed the world order in the 20th
century. Marx is well
known for its economic theory and its critique to capitalism in his masterpiece “ Das Kapital”.
Indeed, throughout its production, Marx dealt especially with economic issues, under idealistic and
materialist perspectives.
Notwithstanding, Marx dealt with economic analysis of the society. He hardly ever regarded the
international relations. It is rather its legacy and the new-Marxism that have left importance trail in
the study of international relations.
The first theory, in historical order, which constitutes one possible interpretation of the case study is
provided by the Italian Antonio Gramsci, who formulated the Theory of Hegemony: a subtle form
of political influence of capitalist power, which relied more strongly upon consent than coercion.
Man is not ruled by force alone, but also by ideas10
. Later, Cox used the concept of hegemonic
power to build the historical structure of global power11
. Power is seen as emerging from social
processes rather than taken as given in the form of accumulated material capabilities that is as the
result of these processes.
As discussed above, the European Union constitutes a unique global actor, by exercising a
normative power and more importantly it lacks of a community military force (which must be
distinguish from NATO, since not all the Member States are parties to it). The union seeks to
pursue its value of solidarity, respect for rule of law, global governance and respect for human
rights in its international relations and strongly influence the behaviour of its partners.
10
Bates T.R., Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1975),
pp. 351-366
11
Cox, R. and Sinclair, T., Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
6
As Gramsci used it, the word hegemony entails that the governing power gain consent to its
supremacy from those it subjugates. As such, the hegemonic power (the European Union) succeeds
in attracting foreign actors. This holds true for the countries of origin (mainly African and
Mediterranean Asian countries), through cultural means, inter alia popular arts, education,
journalism, literature. In order to maintain such a hegemonic influence, the European Union seeks
to encourage economic link with the subordinate social groups through bilateral and multilateral
agreements, rendering them its biggest economic partners12
.
The second theory, emerged in the ‘60s and ‘70s in Latin America, is the Dependency Theory. It
originates from two papers in 1949, one of the development economist, Hans Singer, and the other
of the Latin American economist at the United Nations Commission for Latin America (UNCLA),
Raul Prebish. They argued that in the term of trade, the developed countries make the most of the
raw natural resources in the underdeveloped countries, which, whereby, were exploited and left
poor. In 1957, with The Political Economy of Growth, the theory was studied under a Marxist
perspective by Paul Baran, who associated the underdevelopment of third world countries with
former theories of imperialism formulated by R. Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin. For the purpose of the
present paper, attention must be paid to the book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, written by
the Marxist historian, Walter Rodney, in 1972. He described how Africa countries had been
consciously exploited by European imperialists, causing the current status of backwardness and
underdevelopment.
What the dependency theory seeks to explain is that even though the colonialism era was over13
, the
patterns of economic domination and exploitation remained unchanged. Therefore, theorists divided
the world into two different spheres: “core” and “periphery”. Core countries, former colonial and
imperial powers, are considered the richest countries in the world, the one producing the most
advanced goods and the leading group towards progress. As such the European Union Member
States, especially the western countries, can fit this definition. The Union is, considered as a whole,
the world largest economic body, bigger even than the US: an economic colossus. Whilst, on the
other side, peripheral countries are the underdeveloped countries, which serve to provide the core
countries with the essential raw material for their production (Mediterranean Asian and
Mediterranean and African Sub-Saharan countries, the countries of origin of most of migrants).
They are totally dependent upon the core for their economic development. That renders the power
12
The European Union has signed several association agreements with the Mediterranean African and Asian countries.
Starting with Syria in 1977, the union managed to sign Association Agreements with other countries of that region:
Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and Palestinian Authority.
13
The dependency theory developed in the ‘60 and the ‘70, a period marked by the principle of self-determination,
which witnessed to the collapse of imperial powers and to the independence of numerous countries in Africa and Asia.

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
7
of core countries even greater. The theorist rejected the assumption that historically the periphery
groups are considered to be in a primitive stage with respect to core countries. They will not reflect
imperial powers’ economies; underdeveloped countries are unique features in the world economy
and constitute the weaker element of the economic world system (Bayilis et a. 2011).
The dependency theory in the mid-70s evolved into the World System Theory, whose main thinker
is Wallerstein. The theory states that in order to understand international relations, the unit of
analysis should be the “world system”, an international division of labour: division made according
to who produce what. This theory argues that social and economic systems operate across
boundaries globally, and that “ […] any country’s development conditions and prospects are
primarily shaped by economic processes and interrelationships operating at the global scale”14
. The
novelty with respect to the dependency theory rests in that from the late ‘70s a new economic group
started to stand out: the “semi-periphery” category. Such countries comprise both the qualities of
cores and peripheries countries (BRICS countries, as they are called today). Indeed, they are rich in
raw material but can also produce advanced and finished goods by themselves thanks to the
development of infrastructures and technologies. According to the World System theorist, periphery
countries focus on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials and thus
complement core countries’ economies, centred on higher skill, capital-intensive production,15
.
According to Chirot periphery countries are able of providing core countries with remarkable
benefits. In the case study taken into consideration, indeed, the countries of origin of migrants are
capable of granting the European Union member states: the access to a large quantity of raw
material; cheap labour; enormous profits from direct capital investments; main market for exports;
skilled professional labour thanks to migration of these people from the non-core to the core16
. In
such a way, core countries are able to exercise an influence, which is not only economic, but also
political. In this regard, according to the theorists, there exist also political differences that explain
the relation of dependency. Political and governmental stability is strong and sound in core
countries whilst rather weak in the periphery. That has been testified by the Arab Springs in 2011,
which caused the collapse of several dictatorships in the Mediterranean Asian And African
countries and gave raise to unstable and weak governments or even to civil wars (Libya and Syria).
According to Marx: “Men [sic] make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;
they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly
14
Klark et al., Alternative Capitalisms: Geographies of Emerging Region, 2002, p. 107
15
Lechner F., Globalization theories: World-System Theory, 2001
16
Chirot D., Social Change in the Modern Era, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
8
encountered, given, and transmitted from the past” (Dunne et. al 2013:155). This assertion of Marx
renders logical the relationship of dependency between these two economic groups. The most
influential European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, the
Netherlands) have long history of governance and dominion over the countries of origin of migrants
and are among the most advanced member states of the European Union. They marked their
dominion with cultural, linguistic and religious background. Despite the movement of self-
determination, commenced in the second half of the 20th
century, the Union continued to intertwine
trade agreements with European former colonies, in particular with the African countries (inserted
in the ACP –African, Caribbean and Pacific- agreements). As such, the Western European powers
managed to maintain their power over their former colonies, through new agreements benefiting
Western preferences17
. Moreover, with the creation of the High Representative for the Union for
Foreign affairs and Common Security, it was established the European External Action Service
(EEAS), whose objective, inter alia, is dealing with Mediterranean policy. The idea was that the
European Union would help these countries in their democratic development and enhance economic
relations with them by providing greater economic interdependence.
Moreover, the division of the world in the three category of economic actors presented by the world
system theory cast light on the on-going debate about the Schengen area, the Dublin Regulations
and the movement of migrants within Europe. According to a personal interpretation of the author,
in the broad picture of the whole European continent, the world system theory could be applied
presenting a clear distinction between core and periphery countries. Indeed, the Balkan countries
(Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania and Bosnia) have been labelled the periphery of
Europe18
. Migrants, entering Greece, move from such periphery to reach what can be defined the
core countries of the continent (namely Germany, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom), the
most advanced nations both for the economic dimension and for the protection and the welfare of
migrants.
3. A comparison between Marxism and Constructivism
17
The most important agreement in this regard is the Lomé Convention, signed in 1975 and later replaced by the
Cotonou Agreement in 2000. Such agreements aim at encouraging the development of the ACP countries and the
compliance with the WTO regulations, with the ultimate goal to create a single market among them.
18
Dimitar Bechev, The Periphery of the Periphery: the Western Balkans and the Euro Crisis, the European Council on
Foreign Relations (ECFR), August 2012

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
9
Marxism and Constructivism are relatively new theories of international relations. They are not
considered classical theories such as realism or liberalism; they are rather critical theories that put
the emphasis on the social and economic structures of the society and of the international sphere.
At a first glance, Constructivists and Marxists appear to focus on two fundamental different macro
arguments in their study. The former is centred on the analysis of the social sphere and how ideas,
culture and values could shape the agents. It is rather an approach to social inquiry. The latter,
instead, is concerned with the economic instances that push nation-states and world regions to
interrelate with each other.
In the analysis of the case study, it is crucial to answer whole different questions raised by the two
theories. Constructivists reflect on what is the construction of the identity of migrants in Europe and
how the European Union’s own identity is different from the rest of the world. Whilst Marxism tries
to explain what resources migrants do gain in going towards the European Union and what is the
economic framework laying behind the migration.
Moreover, in such analysis, a different element of the two theories stands out. In the Marxist theory,
the focus are states or better regions, distinguished by the fundamental division of labour into core,
periphery and semi-periphery states; whilst Constructivism bases its theory not only on the study of
nation states but also of non- state actors, the individual agents.
Nonetheless, these two theories are two faces of the same coin. Wendt, indeed, argued that material
factor are significant only whether people assign them meanings and such meanings and ides arise
from the interaction among agents19
.
One bright example stemming from the present paper is the theory of hegemony of the Marxist
Gramsci, who inextricably bounds ideas and materialistic forces together. Indeed, the hegemonic
power, for the purpose of the paper, the European Union, is able to exercise is power through its
dominant capitalist culture and idea. Indeed, each culture is used to manipulate individuals’ needs20
.
On the other hand, Cox reshaped such a theory portraying it as series of values and norms capable
of bolstering the dominant structure of power among states and non-states agents21
.
However, both theories fail to provide a political analysis of the crisis. They are crucial to
understand what are the incentives for migrants to flee their countries and reach the European
coasts, but cannot shed light on the current political debate at institutional level. They do not
provide any solution to a crisis, which is estimated endure for many years ahead.
19
Wendt, A., Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
20
Marcuse, H., One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, 12thed., Boston: Beacon
Press, 1970, p.3
21
Trobbiani R., A comparison and contrast between Marxist and Constructivist core assumptions in IR theory

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
10
Constructivism does not explain what are the political repercussions both at national and at
community level of the integration of migrants in the European society. Marxism only deals with
economic dimension and its analysis is also especially true for the African countries, whilst the
major flows are currently coming from Syria.
Conclusion
This paper intends to analyse the current migrant crisis that is involving the European union under
the perspective of two theories of international relations: Constructivism and Marxism.
On the one hand, Constructivism emphases the construction of identities of states and non-states
actors shaped by ideas, values and norms. The theory can be approached to the case study by
focusing on the definition of the identities of both the migrants and the European Union. As a
consequences of the cultural and social constructions, the interaction between the two actors of the
crisis in quite critical and difficult. That holds true also at political level, where the member states
are still unable to find a solution to save the millions of lives dying in the Mediterranean Sea.
On the other, Marxism or better neo-Marxism is focused on the economic level of interaction
among the agents on the international sphere. In the analysis of the case study, three leading
theories have been presented: the theory of hegemony, the dependency theory and the world system
theory. Neo-Marxist theories serve as economic basis to understand the conditions driving migrants
towards the European Union. The economic dependence of the countries of origin upon Europe is
still strong and determines many dynamics within their society.
Many challenges expect the European Union. In order to curb such a phenomenon, multilateral
efforts are needed. Humanitarian aid is not sufficient alone, the European Union should aim at
solving the deep-rooted causes of the migration: political instability and underdevelopment of the
countries of origin. The European Union has proved to be unprepared for such a crisis. It is not
abiding by the values of respect for human rights, dignity, equality, non-discrimination. Values that
not only the union should respect internally but which constitute one of the main pillars in its
external policy. For the future, many argue that the European Union will not be able to exercise the
influential and normative power in the international sphere without a common defence policy and a
common force of coercion. The clash between soft power (normative power) and hard power
(coercive power) can constitute a threat for the legitimacy at international level of the union.
The refugee crisis and the issue related to internal security could encourage member states to
strengthen their effort in order to attain a collective defence policy. However, hardly ever in periods
of crisis the union has presented a common strategic foreign policy.

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
11
The migration crisis is predicted to endure for several years still and if the European Union is
unable to cope with that, it could cause harsh consequences on the whole system.
Bibliography

Prof. P. Foradori
2015/2016
12
Bates T.R., Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony, Journal of the History of Ideas,Vol. 36, No. 2
(Apr. - Jun., 1975), pp. 351-366
Baylis J., Smith S., The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University press, New York, 2011
Burchill S., Linker A., et all, Theories of International Relations, Palcrave Macmillan, New York,
Fifth Edition, 2010
Dunne T., Kurki M., Smith S., International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, Third Edition, 2013
Jerneck M., The EU as an Aid Donor in the World System: Dominating Power or Equal Partner?,
Lund University, 2006

An Interpretation Of The Migrant Crisis Constructivism Vs. Marxism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Interpretation Of The Migrant Crisis Constructivism Vs. Marxism

Similar to An Interpretation Of The Migrant Crisis Constructivism Vs. Marxism (18)

More from Nathan Mathis

More from Nathan Mathis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Interpretation Of The Migrant Crisis Constructivism Vs. Marxism