94 CHAPTER THREE ■ InternatIonal relatIons theorIes
Note that had realist logic been employed to predict the outcome of Hopf ’s fire - in- a-
theater example, or, say, the demographic composition of the Titanic’s lifeboats in 1912,
realist assumptions about the value placed on one’s own survival and self- interests, and
about relative power, would have caused an incorrect prediction. In real life, the strong
sometimes yield to the weak, rather than forcing the weak to “suffer what they must.”
That is why the Titanic’s lifeboats were not filled with strong men, but with the ship’s
physically weakest passengers: women and children.
Constructivists thus dispute the idea that material structures have a necessary, fixed,
or inherent meaning. Alexander Wendt, one of the best- known constructivists, argues
that, on its own, a po liti cal structure— whether one of anarchy or a par tic u lar distri-
bution of material capabilities— cannot tell us much of interest: “It does not predict
whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other’s sovereignty, will
have dynastic ties, will have revisionist or status quo powers, and so on.”^26 Many con-
structivists emphasize normative structures. What we need to know is identity, and
identities change because of cooperative be hav ior and learning. Whether a system is
anarchic depends on the distribution of identities, not the distribution of military capa-
bilities, as realists would have us believe. If a state identifies only with itself, then the
system may be anarchic. If a state identifies with other states, then there is no anarchy.
In short, “anarchy is what states make of it.”^27
Like the realists and neoliberal institutionalists, constructivists see power as
impor tant. But whereas the former see power in primarily material terms (military,
economic, po liti cal), constructivists also see power in discursive terms— the power
of ideas, culture, and language. Thus, to constructivists, power includes such ideas
as legitimacy; states may alter their actions so other members of the international
community will view them as legitimate. Power exists in every exchange among
actors, and the goal of constructivists is to find the sources of that power. Their
unique contribution may well be in elucidating the sources of power in ideas and in
showing how ideas shape and change identity. An example of constructivist contri-
butions can be seen in the discussion of sovereignty. Constructivists see sovereignty
not as an absolute but as a contested concept. They point out that states have never
had exclusive control over territory. State sovereignty has always been challenged
and is being challenged continuously by new institutional forms and new national
needs.
Constructivist theory offers diff er ent explanations of change. Change can occur
through diffusion of ideas or the internationalization of norms, as well as through
socialization, when one adopts the identities of peer groups. These explanations help us
understand that ideas are spread both within a national setting and cross- nationally. This
is how democracy is diffused, how ideas about human rights protection have been inter-
nationalized, and how such states as the new members of the Eu ro pean Union become
socialized into the community’s norms and practices. Put another way, realism and lib-