Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T09:50:03.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructivism and the Problem of Explanation: A Review Article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2005

David Dessler  and
John Owen
David Dessler
Affiliation:
College of William & Mary (dadess@wm.edu)
John Owen
Affiliation:
University of Virginia (jmo4n@virginia.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mlada Bukovansky, Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

Neta Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).

Ted Hopf, Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies; Moscow, 1955 and 1999 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002).

The four books under review here offer insightful and penetrating analyses of the role of such factors as legitimacy, ideas, norms, culture, and identities in world politics. Martha Finnemore's The Purpose of Intervention demonstrates that great powers intervene in small states for reasons significantly different from those in the past. Neta Crawford's Argument and Change in World Politics chronicles arguments for and against Western imperialism over the past five centuries and contends that those arguments helped bring about the birth, long life, and death of Western formal empires. Mlada Bukovansky's Legitimacy and Power Politics examines the social, economic, and political forces at work in the American and French revolutions; she asserts that those events wrought changes in prevailing notions of what makes a state legitimate. Ted Hopf's Social Construction of International Politics analyzes discourses in Moscow in 1955 and 1999 and maintains that these discourses are an important cause of Soviet or Russian foreign policy attitudes in the two periods.David Dessler is an associate professor at the College of William & Mary (dadess@wm.edu). John Owen is an associate professor at the University of Virginia (jmo4n@virginia.edu). The authors thank Jeffrey Legro, Jack Snyder, Michael Tierney, David Waldner, Joshua Yates, two anonymous reviewers, and Greg McAvoy for comments on previous versions of this article. John Owen presented an earlier version to the research seminar at the Centre for International Relations at the University of British Columbia, and the authors also thank those who participated in that seminar, especially Mikulas Fabry and Richard Price. All errors are the sole responsibilities of the authors.

Type
REVIEW ESSAYS
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 597 - 610
Copyright
© 2005 American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, Margaret. 1988. Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carr, E. H. 1945. Nationalism and after. London: Macmillan.
Christensen, Thomas J., and Jack Snyder. 1990. Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization 44 (2): 137–68.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1940. Essay on metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dawe, Alan. 1970. The two sociologies. British Journal of Sociology 21 (2): 207–18.Google Scholar
Fearon, James, and Alexander Wendt. 2002. Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view. In Handbook of international relations, ed. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 52–72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Flew, Anthony, and Godfrey Vesey. 1987. Agency and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hollis, Martin. 1977. Models of man: Philosophical thoughts on social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. 1991. Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security 23 (1): 171–200.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2002. America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, norms, and decisions on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lake, David A. 1999. Entangling relations: American foreign policy in its century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Latsis, Spiro J. 1983. The rationality principle in social science. In Epistemology, methodology, and the social sciences, ed. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky, 123–51. Boston: D. Reidel.
Lewy, Guenter. 1993. The case for humanitarian intervention. Orbis 37: 621–32.Google Scholar
Maier, Charles. 1987. The two postwar eras and the conditions of stability in twentieth-century Western Europe. In In search of stability: explorations in historical political economy, ed. Charles Maier, 153–84. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Lisa L. 2000. Democratic commitments: Legislatures and international cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mayall, James. 1990. Nationalism and international society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Milner, Helen. 1997. Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization 51 (4): 513–53.Google Scholar
Morrow, James. 1993. Arms versus allies: Trade-offs in the search for security. International Organization 47 (2): 207–33.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. Revolutions in sovereignty: How ideas shaped modern international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Popper, Karl R. 1976. The logic of the social sciences. In The positivist dispute in German sociology, ed. Theodor Adorno et al., trans. Glyn Adey, and David Frisby, 87–104. New York: Harper and Row.
Posen, Barry R. 1984. The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Posen, Barry R. 1993. Nationalism, the mass army, and military power. International Security 18 (2): 80–124.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1983. International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism and the postwar economic order. In International regimes, ed. Stephen D. Krasner, 195–231. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of empire: Domestic politics and international ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Snyder, Jack. 2002. Anarchy and culture: Insights from the anthropology of war. International Organization 56 (1): 7–45.Google Scholar
Taylor, Richard. 1966. Action and purpose. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Walt, Stephen M. 1996. Revolution and war. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander E. 1987. The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization 41 (3): 335–70.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander E. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46 (3): 391–425.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander E. 1998. On constitution and causation in world politics. Special issue, Review of International Studies 24:101–17.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander E. 1999. Social theory of international politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yolton, John. 1966. Agent causality. American Philosophical Quarterly 3 (1): 14–26.Google Scholar