Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Since the 1990s, one of the major debates in International Relations (IR) scholarship has been between rationalism and constructivism (Katzenstein et al , 1998; Fearon and Wendt, 2002). How to define the relationship between rationality and norms or identity has been one of the main issues in this debate. Rationalists tend to subsume norms and identity under the concept of instrumental rationality. This article maintains that ideational or social-psychological motivations such as norms and identity cannot be fully explained by instrumental rationality. My argument is that the politically significant motives of social actions are broader and more diverse than most rationalists allow for. But I also argue that constructivism cannot totally replace rationalism in explaining international political life because solid and well-defined self-interests formed by cost-benefit analysis can lead actors to forsake their normative values and identities. The essay is composed of three sections. In the first section, I explore the major differences between rationalism and constructivism, and define instrumental rationality, identity and norms. In the second, concepts like thymos , affect and value-oriented rationality are introduced, and I discuss some limits or problems of rationalism, particularly the concept of instrumental rationality, in the study of IR. Finally, I try to classify social behavior into three ideal-type categories (self-interest-driven behavior, norm/identity-driven behavior and the combination or conflict between the two), and show that causal arrows can flow in either direction between identity or norms and self-interests. In the conclusion, I summarize the main arguments, stressing that we have to make a greater effort to strike a balance between theoretical 'parsimony' and the 'complexity' of social actions to improve the political relevance of IR theory.
Rationalism and Constructivism
Rationality has long been one of the main concepts in the study of IR. Major traditional theoretical approaches in IR such as realism and liberalism - approaches that fall within the rationalist tradition - assume that actors (whether they are states or non-state actors) are by and large rational in the sense that they seek to advance their preferences in such a way so as to maximize their interests (Keohane, 1988; Katzenstein et al , 1998). More specifically, rationality means that an actor orders one's interests or preferences and makes the choice that ranks in highest...