In Defense of More Human International Relations with the Psychological Constructivism

Document Type : مقالات

Authors

• Majid Kafi ¹
• azam molaee ²

¹ Ph.D. of International Relations, University of Tehran

² Ph.D. of International Relations, Azad University, Science Research Branch,

https://doi.org/10.22067/ijip.v8i2.85542

Abstract

With the advent of a new over the last few years this article seeks to explore the relationship between the recently introduced approach to international relations in psychology and the emergence of "psychological constructivism". Constructivism provides a good platform for the interconnection of international relations and psychology, and this productive link will open new perspectives on this field. After examining psychological constructivism, the article focuses on and responds to the criticisms that have been made of this new approach. The authors conclude from these studies that the headlines of psychological constructivism studies respond to the discipline's inevitable need to challenge the complexities of modern-day politics and international relations, and indeed a way to bring the field closer to the subject of its analysis of behavior. The social and political order of man is in the form of state and quasi-state order. Psychological constructivism thus not only makes possible the realization of the central promise of constructivists, that is, the presentation of image-based cross-structure and broker sequences at different levels of analysis, but is also an important step aside from rational claims based on the imposition of grand patterns and ultimately to make this discipline more humane than the humanities.

Keywords

• Psychological constructivism
• Constructivism
• Psychology
• Interdisciplinary Studies
• International Relations
• Lebow Cultural Theory

References

References

Aalto, P.; Harle, V., & Moisio, S. (2011). Introduction, in Aalto, P. Harle, V. & Moisio, S.(eds.),International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 22-46.

Abe, Y. (2012). Psychology and constructivism in international relations: an ideational alliance. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25:4.

Abdelal, R.; Herrera, Y. M.; Johnston, A. I., & McDermott, R. (2009). Introduction, in Abdelal, R. et al., Measuring Identity A Guide for Social Scientists.New York: Cambridge university press, 4-8.

Ashworth, L. M. (2009). Interdisciplinary and international relations, European political science: 8-14.

Bagheri, K. (2004). Realistic Constructivism: a Reconstruction of George Kelly's Personal Constructivism, Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, 68, 35-52. (In Persian)

Creppell, I. (2011). The concept of normative threat, International Theory, 3.

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52:3-13.

Gries, P. H.; Peng, K., & Crowson, M. H. (2012). Determinants of security and insecurity in international relations: a cross-national experimental analysis of symbolic and material gains and losses. in Shannon, Vaughn P. & Kowert, P. A. (eds.), Psychology and constructivism in international relations: an ideational alliance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Goldgeier, J., & Tetlock, P. (2001). Psychology and International Relations Theory, Annual Review of Political Science, 4.

Hafiz Nia, M. R. (2019). Introduction to research methodology in humanities. Tehran: Organization for the Study and Compilation of University Humanities Books (SAMT). (In Persian)

Holsti, K. (1985). the Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Hymans, J. (2010). The arrival of psychological constructivism. International Theory, 462-481.

Jarvis, D. (2001). Conclusion: International Relations: An International Discipline? in Crawford, R. and Jarvis, D. (eds.) International Relations – Still an American Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kertzer, J. D., & Tingley, D. (2018). Political Psychology in International Relations: Beyond the Paradigms”. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 319-339.

Kowert, P. A. (2012). Completing the Ideational Triangle: Identity, Choice, and Obligation in International Relations. In Shannon, V. P. & Kowert, P. A. (eds.), Psychology and constructivism in international relations: an ideational alliance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 50- 76.

Kristensen, P. M. (2012). Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication. International Studies Review, 14.

 Koschut, S. (2018). The power of (emotion) words: on the importance of emotions for social constructivist discourse analysis in IR”. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(3), 495–522.

Larson, D. W., & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy, International Security, 34(4).

Lebow, R. N. (2006). Fear, interest and honor: outlines of a theory of International Relations,International Affairs, 82(3).

Lebow, R. N. (2008). A Cultural Theory of International Relations,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lebow, R. N. (2009). Culture and International Relations: The Culture of International Relations. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 38(1), 153-4.

Merton, R. K. (1937). The Sociology of Knowledge. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

McDermott, R., & Lopez, A. (2012). Psychology and constructivism: uneasy bedfellows? In Shannon, V. P., & Kowert, P. A. (eds.), Psychology and constructivism in international relations: an ideational alliance, University of Michigan Press.

Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12, 3- 15.

Mitzen, J. (2009). Interview with Jennifer Mitzen on Ontological Security, Multilateral Diplomacy, and States Addiction to War: http://www.theory-talks.org/2009/02/theory-talk-26.html.

Mcdermott, R. (2004). Political Psychology in International Relations.Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

McDermott, R. (2009). Psychological Approaches to Identity Experimentation and Application, in Abdelal, R.; Herrera, Y. M.; Johnston, A. I. & McDermott, R. Measuring Identity a Guide for Social Scientists.New York: Cambridge university press.

Moshirzadeh, H. (2014). Semantic approaches in international relations and their impact on foreign policy analysis, Political and International Approaches, Fifth Year, 38. 42-61. (In Persian)

Onuf, N. (2009). Motivation, International Relations, 23(1).

Osiander, A. (2009). New Theory of International Relations Culture, Change and the Meaning of History: Reflections on Richard Lebow”. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 37(4).

Pellerin, H. (2012). Which IR Do You Speak? Languages as Perspectives in the Discipline of IR, Perspectives, 20(1).

Schuett, R. (2010). Classical realism, Freud and human nature in international relations”. History of the Human Sciences. 23.

Shannon, V. P. (2012). Introduction: Ideational Allies—Psychology, Constructivism, and International Relations, In Shannon, V. P.& Kowert, P. A. (eds), Psychology and constructivism in international relations: an ideational alliance, University of Michigan Press.

Shilliam, R. (2010). A Fanonian Critique of Lebow’s a Cultural Theory of International Relations, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 38(1).23-37.

Shaping, S., & Simon, S. (1985).  Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Suganami, H. (2009). Man, Culture and the Theory of International Relations. International Relations, 23(1).47-80.

Shayan, F. (2013). Interdisciplinarity and the Emerged Shift in the Study of International Relations, Journal of International Studies, 41 (3), 669-678.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations. 33.78-91.

Waltz, K. (2001[1959]). Man, the State and War, a theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University press.

Wettersten, J. (1990). Integrating Psychology and Methodology: How Can Psychology and  Methodology Be Integrated? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 21(2).12-23.

Wolf, R. (2011). Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition. International Theory,3(1). 112-128.