The rationalist–constructivist debate is an ontological debate within international relations theory between rationalism and constructivism. In a 1998 article, Christian Reus-Smit and Richard Price suggested that the rationalist–constructivist debate was, or was about to become, the most significant in the discipline of international relations theory. The debate can be seen as to be centered on preference formation, with rationalist theories (such as neorealism) characterising changes in terms of shifts in capabilities, whereas constructivists focus on preference formation.
Contents
Rationalism
Rationalists subscribe to positivism, the idea that scientific enquiry must rely upon empirical validation or falsification. Rationalist theories such as neorealism and neoliberalism also have exogeneously given preferences such as can be seen in Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics, where anarchy is a structural constraint on state behaviour.
Constructivism
Constructivists have been seen to challenge the assumptions of rationalism in arguing that the social world is constructed. They emphasize the importance of norms and ideas in international relations.
Criticism
Zehfuss argues that it is wrong to characterise the dialogue between the two theories as a debate due to the lack of debate between the two theories in key international relations journals. Leading rationalist James Fearon and leading constructivist Alexander Wendt argued in an article in 2002 that some form of synthesis between the two theories is possible, and that the two perspectives should have been seen primarily as methodological tools rather than diametrically opposed ontologies.