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.

At the heart of constructivism is the idea of social construction—the belief that many of the things we treat as “real” in international relations are not fixed, objective facts, but instead products of shared ideas, beliefs, and norms. In this view, the international system isn’t just something we observe—it’s something we actively build and maintain through our interactions and assumptions. Take the example of democracy. You can’t hold democracy in your hands or hear it humming in the background, but does that mean it isn’t real? Of course not. Living in a democracy profoundly shapes a person’s life—from having the right to vote to enjoying civil liberties and rule of law. Its “reality” is socially constructed through common understanding and institutional practice. In the same way, constructivists argue that key elements of international relations—such as sovereignty, legitimacy, or even who counts as a “state”—are only real because we agree they are. They exist not in nature, but in shared meaning.

To see how constructivism plays out in global politics, consider the example of nuclear weapons. A realist might argue that nukes are simply powerful tools of deterrence—whoever has them can prevent attack by threatening devastating retaliation. But constructivists dig deeper: they ask how and why states interpret nuclear weapons the way they do. Are they ultimate deterrents, national status symbols, or existential threats? The answer depends on a state’s identity, its values, and the global norms it internalizes. For instance, the strong international taboo against the use of nuclear weapons isn’t a natural law—it’s a socially constructed norm that has developed over time through diplomatic agreements, political discourse, and public opinion. The fact that nuclear-armed states refrain from using these weapons, even in extreme circumstances, shows how much shared ideas shape behavior. Constructivism helps us understand that power in international relations isn’t just about tanks and treaties—it’s also about ideas, expectations, and meaning.

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 introduces a powerful but often overlooked form of influence in international relations: ideational power. Unlike hard power (military might) or even soft power (cultural attraction), ideational power is the ability to shape global outcomes by influencing beliefs, values, norms, and perceptions. It’s about controlling the narrative—defining what is considered legitimate, moral, or appropriate behavior on the international stage. Scholars such as Martha Finnemore and Katzenstein have been influential in developing this aspect of constructivist theory. In her book National Interests in International Society (1996), Finnemore argues that states’ interests and actions are deeply shaped by international norms—shared ideas about what “good” states do. Similarly, Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (2005) have analyzed power as part of their broader typology of power in international relations, highlighting how the ability to shape knowledge and identity can influence actors just as much as direct control can. From a constructivist perspective, ideas are not just reflections of power—they are power.

You can see ideational power at work in the global influence of international human rights organizations. These groups often lack military forces or massive budgets, yet they shape global politics by influencing how states and societies define justice, fairness, and legitimacy. When Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports abuses, it can spark diplomatic pressure, reputational costs, or even legal action—not because these NGOs have guns, but because their moral authority and credibility shape how the world sees an issue. Another compelling case is the global movement to combat climate change. There is no world government with the power to force states to cut emissions, yet norms about environmental responsibility and the moral urgency of climate action have become increasingly powerful. States feel pressure to act not just out of self-interest, but because failing to act is seen as morally and politically unacceptable. Constructivism helps us understand these dynamics by reminding us that international relations are not only driven by material forces, but also by ideas that define what is possible, permissible, and desirable.

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. If the undead rose tomorrow, would constructivists ask how to stop them—or stop to question what it even means to be “undead” in the first place?

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.