Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations & Zombies

2.4: Constructivism

If zombies have taught us anything, it’s that what truly makes a monster isn’t just rotting flesh—it’s how society perceives it. Imagine if the world we see in international politics wasn’t shaped just by military power, economic interests, or treaties, but by shared ideas, values, and beliefs. This is the essence of constructivism, an influential theory in international relations. Constructivism focuses on how the identities, ideas, and social norms that states hold influence their behavior. Unlike realism and liberalism, which emphasize material forces like military strength or economic ties, constructivism argues that the international system is socially constructed—shaped by human beliefs and shared understandings. The theory challenges the notion that state behavior is driven purely by objective, fixed factors, suggesting instead that the way states interact and perceive each other can evolve based on changing ideas and norms.

Central to constructivism is the concept of social construction. According to this view, international structures are not just out there in the world waiting to be discovered; rather, they are created and maintained by shared ideas, norms, and state identities. Let’s start with a simple example: democracy. Can you taste democracy? (Please don’t try) Can you see democracy? Feel it? Touch it? Hear it? In the reality of the universe then, democracy does not exist. But is it REAL? Does living in a democracy over a dictatorship have a real impact on a person’s life? Does a democracy offer real everday benefits to its citizens? Of course! Socially, democracy is definitely real and thus worth our understanding. What about an IR example, like nuclear weapons? Consider the way nuclear weapons are viewed. While realism might argue that the existence of nuclear weapons naturally leads to a deterrence-based balance of power, constructivism would point out that how states think about nuclear weapons (as tools of deterrence, as symbols of prestige, or as threats to humanity) profoundly affects how they use—or don’t use—these weapons. This explains why, despite the availability of nuclear weapons, there are strong norms against their use, even in times of conflict. These norms don’t arise naturally; they are constructed by states, institutions, and societies over time.

A powerful example of the influence of institutional norms can be seen in the widespread international taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. Although several states possess these weapons, there is a shared expectation that they should not be used in warfare, largely due to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences. This norm has been reinforced through treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the broader diplomatic culture that frames nuclear weapons as dangerous and destabilizing. Institutional norms create a kind of “invisible hand” in international relations, guiding state behavior not through force but through shared expectations of what is acceptable. In this way, institutional norms can constrain even powerful states, demonstrating how ideas and values can be just as important as material capabilities.

Constructivism also introduces the idea of ideational power, or the ability to influence global outcomes by shaping beliefs, values, and perceptions rather than through force or economic strength. For instance, international human rights organizations often lack significant military or economic power, yet they wield significant ideational power by shaping global perceptions of what constitutes moral or just behavior. Take the case of the global movement to combat climate change: while there are no overarching military or economic forces compelling states to reduce their carbon emissions, the growing consensus around the urgency of the issue—and the moral imperative to act—has led many states to pursue policies aimed at reducing their environmental impact. Ideational power highlights that, in international relations, ideas can be just as influential as guns or money.

When it comes to understanding the structure of the international system itself, constructivists provide a unique interpretation of anarchy. While realists view anarchy as a permanent and unchangeable feature of the international system—meaning there is no overarching authority to regulate state behavior—constructivists see it differently. For constructivists, anarchy is not a fixed, objective condition but rather a social construct that is shaped by how states interact and the identities they hold. In other words, anarchy is what states make of it. If states view one another as threats, anarchy will lead to competition and conflict, as realism predicts. However, if states view one another as potential partners, anarchy can be transformed into a more cooperative, peaceful system. For example, the European Union (EU) has managed to create a highly integrated political and economic space where traditional notions of anarchy have been significantly reduced, as member states have built a collective identity rooted in cooperation rather than conflict.

Constructivism argues that state identities—how states see themselves and others—are key to understanding their behavior. These identities are not static; they evolve based on interactions with other states and the internal values of societies. For instance, after the end of apartheid, South Africa transformed its international identity from that of a pariah state to a leading advocate for human rights and peacekeeping in Africa. This shift in identity wasn’t driven by material power but by changes in the country’s internal political and social values, and its interactions with the global community. Constructivists believe that, by understanding how identities are constructed and maintained, we can better predict how states will behave on the global stage.

Constructivism: Changing the World, One Zombie-Friendly Idea at a Time

When it comes to zombies, it’s not just about what they are—it’s about how we think about them. Constructivism takes a different approach than realism and liberalism, focusing on how shared ideas, identities, and norms shape international responses. From a constructivist perspective, the international community’s reaction to the zombies would depend heavily on how states construct the threat in their minds. Are the zombies seen as mindless enemies, or as a global health crisis that requires humanitarian responses? How states interpret the zombie threat—through the lens of fear, cooperation, or moral obligation—will shape their actions. In World War Z, we see how different governments react based on their identities and norms: Israel’s defensive realism contrasts sharply with North Korea’s more fatalistic approach, shaped by its social norms.

Constructivism would also focus on the role of ideational power. If a state or group of states manages to shape the narrative around the zombie apocalypse—perhaps framing it as a challenge that requires global solidarity and innovation—it could influence how others respond. The perception of zombies, as either an existential enemy or a solvable crisis, could drastically change the course of international action. Additionally, constructivists would argue that anarchy itself is not fixed; it can be reshaped by states’ behaviors. If states collectively choose cooperation over competition, the anarchy of the international system can be transformed, even in a zombie apocalypse.

Constructivism, by focusing on the power of ideas, norms, and identities, offers a radically different way of understanding international relations compared to the more materialist theories of realism and liberalism. Where realism sees a world dominated by competition for power, and liberalism focuses on cooperation through institutions and trade, constructivism shows us that much of international politics is shaped by how states think about and interpret the world around them. While it may seem less concrete than other theories, constructivism reminds us that ideas matter—that the ways we imagine the world can shape the realities of international politics. Next, we will explore Marxism, which takes a different approach by focusing on economic structures and the role of class struggle in shaping global power dynamics.