Alexander Wendt on Constructivism and the Collective: Collective Identity, Collective Interest, and Collective Action. Wendt's article broke free from decades of Realism as the monopoly in International Relations. This summary only deals with an introduction as well as defining the international state. It is in no an exhaustive summary of the whole article.

1. COLLECTIVE IDENTITY FORMATION
AND THE INTERNATIONAL STATE
ALEXANDER WENDT, 1994
PRESENTED BY
AMIN SADEGHI
POL501 Theories of IR
Asst. Prof. Dr. İlksoy Aslım
MA International Relations
European University of Lefke

2. BIOGRAPHY
1958 Born
1989 Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Minnesota
89-97 Taught at Yale University
97-99 Taught at Dartmouth College
99-04 Taught at University of Chicago
04-present
Professor of International Security at Ohio State University

3. MAJOR WORKS
Year Title Citations
1987 The agent-structure problem in international relations theory 2470
1989 [PhD thesis] Institutions and International Order
1992 Anarchy is what states make of it 6596
1994 Collective identity formation and the international state 2360
1995 Constructing International Pollitics 1581
1998 On constitution and causation in international relations 574
1999 [B] Social Theory of International Politics 8944
1999 Social theory of international relations 548
2002 Rationalism v. constructivism: a skeptical view 924
2003 Why a world state is inevitable 838
2004 The state as person in international theory 478
2015 [B] Quantum Mind and Social Science Unifying Physical and
Social Ontology

4. CONSTRUCTIVISM ORIGINS
Name Contributions
Immanuel
Kant
Knowledge passes through human consciousness,
making the absorbed knowledge “subjective.”
Max Weber Sociological knowledge = subjective understanding
Anthony
Giddens
Structure-agency problem = [solution] Structuration:
Structures constrain actors, but actors have the ability of
thinking of and acting on them in new ways. [what
nowadays call: “changing the narrative”]
Jean Piaget
(1896 – 1980)
Clinical psychology, Child development, Genetic
epistemology
Lev Semyonovich
Vygotsky (1896 –
1943)
Sociocultural/Socio-historical development
John Dewey (1859 – 1952)
Jerome Seymour Bruner (1915 – 2016)

5. FAMOUS IR
CONSTRUCTIVISTS
Name Contributions
Nicholas
Onuf
"constructivism“; three types of rule
Peter J.
Katzenstein
Emanuel
Adler
Michael N.
Barnett
Security community
Kathryn
Sikkink
John Ruggie Norms, ideas, and identities in IR; Polanyi’s "embedded
liberalism"
Martha
Finnemore

6. DISTINCTIONS
1. Positivist approaches to IR e.g. neo-realism emphasize the
material role of international anarchy in structuring actor
(i.e. state) behaviour. For Constructivists: inter-subjective
beliefs.
2. Postmodernists also stress the importance of social
construction. Postmodernism: challenging the existence of
a ‘real world’; anti-foundationalist. Constructivism: an
objective social reality exists; a ‘third way’ between
positivism and post-positivism.
Sutch & Elias, 2007

7. CRITICISMS
• Three mistakes of Constructivists who came to prominence
in the 1990s according to Onuf:
1. Taking for granted that “a norm” is normative without
asking whether, to what degree, or how this might be so.
A mindless appropriation of functional sociology and utter
indifference to legal and political theory.
2. Substitution of identity (‘who am I?’ questions) for agency
(‘who acts for what or whom?’ questions) in guessing at
the implications of the end of the Cold War. (personal
identity > collective identity) >> (agency > imagined
collectivities).
3. Treating culture as an aggregate residual and then
assigned it enormous causal significance.
Nicholas Onuf, Theory-Talks.org, 2015

8. CONSTRUCTIVISM
1. “States are the principal units of analysis for international political theory.”
2. “The key structures in the
states system are
intersubjective*,
rather than material.” (Realism) [of security
and economics: both Realism and
Liberalism]
3. “State identities and
interests are .. [largely]
constructed by .. social
structures,
rather than given exogenously to the
system by human nature or domestic
politics.” (Rationalist, Systemic theories ->
1. Theories that purport to support interest
formation;
2. Unit-level, reductionist theories e.g.
Waltz, 1979: interests = exogenous).
* Intersubjective awareness = socially constructed beliefs;
a priori knowledge.

9. THE SELF: THE “I” AND THE “ME”
• According to Mead “the individual and his or her identity
develops out of interaction with others in the present and,
through culture, others of the past.”
• “For Mead, then, the self is a process … an interplay
between two poles … the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’”:
• The ‘Me’: definitions given by society e.g. man, son, doctor,
tall, ‘a bit of a lad.’
• The ‘I’: “the moving centre of all of these descriptions …
derived from others.”
• Source of impulse, energy, and reflection;
• Uniqueness of the individual; and
• The subject of our internal conversations.
The Problem of Sociology, Lee & Newby, pg 317-8, 1983 (2000)

10. SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
STATES
• Me and I
• Corporate constitution of state actors
• Social constitution of state actors

11. CORPORATE IDENTITY
• Interests generated from corporate identity of states:
1. Physical security (includes differentiation)
2. Ontological security* (continuity/stability)
3. Recognition (vs. survival)
4. Development (collective level increase in quality of life)
• They provide motivational energy, but can’t be deemed as
self-interest (purely social phenomenon).
* a sense of order and continuity in regard to an
individual's experiences. (Giddens, 1991)

12. SOCIAL IDENTITIES
• Definition: “Sets of meanings that an actor attributes to itself
while taking the perspective of .. [other social objects]”
• Actors have multiple social identities with varying level of
importance.
• These identities fit into certain social roles, implying
shared/mutual understanding of those roles, as well as the
capabilities and responsibilities attached to them.
• State identities and interests stem from:
1. Domestic societies: “liberal;” “democratic.”
2. International societies: “hegemon;” “balancer.”

13. THE COLD WAR
• United States vs. USSR
• Both had “national security world-views;”
• Defined the self and the other;
• Had conflictual identities (conflictual vs. cooperative);
• National interests were subject to these structurally
constituted identities;
• Enmity (as a form of social relation) caused the United States
to resist Soviet influence. [Democracy vs. Socialism]
• Identities have degrees of stability
• Practices over time accomplish a stabilised identity
• Rationalism can only be expected from a stabilised identities
(verified through observation)

14. COLLECTIVE ACTION
• Collective action problems can be solved through the
establishment of collective interests:
• Interest spectrum: Self-interests ↔ Collective interests
• “Effects of the extent to which and manner in which social
identities involve an identification with the fate of the other”
• Identification continuum: Negative ↔ Positive
• conceiving the other as anathema to the self ↔
• conceiving it as an extension of the self
• Anathema ↔ Extension
• Variations of identification
• With another actor e.g. military defense
• With the planet e.g. protecting the environment

15. IDENTIFICATION CONTINUUM
Negative neutral Positive
Neorealist
claim
Neoliberal
claim
“States define their
interests in terms of
relative gains”
“Absolute gains
predominate”
• Both Neorealists and Neoliberals fail to touch on
positive identification
• “Interests [for them] are defined without
regard for the other;”
• Interests can be “manipulated for the
gratification of the self.”

16. COLLECTIVE
IDENTITY/INTEREST
• Collective identity: “positive identification with the welfare of
another, such that the other is seen as a cognitive extension
of the self, rather than independent.”
• Identification is rarely [100%]
• Interdependence between self and other is empathetic (vs.
instrumental/situational interdependence)
Empathetic
Interdependence
Feelings of solidarity,
community, and loyalty
Collective interest

17. THE INTERNATIONAL
STATE

18. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
INTRODUCTION
• Wendt acknowledges that his vocabulary has been
“sociological” (vs. “economic”)
• Wendt’s Rationalist assumption: states are agents that have
identities, interests, rationality, etc.
• However, he believes that the anarchy-hierarchy dichotomy
dominating IR is problematic.
• Alternatives suggested by others include:
1. Non-state-centric thinking (Ferguson and Mansbach 1991)
2. Emphasis on the mutability of state forms (Ruggie 1993b; R. Walker
1990)
Governance over a people or space(Benjamin and Duvall 1985; Katzenstein 1990) I
i.e. Westphalian sovereignty: state agents and authority
structures did coincide spatially.
i.e. political authority that is international and decentralised (Ruggie
1983b; Pasic 1993)
i.e. “international states” (Robert Cox 1987)

19. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
INTERNATIONALISATION
Wendt uses Ruggie’s concept of authority (Ruggie 1983b) and
tries to apply it towards the internationalisation of the state:
The concept of authority Internationalisation of the state
Legitimacy (or shared purpose) Identification with respect to some state
function (military security/ economic
growth/etc.).
Coercion (or enforcement) A collective capacity to sanction actors
who disrupt the performance of that
function.
Such an approach, he argues, would cause:
The institutionalisation of collective action
• Normal/routine that certain problems are handled on an
international basis.

20. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
COLLECTIVE ACTION
In its institutionalised form, collective action would ‘probably’
create certain expectations :
• Certain behaviours (norms, rules, principles, etc.)
• Collective policies are routinely discussed
• Interorganisational networks. (Geser 1992; Hopkins 1978)

21. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
COLLECTIVE SECURITY
• The provision of security (territorial monopoly on organized
violence) is a key function of the state.
• If not rivals & engage in institutionalized collective action > then
"Monopoly" here may denote control by multiple actors.
• A collective security system > transnational space
• E.g. NATO & European Community states > internationalize
internal security as well;
• Feature: high degree of legitimacy among its members;
• Feature: may force [binding] policies;
• Feature: weak members participate in decision-makings
• The shortcomings of NATO are justified for the
internationalisation of political authority is still in progress.

22. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
COLLECTIVE ECONOMY
• The provision of an institutional production framework is
another function/[service] of the state > also in the process of
internationalisation.
• In the past capitalism was a territorial phenomenon > now
states have a network of regimes:
• A trade regime: to govern the flow of goods and services;
• A monetary regime: to govern the value of transactions;
• A “capital regime”: to govern property rights and capital flows.
(Duvall and Wendt 1987)
• These [new] regimes, not only affect the prices of certain
behaviours, but they also embody a degree of collective
identity (“embedded liberalism”).

23. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
IMPLICATIONS FOR IR (1)
1. Gradually transforms the structure of the Westphalian states
system (Anarchy > Authority).
 a "disarticulated" sovereignty in which different state functions
are performed at different levels of aggregation. (Pogge 1992) [Thomas
W. Pogge: a follower of John Rawls’s global/international justice theory]
 a "neo-Medievalism" in which political authority is shared by
both state and nonstate actors. (Bull 1977) [Hedley Bull: Prominent scholar of
English School of IR]
 In both cases the state stays, however with lesser sovereignty;
sovereignty is not the intrinsic feature of state agency
anymore, but of social identity.
 Sovereignty of the state is transferred upwards to realise the
capacity of strengthened collective problem-solving.

24. THE INTERNATIONAL STATE:
IMPLICATIONS FOR IR (2)
2. Calls into question the premises of contemporary
democratic governance.
 Westphalian approach to sovereignty allowed democratic and
international relations theorists to ignore each other.
 Democratic theorists: concerned with making state power
democratically accountable.
 IR theorists: concerned with interstate relations.
 International democracy is a problem that can be solved through
the creation of collective identities.
 The creation of collective identities itself poses an entirely new
problem of making those identities democratically accountable.
(Linklater 1990; Wolfe 1992)
 Wendt suggest democratic and international relations theorists
to work together on this issue.

25. CONCLUSION
• According to Wendt, state-centric systemic international
relations theory cannot explain structural change not because
of statism but for two other commitments:
1. Realilsm: for its essence is materialism, structural change
means distribution of material power, thus shifts in polarity.
• Authority, however, is an intersubjective concept, and its
internationalization can elude materialist theory.
2. Rationalism: identities and interests that constitute games are
exogenous and constant.
• The usefulness of rationality does not include explanations for
identities and interests, which are key in determining structural
change.

26. References
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press.
Lee, D., & Newby, H. (1983). The Problem of Sociology. Routledge.
Onuf, N. (2015, July 2). Nicholas Onuf on the Evolution of Social Constructivsm, Turns in IR, and a
Discipline of Our Making. Retrieved 12 11, 2017, from Theory Talks: http://www.theory-
talks.org/2015/07/theory-talk-70.html
Sutch, P., & Elias, J. (2007). International relations: the basics. Routledge.
Wendt, A. (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State. American Political
Science Review, 88(2), 384-396.
Useful links
Alexander Wendt Timeline: https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/alexander-wendt