[MUSIC]

In this picture you can see the place of constructivism, and

the relations of constructivism with the realism and liberalism,

and what kind of assertions, major assumptions, they make.

Realism talks about power as the major determinant of behavior,

and claims that anarchy produces security dilemma, and

anarchy makes emphasis on power essential.

Liberalism claims that institutions,

various types of institutions is the major determinant, the major driver of behavior,

and claims that anarchy is mitigated by international governmental organizations,

by international regimes, interdependence, common values,

and international law, and so on and so forth.

Constructivism claims that ideas, not power or

institutions, but ideas are the major driver of international politics.

That anarchy is an artificial term, not the determinate but

kind of the secondary notion, because this produced by states and

anarchy depends on the state's behavior.

And states behave based on their culture,

based on their national identity, based on how the societies are shaped.

There are several variations of constructivism.

The conventional constructivism, represented by Alexander Wendt,

does not reject the scientific assumptions of positivist science at all.

Conventional constructivism advocates some kind of middle ground between positivism

and poststructuralism, and includes social ontology and positivist epistemology.

But there is also critical constructivism,

which challenges the conventional constructivism.

And critical constructivists highlight the inseparability of social ontology and

social, not positivist, epistemology.

And here are some prominent representatives of the critical

constructivism.

So the essence of the debate between conventional and

critical constructivism is the consistency of the method.

Finally, I will give you an example of how constructivism really works, right?

Where do we see the manifestations of constructivism in

actual making of international relations.

And this example is the so-called securitization concept, which was

developed by the, so-called, Copenhagen School of international relations.

And the major contribution to this securitization starter

was provided by the two prominent authors operating within the Copenhagen School,

Barry Buzan and Ole Waever.

What is securitization?

Securitization is that we start to approach, we start to consider

a certain reality and certain policy field as security.

And as soon as we approach certain areas, for instance, climate or

trade or energy or finance, through the prism of security,

they, these fields of life, they immediately, fundamentally transform.

And behavior and relations in this fields become fundamentally different.

It kind of becomes a part of security area,

not the original area of this fields, and

the rationale of behavior of states becomes different.

Let's say we were talking about trade relations,

right, or economic relations among states.

Originally, before securitization, if we do not consider trade as a security issue,

our purpose from trade is to extract benefit, is to extract profit.

And this is the driver of our behavior.

But as soon as we start considering trade

as a security problem then the major rational,

the major driver of our behavior of our policy becomes different.

It becomes keeping control and reducing our vulnerability.

And as soon as we securitize

we are no longer thinking about profit as the major driver.

And, indeed, we are thinking about control and vulnerability, and

we are ready to pay for that.

We're ready to engage in less beneficial relations for the sake of security,

for the sake of invulnerability, for the sake of control.

And the energy relations between Russia and the European Union,

today, is a prominent example of this securitization theory.

Because, originally, Russia and

the European Union were talking about energy interdependence in a positive way.

They were talking about that both, they were believing that both sides were

getting profit from these energy relations.

And thus these energy relations need to be preserved.

However, today, both Russia and the European Union, they perceive

this energy relations as a threat and certain challenge to their security.

And thus they want to establish control and reduce their vulnerability.

This is why Russia's building alternative pipelines to the EU, for instance,

surpassing Ukraine, and talking about and implementing

diversification policies from the European Union, building the gas pipeline to China.

This is why the European Union is talking about the same thing, reducing its energy

dependency on Russia, strengthening its energy security through diversification.

Disregarding the fact that it would be costly and

that the price of the alternative sources could be more

expensive than the price of the Russian gas.

The supplies of the liquefied natural gas from the United States

to Europe are very much more expensive than the price of the Russian gas.

But, nevertheless, certain European countries are ready to import expensive

gas from the United States in order to reduce their vulnerability on Russia.

Despite the fact that it is more beneficial to import gas From Russia.

And this is indeed social constructivism, social construction,

because we construct different types of relations.

We construct a different reality, right?

It is still the same in material aspects.

It is the same energy relations, but our perceptions of energy relations

are diametrically different before securitization and after securitization.

So securitization is the act of constructing a different social reality,

different constructs, which determine our policies.

Another example of securitization and creation of new constructs,

of new social constructs, which determine our behavior,

is how do we use the word war and how does the word war is applied to

strange situations, to the situations of the absence of war.

For instance, we use the phrase war on drugs or war on poverty,

despite the fact that this is not a real war, right?

I mean this is a process.

This is a natural way of struggling against drug production and

traffic, or it is about economic development.

But we use the word war, citing the importance of that, citing prioritization.

Citing that it might be more important for

states to deliver results in these certain fields despite the cost.

That we need to do it at all cost, disregarding that our

cost benefit relationship becomes completely different in this situation.

Or the war on terror, I mean, war on terror is a very artificial term,

because it is a fundamentally different process than the classical interstate war.

But, nevertheless, we use this term, and

thus we approach the war on terror as if it were a classical war,

creating the new social reality.

[MUSIC]

Constructivism: Theory of securitization

Understanding International Relations Theory

Meet the Instructors