An analysis of EU and Constructivism – is it plausible?

 U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said, "Our problems are manmade and therefore they can be solved by man."  This statement gets at the heart of Constructivism, in that the problems facing the world are not only manageable, but also solvable.

            John F. Kennedy, and to a larger scale Constructivists, are heading in the right direction, however their final ‘prescription’ – that humans causes problems, thus can solve them – is unrealistic.

            After visiting the EU on Wednesday, and our discussion on Thursday, I found that the concept behind the European Union can be viewed and analyzed through a constructivist lens, and that the EU too attempts to ‘solve’ these man-made problems.

            “Social constructivism maintains that human agents do not exist independently from their social environment and its shared systems of meaning, which defines our identities as social beings. At the same time, through social interaction we (the agents) influence and change the structure (our society/societies). This is an ongoing process of socialization, primarily based on language and communication in order to persuade through argumentation… with its emphasis on issues of identity, norm driven behavior” (Miosˇic´ -Lisjak).

            Thus, it is evident that a core concern of constructivist theory is identity. “Contrary to both realists and liberals, constructivists argue that the kinds of goals held by a state or other actor in world politics emerge from the actor’s identity, so much constructivist research deals with the way in which states, state leaders and other actors conceptualize themselves and the roles they play and purposes they serve in the world” (Jackson & Jones). One example concerning the EU is the idea of human rights. While it is evident that each individual country within the Union is subject to its own identity, an overall goal and interest that the EU attempts to achieve in its foreign policy is human rights, and the protection of them. A country that, for example, believes and practices the death penalty, would not be accepted into the EU. In theory, their economic standing could be spectacular, their army strong and organized, and their trade worldwide. However, if they do not ‘submit,’ to the identity of ‘pro-human right-ers’ that the EU adopts, they are out.

Jackson & Jones also present that “identity in a constructivist account is intersubjective: it doesn’t exist ‘out there’ in the physical world and it doesn’t just exist ‘in here’ inside our heads, but instead exists ‘between us,’ in the social transactions that people have with each other.”

Through this ideal, one could argue that the important junctures of the EU, the EPC (European political-cooperation) and the CFSP (common foreign and security policy) are constructivist by nature. “They emerge as social constructions, that is, as the results of national diplomacies intentionally and unintentionally communicating to themselves and to each other their intents and perceptions of political co-operation.  Alternatively, they appear against the background of Journal of European Public Policy intersubjective structures built up by such previous communication. These mechanisms might work only as a supplement to instrumental rationality but, nevertheless, play crucial roles in accounting for important turns in political co-operation history” (Glarbo).

Therefore, after WWII, the countries that first made up the European Union did not do so because of purely realistic intentions – to control the possibility of war and industry, but because they together sought a new identity, which revolves around cooperation, shared economic power, and peace. Because war is a manmade problem, war can be solved, and the EU, through my analysis, attempts to achieve this through their constructivist identity of a unified plethora of different individuals and identities that together stand for human rights and peace.

Will it work in the long run? I’m not too sure. Free trade, for example, can be seen as a made man problem. Although its benefits are well worthy of praise - jobs are created, standards of living increase, products become cheap, of good quality, and more accessible etc. – it is based on the principal of survival of the fittest. As humans living in a modern world, efficiency is more important then making sure every economy and nation is equal, and that others do not get 'crushed' because they are weaker. It is evident and obvious that yes, Africa is not equal to the United States. But can you then condemn the United States for being powerful? This power and wealth did not come over night; it was a process, which the United States worked for. Thus, we create a problem – the meaning of power depends on the underlying structure of shared knowledge. The shared knowledge is that some countries are powerful, while others are not, and offer more in regards to free trade. Can we stop a countries drive to succeed and improve? Can we even deem this as wrong?

            In the EU’s case, can we deem Switzerland as a ‘realist’ nation for not wishing to join the EU, and to keep their economic ‘head start’ safe in regard to their banking? One could argue that their economy, and more importantly their ‘banking’ if part of their identity, but I cannot help but think that the balance of power is what rules our interactions, without us even knowing it. Also, it was mentioned how, after dealing with Greece and its own economic struggles, that the ‘application’ to the EU would now be more detailed, and countries would be subject to more layers, more checkpoints. Thus, even with the ‘identity’ aspect intact, the EU cares about economic standing, and how a country will economically affect the union – a purely realistic move.

            At the EU, what we discussed made me consider if there is a way we can truly solve the worlds problems as one. We discussed the idea of a ‘common enemy’ (no human rights), and soon this turned to the idea of a common goal (the EU’s belief and promotion of human rights). An interesting point was brought up and how valuable the world’s diversity is, however, if there truly is a common goal, must not all countries be on equal territory? If a strong economy, for example, is the goal, free trade makes it impossible for all countries to start from zero, and emotions come back into play.

            Lastly, I cannot help but think that technology has changed the way the world interacts with itself. The Van Creveld lens has replaced the Clausewitz view on war.  Nuclear war and technology have made the definition of war change, to the point where we have almost entered a worldwide cold war. If this is the case, any manifestation, belief, opinion or thought can be heard. Threats are now nuclear. The Internet connects everyone together. Ironically, it is what connects us all, but spreads the wedge between us. Thanks to twitter we were aware of the Middle Eastern revolts, but it has now led to the US interfering with Libya. Technology has changed the “social relationships” between countries, territories and groups of people, making the ever-uncontrollable ‘emotion’ even harder to control.

There are too many contradictions present to solve our own problems. We wish to unite, but we value our differences. We want a common goal, but we’re all at different levels towards reaching said goal. We could create a common enemy, but how long can it last? A solution may be possible, but it will not be human made, nor will it solve human-made problems. The EU can’t solve the world’s problems, and, at its core, I don’t think this is what it attempts to do either.

Works Cited

GLARBO, Kenneth. "Wide-awake diplomacy: reconstructing the common foreign and security policy of the European Union." Journal of European Public Policy 6.4 (1999): 634-651. International Political Science Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.

MIOŠIĆ-LISJAK, Nives. "Croatia and the European Union: a social constructivist perspective." Policy Studies 27.2 (2006): 101-114. International Political Science Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.

Jones, Joshua S. "Constructivism." Introduction to International Relations. By Patrick Thaddues Jackson. 103-05. Print.