Now, let's talk a little bit more about what is construct, what are social constructs, what is the process of construction, how are these constructs made? Construction, according to constructivism is an act that brings into being a subject, or object that otherwise would not exist. Once this object is constructed, it has a particular meaning and use within the given context. The social constructs, which is the core of the constructivist study, are basically social values, norms, and assumptions. So, they are social phenomena, including relations among states that takes place in a specific historical, cultural, and political context. They are a product of human interaction in the social world. And these constructs can be different in different time, and for different cultures, and civilizations. And one of the main assumptions of constructivist approach is that identities, norms, culture play very important role in world politics. Identities and interests of states are not simply structurally determined, but they are produced by interactions, by institutions, norms, and cultures. Now, how are these cultures, norms, rules, and assumptions, and constructions, how they are produced? They are produced through interactions, through the process of communication of actors. So, this is why constructivism makes a very important conclusion that it is the process not structure, which determines the manner in which states interact. Not this state of the world as an objective reality. There is no objective reality, there is no this constant, and static state of the world. But it is the process which determines the manner in which states interact, it is the process which creates culture, it is the process which creates norms, assumptions, rules of behavior, and so on and so forth. The role of agency, thus it is very, very important component of the constructivist theory. International relations evolve over time and change based on the agential factors, not just on the structural imperatives of energy. Again, to claim the major point of Alexander Wendt, anarchy is what states make of it. So, international relations are not predetermined. There is no determination of history, or predetermination of history. History is the result of agency of relations of certain actors. Thus constructivists emphasize the role of norms, shared understandings, and relations between energy and structure, agency and structure. Structure agents relations is a very important part of the constructivists study. International relations is not static, it is not given a priori, but exists only by the virtue of human acts. It is a social reality which is shaped by people, thus it is shaped by norms, perceptions, and relations. And these human acts are called social facts, because they happen in a specific cultural, historical, and political context. Action must always be understood from within. According to Max Weber's sociological tradition, what is in the people's head, right? So, we need to put ourselves into the shoes of the particular actor in order to understand why is he acting in the same way. We need to put ourselves in the same context in order to understand why he or she behaves in a certain way. This is the chart which identifies this complex reality between actors and context. Actors states they make behavior, they have interests, and they have very importantly identities. Their behavior is shaped by their identities. And context which influences the behavior of actors, or the system consists of ideas, meanings, and rules. Ideas, meanings, and rules are exactly the social constructs, which pretty much determine the behavior of actors. Now some words about the methodological foundations. Methodological foundations of constructivism is based on the discourse between ontology and epistemology. Ontology, a scientific approach which claims that reality exists, we do what we know, that we are dealing with the objective reality. And constructivism questions that. If there is indeed a real world out there that is independent of our knowledge about this world, and is our perception of this, or is our knowledge of this world correct, right? Because again we operate according to our knowledge, not according to the objective reality. We might know the objective reality in a wrong way. Our knowledge of the world might be wrong, as the ancient people and the middle aged people in the Middle Ages were wrong about the fact that the earth was flat. Giordano Bruno was even burnt by the colleague inquisition. He went to fire, he sacrificed his life, because he wanted to prove that the world is actually a circle, the world is round. But the predominant knowledge of the time was that the world was flat. The same in international relations. And epistemology, how do we know, how do we know that the reality is as we think about it? Can we really discover the world through direct observation or not? Rationalists, they accept the logic of consequences, that rational acts produce outcomes that maximize the interests of the individual humans. Thus, the classical theories are based on this rationalist. Constructivists, they accept the different logic, they accept the logic of appropriateness. Rationality for them is a function of legitimacy, defined by shared values and norms within various social construct. What is rational for some, could be irrational for the other. Like for the same with Russia. I mean, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream observers in the West today claim that Russia is an irrational actor. That Russian foreign policy behavior such as towards Ukraine, towards Syria, towards the United States of America, towards the West in general, and towards China is irrational. They claim that Russia for instance, doesn't understand that it becomes a junior partner of China, thus the Russian desire to establish strategic partnership with China is irrational. The Russian understanding is completely different. And Russia claims that it is conducting a very rational foreign policy. So, why do some claim that Russia is irrational, and the others claim that Russia is very much rational? Because we have different social structures, because we have different social context. Therefore, different social context produces different outcomes for individuals. Not only their interests matter, the social context, these structures according to which that they are the constructs on the basis of which they operate differ, and we have different policies. The primary concern for constructivists is to bring this social dimension into the discipline of international relations. It is a mix of sociology and classical IR, classical international relations. Constructivists accept the anti-foundationalist ontology, that is the world does not exist independently of our knowledge about this, that there is the link between structure and agent. And also constructivists accept positivist epistemology. That hypothesis needs to be tested as a very prominent in other constructivism that Hopf claimed. Positivists epistemology are operated by constructivists gives considerable legitimacy, provides considerable legitimacy to constructivism in their debate with the rationalists, who claim that the behavior of agents is rational.
