What are the lessons that American leaders can learn from Constructivists and the English School scholars? (original) (raw)

This literature review aims to summarise current scholarly debates about the contribution of Constructivist and the English School theories in defining American grand strategy and American foreign policy in particular. As far as American grand strategy is concerned, Niall Ferguson has asked an important question: What principle we should use to describe American grand strategy (Ferguson, 2011). Some authors who argue that the English School and Constructivism can be really useful to define American grand strategy. Authors like Brooks and Wohlforth argue that by pointing toward strategies the most powerful state in the system can use to mould legitimacy and shape rules, Constructivist and the English School scholarship can make an important contribution to debates on American grand strategy. (Brooks & Wohlforth, 2008: 207). On the contrary, there are some authors within the realist camp such as John Mearsheimer, who argue that Constructivism cannot provide a valuable tool in explaining American foreign policy as it cannot explain change in world politics. Realists argue that international politics is beyond human control as it is governed by external, objective forces. In realist thought, humans are characterised as being preoccupied with their own wellbeing in their competitive relations with each other. Realists say that humans are selfish, power-oriented and desire to be in the driver's seat. They do not wish to be taken advantage of; they consequently strive to have the edge in relations with other people - including international relations with other countries. According to realists, the desire to enjoy an advantage over others and to avoid domination by others is universal. This paper will challenge this position while offering an alternative point of view stating that if individuals would not have any impact on the world of politics it would simply resemble a continuous struggle for power, chaos and war. Everybody can change and our leaders can change too. Action is rule based, but only partly so. There is great diversity in what motivates human beings. Over time of practised deliberation and evaluation of options reasoned arguments become habitualised and informatively accepted, turning even the greatest egoists into global citizens and the greatest nationalists into change-makers (Habermas, 1989). Mills (1940: 908) hypothesized that the long acting out of a role or rule of appropriateness ''will often induce a man to become what at first he merely sought to appear.'' Rules are likely to be abandoned when rule following creates catastrophic outcomes, and in periods of radical environmental change when we need a change-maker to introduce new norms. Our world can be socially constructed thanks to ideas, norms, language etc. Diplomacy is extremely important since history is filled with tragic examples of wars that result from diplomatic impasse, inaction, lack of dialogue or lack of interest to the cause of international peace. And enthusiasts of empire, warmongers and proponents of the indefinite expansion of the national interest among politicians, for whom foreign policy is the continuation of war by the admixture of other means ought to ponder on, more carefully, and perhaps even, learn one, critical lesson. Arnold J. Toynbee urged scholars to remember that "Militarism... has been by far the commonest cause of the breakdown of civilisations during the last four or five millennia." (Toynbee, 1946: 190). The reason for this is that a dominant but also militant civilisation, convinced of its own righteousness, unintentionally tends to replicate the barbaric evil that it has been contesting, with the result that "the alien universal state... becomes more and more unpopular. Its subjects are more and more offended by its alien qualities" (Ibid.: 419). Toynbee concludes that "the destruction which has overtaken a number of civilisations in the past... has always been in the nature of an act of suicide." The historian has a pithy phrase for it: "Suicidal statecraft." (Toybeee, 1946: 422). This may sound like a distant theory, but it may well turn out that the wisdom flowing from this statement is timeless, enduring and it applies to contemporary International Relations. In the end, every great dominion, every great empire and every Golden Age may end in a self-fulling prophecy if its subjects and leaders pursue with a blinding passion an unrealistic aim. Such leaders and civilisations surely will fail since they fail to pursue wise policies focused on problem-solving. Rules are likely to be abandoned when rule following creates catastrophic outcomes, then civilisation needs an avatar-style leader. Recourse to rules and standard operating procedures is likely when consequential calculations of consequences are seen as having produced catastrophes. This logic of action could be applied to solving climate change. In particular, rational calculation of consequences is easiest when problems are of modest complexity and time perspectives are short (March and Olsen, 2008: 705). When applied to more complex problems and longer time perspectives they are more likely to create big mistakes, afterwards seen as horror stories (Neustadt and May, 1986). Therefore, our leaders face a great responsibility. Whether in our local communities or in international politics, the skillful use of our communicative capacities to negotiate and resolve differences is the first evidence of human wisdom. And many conflicts would have been avoided had humans invested more in honest negotiations, seeking the truth based on sound logical explanation of argument and resolution of conflicts. The world needs strategic guidance and checks on those holding power because without them it would probably turn into chaos resembling the past two world wars. Equally, we need more space for a positive agency that would introduce norms and norm innovation because without the role of the individual anarchy is what states tend to make out of the International Society. At the opposite end of anarchy is a belief in humanity. The principle of humanity means that all humankind shall be treated humanely and equally in all circumstances by saving lives and alleviating suffering while ensuring respect for the individual. It is the fundamental principle of humanitarian response, for example, in prevention to climate disasters. How to create norms that would cement the International Society in that dimension? States can do that relying on the process of orchestration, thanks to which IGOs decrease political frictions that usually hinder public-private and private–private collaboration; reduce transaction costs and bargaining problems through the identification of participants and enabling negotiations; decrease mistrust by acting as a neutral broker and offset power imbalances by assisting weaker participants (Nilsson, 2016: 174). For rationalists and constructivists alike, being perceived as independent actors exercising a neutral, impartial, value-neutral knowledge to transform interstate relations is central to IGOs’ legitimacy claims (Abbott and Snidal, 1998, Barnett and Finnemore, 2004). IGOs gain legitimacy from influencing state behaviour through the establishment and diffusion of norms, while states gain international legitimacy by adhering to them (Claude, 1966, Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). As Nilsson (2016: 174) observed, "Legitimacy is also related to being seen as serving a useful function valued by the International Society and key constituencies which, in turn, secures autonomy and material resources to perform the job." Creating norms and relying on legitimacy-producing IGOs is necessary since if not constrained the pursuit of power would lead to a more unjust world. But it works in both ways, in the sense that that we share the planet altogether and the idea of holism allows for an agency. It is based on recognising that agents have some autonomy and their interactions help to construct, reproduce and transform those selfish, conflict-turned, money-oriented or unjust structures. So individuals, who often turn out to be diplomats have the power to make the society of states more civilised, less war-prone, more equal and more just. At the same time, American leaders and global leaders alike need training and lessons to be learned as part of their education, in the dimensions of planetary sustainability as the planet is becoming increasingly global and shared. This may help them take action that might lead to a virtuous circle of trust and cooperation initiated thanks to a willingness to choose dialogue, negotiation and peace rather than the opposite. Therefore, approaching International Relations in a holistic, idealistic and innovative manner with significant stress on the powers of the individual and hope of his transformative power could help to solve some of the novel, global challenges which applied previously realist approaches have failed to do.