comparativepoliticsСравнительная политикаComparative Politics Russia2221-32792412-4990Издательская группа «Юрист»10.18611/2221-3279-2016-7-4(25)-5-12comparativepolitics-540Research ArticleСРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КОНЦЕПЦИЙ И ИНСТИТУТОВCOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS AND INSTITUTIONSСВОЙСТВЕННАЯ ЦЕННОСТЬ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО КОНСТРУКТИВИЗМА В ТЕОРИИ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙTHE INTRINSIC EXPLANATORY VALUE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORYКаркалановЦ. В.KarkalanovTs. V.

магистрант МГИМО МИД России

MA Student in Political Science, MGIMO University

karkalanov@mail.ruМГИМО МИД России, г. Москва, РоссияРоссияMGIMO University, Moscow, RussiaRussian Federation20160711201674(25)512Copyright © Каркаланов Ц.В., 20162016Каркаланов Ц.В.Karkalanov T.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.sravpol.ru/jour/article/view/540

Почему конструктивизм возник в качестве влиятельной силы силы в области международных отношений и политики в конце XX века? Почему именно конструктивизм, а не любой другой теоретический подход? Конструктивистская перспектива международных отношений появилась в качестве противовеса к рационализму, который закрепился в политической науке США на протяжении последних десятилетий. Анализ современного склада мировых дел через призму социального конструктивизма дает нам уникальное понимание того, как интерсубъективные восприятия приводят к уникальным эпистемическими интерпретациям реальности, которые формируют идеологические рамки, в пределах которых генерируются социальные конструкты. Конструктивизм является ценным не только в определении мотивов поведения международных игроков, но и разворачивании механизма, посредством которого эти мотивы были созданы и приняты через процесс социального строительства – здесь лежит наибольшее значение конструктивистского подхода в теории МО. Формирование культуры, формирование национального самосознания, воображаемые сообщества, комплексы безопасности – конструктивистский подход остается бесценным инструментом в арсенале политических аналитиков, которые стремятся понять, как культура, история, общественный строй, религия, и язык, проецируют их влияние на международной арене, и в итоге: почему международные игроки ведут себя именно так, как они себя ведут?

Why has constructivism emerged as an important force in the field of international relations and politics in the end of the 20th century? Why constructivism and not any other theoretical approach? The constructivist perspective of international relations appeared as a counterbalance to rationalism that was entrenched in US Political Science throughout the last decades. Analyzing the contemporary state of world affairs through the prism of social constructivism provides us with a unique understanding of how intersubjective perceptions lead to unique epistemic interpretations of reality, which form the ideological framework within which social constructs are being generated. Constructivism succeeds not only in identifying the motives behind the behavior of international actors, but also in unfolding the mechanism through which those motives are being envisaged and accepted through the process of social construction – here lies the greatest value of the constructivist approach in IR theory. Culture formation, nation building, imagined communities, security complexes – the constructivist approach remains an invaluable tool in the arsenal of political analysts, seeking to understand how culture, history, social order, religion, and language project their infl uence on the international arena and ultimately: why international players behave the way they do?

конструктивизмсоциальные конструктыкультураэпистемические интерпретациимеждународные отношенияидентичностьмежсубъективностьнациональные интересы.constructivismcultureepistemic interpretationsinternational relationsidentityintersubjectivitynational interestssocial constructs.ReferencesAdler, Emmanuel. Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics // European Journal of International Relations, 1997, Vol.3(3), pp. 319-363.Adler, Emmanuel. Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics // European Journal of International Relations, 1997, Vol.3(3), pp. 319-363.Adler, Emmanuel; Barnett, Michael. Governing Anarchy: A Research Agenda for the Study of Security Communities // Ethics and International Affairs, 1996, No.10(1), pp. 63-98.Adler, Emmanuel; Barnett, Michael. Governing Anarchy: A Research Agenda for the Study of Security Communities // Ethics and International Affairs, 1996, No.10(1), pp. 63-98.Alekseeva, Tatiana A. Myslit’ konstruktivistski: otkryvaja mnogogolosyj mir (Constructivists Thinking: Opening a Multipolar World) // Sravnitel’naja politika, 2014, No.1. pp. 4-21.Alekseeva, Tatiana A. Myslit’ konstruktivistski: otkryvaja mnogogolosyj mir (Constructivists Thinking: Opening a Multipolar World) // Sravnitel’naja politika, 2014, No.1. pp. 4-21.Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Publishing, 2005. Pp. 40-43.Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Publishing, 2005. Pp. 40-43.Burton, Paul. Culture and Constructivism in International Relations // The International History Review, 2010, No.32:1, pp. 89-97.Burton, Paul. Culture and Constructivism in International Relations // The International History Review, 2010, No.32:1, pp. 89-97.Buzan, Barry; Waever, Ole. Regions and Power. The structure of international security. Cambridge, 2003.Buzan, Barry; Waever, Ole. Regions and Power. The structure of international security. Cambridge, 2003.Chebakova, Anastasia. Theorizing the EU as a Global Actor: a Constructivist Approach // The Maturing European Union – ECSA-Canada Biennial Conference Paper, 2008, pp.1-16.Chebakova, Anastasia. Theorizing the EU as a Global Actor: a Constructivist Approach // The Maturing European Union – ECSA-Canada Biennial Conference Paper, 2008, pp.1-16.Checkel, Jeffrey T. Constructivism and Foreign Policy / in Foreign Policy: Theories. Actors. Cases. Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 72.Checkel, Jeffrey T. Constructivism and Foreign Policy / in Foreign Policy: Theories. Actors. Cases. Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 72.Chernoff, Fred. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008. P. 69.Chernoff, Fred. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008. P. 69.Cox, Robert W. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory / in Robert O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics, pp.204-254. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.Cox, Robert W. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory / in Robert O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics, pp.204-254. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.Crotty, Michael. The Foundations of Social Science Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage, 1998.Crotty, Michael. The Foundations of Social Science Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage, 1998.Gibbons, Michael T. Introduction: the Politics of Interpretation / in Michael T. Gibbons (ed.) Interpreting Politics. New York: New York University Press, 1987.Gibbons, Michael T. Introduction: the Politics of Interpretation / in Michael T. Gibbons (ed.) Interpreting Politics. New York: New York University Press, 1987.Griffi ths, Martin. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. P.200.Griffi ths, Martin. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. P.200.Heller, Michael. Philosophy in Science: An Historical Introduction, Springer, 2011.Heller, Michael. Philosophy in Science: An Historical Introduction, Springer, 2011.Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1996.Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1996.Jackson, Robert; Sørensen, Georg. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 4th Edition. Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 166.Jackson, Robert; Sørensen, Georg. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 4th Edition. Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 166.Kratochwil, Friedrich. The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Riener, 1996.Kratochwil, Friedrich. The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Riener, 1996.Lebow, Richard Ned. A Cultural Theory of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Lebow, Richard Ned. A Cultural Theory of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Nye, Joseph. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990.Nye, Joseph. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990.Onuf, Nicholas. World of Our Making. Columbia: University of South California Press, 1989.Onuf, Nicholas. World of Our Making. Columbia: University of South California Press, 1989.Palan, Ronen. Constructivism and Globalization: from Units to Encounters in International Affairs // Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2004, No.17:1, pp. 11-23.Palan, Ronen. Constructivism and Globalization: from Units to Encounters in International Affairs // Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2004, No.17:1, pp. 11-23.Popper, Karl R. The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism / ed. by W.W. Bartley, III. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 1982.Popper, Karl R. The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism / ed. by W.W. Bartley, III. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 1982.Popper, Karl R. The Place of Mind in Nature / in Richard Q. Elvee (ed.) Mind in Nature. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1982. Pp. 31-59.Popper, Karl R. The Place of Mind in Nature / in Richard Q. Elvee (ed.) Mind in Nature. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1982. Pp. 31-59.Popper, Karl R. Three Worlds by Karl Popper – The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. University of Michigan. April 7, 1978.Popper, Karl R. Three Worlds by Karl Popper – The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. University of Michigan. April 7, 1978.Risse, Thomas. Social Constructivism and European Integration / in Wiener, A. & Diez, T. (eds) European Integration Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2004. Pp.159-176.Risse, Thomas. Social Constructivism and European Integration / in Wiener, A. & Diez, T. (eds) European Integration Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2004. Pp.159-176.Searle, John R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995.Searle, John R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995.Wagner, Wolfgang. Why the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy Will Remain Intergovernmental: A Rationalist Institutional Choice Analysis of European Crisis Management Policy” // Journal of European Public Policy, 2003, No.10(4), pp. 576-595.Wagner, Wolfgang. Why the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy Will Remain Intergovernmental: A Rationalist Institutional Choice Analysis of European Crisis Management Policy” // Journal of European Public Policy, 2003, No.10(4), pp. 576-595.Weldes, Jutta. Constructing National Interests // European Journal of International Relations, 1996, Vol.2, No.3, pp. 275-318.Weldes, Jutta. Constructing National Interests // European Journal of International Relations, 1996, Vol.2, No.3, pp. 275-318.Wendt, Alexander. Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics // International Organization, 1992, No.46:2, 396 p.Wendt, Alexander. Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics // International Organization, 1992, No.46:2, 396 p.Wendt, Alexander. Constructing International Politics // International Security, 1995, No.20, pp. 71- 81.Wendt, Alexander. Constructing International Politics // International Security, 1995, No.20, pp. 71- 81.Wendt, Alexander. A Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Wendt, Alexander. A Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.