Introduction
The emergence and development of constructivism are associated with the classical notion of man and society as phenomena characterized by a high degree of freedom and, therefore, not reducible in principle to any objective, external circumstances and laws that determine them. There are several definitions of modern constructivism, ranging from the relatively “mainstream” one by A. Wendt to the rather radical one by N. Onuf.
Wendt considers two features of constructivism:
- The structure of human associations is determined more by ideas shared by the community of people than by material factors;
- Actors’ identities, interests, and attitudes are built on core ideas rather than being left to their own devices. (Syed & Ali, 2018).
A more radical position is presented in Onuf’s works: constructivism argues that the individual and society create, construct and define each other (McCourt, 2022). Thus, constructivism starkly contrasts attempts to introduce “naive realism” into the study of international relations. However, more moderate versions of constructivism give credit to both “subjective” and “objective” aspects of behavior, while the “subjective” dimension dominates the more radical ones. At the same time, according to both of the above characteristics, constructivism is an attempt at a comprehensive, interdisciplinary study of the interaction between the “objective” and “subjective” dimensions of human activity. It is a compromise between understanding (which considers the subjective dimensions of behavior) and explaining (which considers the objective dimensions of behavior) methods. In this respect, constructivism opposes both neorealism and neoliberalism, which can be characterized as an attempt to reduce subjective factors in IR by reducing them to objective aspects. That is, in the case of neorealism, we are talking about factors related to objective military power, while in the case of neoliberalism, we are talking about factors related to the economic aspects of DOD. Of course, realists do not believe that money does not matter, and liberals do not deny the importance of military force. For neo-liberals, the explanation of human behavior in DOD would come down substantially to the economic mechanisms of the division of labor and mutually beneficial cooperation and for neorealists to balance military power. Constructivist approaches are sometimes “sociological” because they examine the cultural and social context in which perceptions of an actor’s interests are formed (Pfadenhauer & Knoblauch, 2018). Both of these approaches can be called “rationalist” instead of constructivism, which can be called “reflectivism.”
Constructivism emerged in the mid-1980s thanks to the works of Alexander Wendt, in which he outlined the basic problem of intersubjectivity for constructivism. The term “constructivism” in international studies was first mentioned by N. Onuf in 1989 in The World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Bruneau, 2021). Besides A. Wendt and N. Onuf, the most important authors of constructivism include E. Adler, M. Barnett, F. Kratochvil, M. Finnemore, and P. Katzenstein (Fromm, 2019). These authors are called constructivists because they see international relations as a social construct. The world is constructed by people who, by their actions, either maintain the stability of existing institutions, rules, and relations or cause changes. The constructed world, in turn, has a reverse shaping effect on actors and their behavior. The intellectual origins of constructivism are heterogeneous. The influence of ideas about the social construction of reality in the works of P. Berger, T. Lukman, and E. Giddens was decisive (Jovanović, 2021). The sociologically oriented English and French schools were also influential. The critical attitude of the constructivists has its origins in neo-Gramscianism, neo-Marxism, and related theories.
Constructivists criticize traditional theories for overestimating some factors and underestimating others, which are just as important. For example, classical realists are criticized for individualism, as they make actors virtually independent of the influence of structures. Neo-Marxists are criticized for the opposite attitude: they overestimate the influence of structures on actors. Traditional theories, like the rest, are undoubtedly criticized for materialism. For the neo-realists, this is expressed in their focus on the problem of the distribution of material opportunities among the great powers, and for the neo-Marxists, in their postulation of the special role of the world economy. Constructivists offer a third position: it allows for actors’ independent activity but still favors the determining influence of social causes on their individuality. Constructivist holism is complemented by idealism since it is factors such as beliefs, beliefs, ideas, and expectations that determine the forms and nature of actor interaction to a greater extent than biology, technology, or other material factors. Constructivism has had a major impact on contemporary theoretical debates. It has brought social, historical, and normative issues back to the center of the debate. The international relations theory’s old “materialist” attitude has been criticized, and the importance of intangible factors (ideas, norms, values) has been reconsidered.
This theory undoubtedly attracts by its novelty and makes it possible to explain anomalies in the behavior of actors that are incomprehensible to rationalists. After all, for pure rationalists, it has become customary to explain any incomprehensible behavior with a simple trick: cognitive failure prevents one from correctly interpreting external stimuli and, consequently, from effectively pursuing one’s interests. There is nothing flawed in such an interpretation by rationalist researchers. However, it remains locked into a rigid structural explanation, focused on recognizing differences in the pressure of external circumstances (the objective distribution of power in the international structure) on actors as the main explanatory factor. Moreover, the interesting and unintuitive problems arising from the fact that the same structure carries either threats or benefits for different actors in a similar structural situation remain unrecognized.
The History and Background of Feminism
Feminism penetrated the field of international studies later than domestic political science. Emerging as a protest movement in social life, feminism aimed to fight for the granting of political rights to women and equalizing their socio-economic and socio-political status in the state compared to men. At the state level, women received the right to elect and be elected and various social benefits. Moreover, from the point of view of the majority of women, the protection of their socio-economic status was much more important than the prospects of their political careers. The international sphere was on the periphery, limited to international solidarity and mutual assistance.
International relations and foreign policy are one of the most conservative fields. Whatever changes take place at the level of individual states, they cannot be immediately taken to the international level because the stability of the international system as a whole would be endangered. As a result, international studies described men but did not mention women. They were “eliminated” from the international political process.
The feminist trend in international relations emerged in the 1980s. Until then, gender issues were ignored in international relations, and, according to feminists, the prevailing theories were based on the male perception of the world. The changing realities of world politics have driven the development of feminism in international political science (Tickner & True, 2018). The collapse of the bipolar system removed security issues from the agenda. As a result, there was an increased interest in topics that were more familiar and close to women.
The following questions were of interest to the established feminist movement. First, what role do women play in the practice of international relations? Second, what are the forms of oppression and exploitation of women in contemporary world politics, and what should be done to make the world a better place for women? (Hooper, 2019) Moreover, third, how are gender and various world political concepts, ideas and institutions interconnected? These and other questions are addressed by the feminist movement, whose prominent representatives include Judith Ann Tickner, Cynthia Enloe, Annick Wibben, and others.
One of the most significant works for feminism in international relations is C. Enloe’s Bananas, Beaches, and Bases. The author formulates a paradox: even though gender plays a central role in international relations, gender issues are rarely raised by political leaders or researchers (Enloe, 2014). The fact is that established gender roles and orders are perceived by most as part of a “natural” system of relationships. It is not only public structures and figures that deserve attention, but also those actors who are “on the margins of politics” (including women), but on whom the military bases, banks, airlines, and many other structures are dependent (Enloe, 2014). Feminists deny this patriarchal view and show the reality: international politics and the global financial system are based on female labor, which is never adequately paid, valued, and, most importantly, not noticed.
Feminism is the theory and practice of upholding women’s social and political rights and, following this, forming a mass women’s movement. By the early twentieth century, the term “feminism” was being used by women’s rights activists not only in the United States, Britain, and other Western European countries but in less industrialized countries such as Russia, Japan, India, Egypt, Turkey, and Argentina (Tickner, & True, 2018). The practice of their activities became the subject of new political research in domestic science relatively recently. In world history, this movement has a stable tradition and much experience.
Feminism in the U.S. was born out of social movements in the 1830s and continued as a women’s struggle for the right to vote. Although this movement had many prerequisites, the convention held in 1948 in Seneca Falls, New York, is considered the moment of foundation. Delegates drafted and endorsed the “Declaration of Sentiments,” often referred to as the “Declaration of Women’s Rights” (Pastorello, 2019) Drafted in 1776, the “Declaration of Independence” and in 1789, the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” asserted that women and men were equal before God and therefore had rights to education, ownership of property, divorce, child-rearing, protection from violence by their husbands, and finally the right to vote (Pastorello, 2019). It was 72 years before they had the right to vote in the United States. Feminism was present during the American Civil War when women were nurses and volunteers at the front. When they returned home, they wanted access to education and various professions. After the Civil War, women fought for the right to manage their property because they could not legally control their income and savings. The Married Women’s Property Act of 1884 gave women greater financial independence from their husbands (Tickner & True, 2018). The men in the legislature agreed because creditors could not come to soldiers’ families and take the property their wives had earned during the war.
All currents of feminism have different histories. If we consider the United States, feminism was born there around the 1830s. It was a time of social unrest and the spread of utopian ideas. American feminism was born out of several movements for equality. One of these movements was the workers’ rights movement, which advocated increased wages for working men and women and safe working conditions in Massachusetts and other New England cities. In 1837 and the 1840s and 1850s, New England factory workers marched to the legislative buildings in Boston, fighting for higher wages, shorter hours, and safe working conditions (Todd, 2018). There was a movement that fought against slavery, some women who advocated the abolition of slavery were told that they could not preach and preach from the stage because it was unnatural and unladylike. Leaders of these movements, such as Angelina and Sarah Grimke, fought this and advocated that women have the right to speak on an equal footing with men (Laughlin-Schultz, 2020). Some women had been freed from slavery, such as Sojourner Truth, who spoke of the idea of chivalry and that women were under the patronage of men (Painter, 2018). In a series of speeches in the 1850s, she pointed out that this was never true for women in slavery. They had to work in the fields; they were beaten, and their children were sold. Moreover, they remained women. Trout advocated the injustice of not being allowed to vote, care for their children, and live safely.
Feminism was present in the 1910s when the great immigrant worker movement swept the United States. It included hundreds of thousands of working women. After World War I, when the global labor and peace movement emerged, women began to feel involved in a war they had not started (Tickner & True, 2018). A more global feminist movement emerged. The International League of Women for Peace and Freedom, the International Federation of Women Workers, and other transnational women’s federations that had met since the 1910s and between the two wars emerged. In the twenty-first century, there are global protests of poor people, low-wage workers, and farmers worldwide. Most of the protesters are women and mothers, especially women of color. They are campaigning globally against the policies of neoliberalism, environmental depredation, land grabs, and mass evictions that have been going on around the world since 1995.
Key Concepts and Main Ideas of Constructivism
The theory of social constructivism in international relations emerged as a critical reaction to the dominant realist and liberal explanatory models. According to this theory, sociocultural norms that vary according to national contexts play a determining role in shaping foreign policy (Pfadenhauer & Knoblauch, 2018). Indeed, both liberal and realist policies are derived from the value orientations of the power team that implements them. The adoption, for example, of an imperative to act by economic interests presupposes the economic centrism of the community concerned. History provides numerous examples in which power has been guided by considerations that run counter to the logic of profit maximization. Social constructivists in this regard have made an unquestionable step forward in revealing the motivators behind foreign policy decisions and identifying their national exclusivity. However, this theory also fails to do a good job of explaining contemporary political realities.
All the provisions of constructivism can be deduced from two axioms. The first says that the behavior of states is determined by the meaning they give to the objects of interest (actors and structures). The state can evaluate these objects as friendly, hostile, or neutral. The second axiom states that the international system functions based on rules and institutions jointly constructed by the actors. Such rules and norms are called intersubjective because most actors share them in the international arena and, therefore, are perceived as generally valid.
These axioms underlie one of the basic constructivist ideas. It means the mutual shaping of each other’s behavior by actors, which is strongly influenced by structures. Despite some tendency of constructivists to exaggerate the role of structures to the detriment of actors, in fact, in their theory, structures themselves are highly dependent on actors. The social context prevailing in the world determines the nature of actors, but at the same time, it is the actors who reproduce the basic rules and institutions on which this context is based (Pfadenhauer & Knoblauch, 2018). For example, constructivists, while agreeing with the view of the anarchic character of international relations, state that anarchy is a product of the conscious activity of states and not some inherent property of the international system, as theorists of classical approaches believe.
Consequently, there is no permanent anarchy between states operating under the same rules. At different periods, relations between states may be governed by different rules and norms. An abstract consideration of the concept of international anarchy is thus incapable of shedding light on the true relations between states. The concept of “anarchy” must be considered in a temporal and intersubjective context. Each country has its perception of the world, different from other cultures and values, and in this diversity lies the basis of stable peace and relations. The basic condition is the desire to understand “others” without denying them the right to an identity.
Such a consideration of international anarchy implies a particular perspective on the possibility of transforming an anarchic international system. Realists are skeptical about such a possibility, while liberals allow for eliminating extreme forms of anarchy through economic interdependence and democratization (Savu, 2021). On the other hand, constructivists believe that change will only occur when actors transform constitutional rules by taking certain actions.
The theme of identity is another important component of constructivism. Identity can be defined when a state is “imagined” as a single political community and self-determined in the world based on certain perceptions (Jung, 2019). Most constructivists consider the state’s identity not as a given but as a constantly shaping and changing representation developed about “significant Others,” the carriers of counter-identity. The latter can be positive (in case one wishes to be like them and interact with them) or negative (and vice versa). The constant reformulation of identity is also related to the changing result of the ongoing struggle of various political forces (media, parties, movements, state agencies) to influence social creation. Even though identity is mostly formed within the state as the representations of the main domestic political actors about the country and its place in the world, the construction of identity is also influenced by other states, in interaction with which the created images are “tested,” as well as by the international system and the norms adopted by the international community. The question of identity is particularly important because according to A. Wendt is an identity at the heart of interests (Jung, 2019). This goes against the notions of classical paradigms, which speak of some permanent set of interests that actors have regardless of the social context. That is, neorealists and neoliberals are not interested in where certain states’ preferences come from; they focus on examining how these interests are pursued in the international arena. Constructivists, by contrast, pay particular attention to how states develop their interests. In their view, certain preferences of states are socially rather than intellectually determined. Therefore, the correct way is to refer to the state’s identity. As a result, for example, a correspondence can be drawn between the identity of liberal democracy and such interests as an aversion to authoritarian regimes and a preference for the free market. This does not mean that these interests will necessarily be pursued, but an “identity crisis” may arise if they are not.
The state can have multiple identities: strong, sovereign, and democratic. They coexist not only as a set of perceptions that its leadership, political elite, and civil society structures have about the state but also as the ever-changing result of the ongoing competition of those perceptions that the media, various political forces, and state agencies seek to introduce into the public consciousness. At any given moment in history, one of these competing identities dominates, but each is constructed from internal and external sources; each is based on perceptions of oneself and others; societal values and beliefs influence each.
According to constructivism, as long as the planet is institutionally divided, states as international actors will retain a special role in world politics. However, this is not because they are good at their tasks (ensuring the security and well-being of citizens, individual rights, and freedoms). On the contrary, Finnemore emphasizes that the state as a form of the political organization increasingly reveals its dysfunctionality; moreover, the development of this form has produced many ineffective, even failed states (Laurence & Rhoads, 2020). However, if the object is not the state, it means nothing in world politics, as national movements struggling for emancipation and equality understand.
Second, the constructivists’ indication that states play an important role in constructing international norms does not constitute conceptual or empirical justification for the postulate of great power supremacy from which realism proceeds. In their view, all kinds of state actors compete with each other in the struggle for the primacy of certain norms and the formation of more formal organizations to disseminate these social institutions. Third, like liberals, constructivists believe that significant actors can be more than just states. At the same time, including in the category of “agent” along with states, political, professional, and other elites, expert communities, social movements, and individuals, constructivists raise the question of identity formation and draw attention to the need to take into account the increased number of mechanisms for changing international relations.
Constructivism in international relations is actively developing today. Since the 1990s, this trend has gained popularity and wide recognition in the scientific community. Until the mid-1990s, it could seem that it would contribute to the methodological and ideological reorientation of the Western theory of world politics and international relations, but another trend has developed (Bruneau, 2021). The publication in 1996 of the collective work The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by P. Katzenstein, was indicative. Methodologically and ideologically, the constructivist approach presented in the book approached the settings of the dominant theories in international relations. The authors, among whom there were no representatives of critical orientations, mostly adhered to positivism in their articles when, for example, they regarded identities and cultural norms as independent variables determining the actions of states. Ideologically, the authors adhered to the idea of a soft hegemony of the United States and thus defined the goal of the conventional constructivism that emerged as the spread of American values worldwide.
With the dominance of the conventional version of constructivism, many scientists began to refuse the label of constructivists. They criticized this current for rejecting the achievements of the “linguistic” turn and social construction theory in exchange for recognition among the scientific community (Cho, 2018). Thus, today there are reversed trends of constructivism returning to the family of critical theories and refusing to compromise with representatives of realism and liberalism. Other trends are related to a reconsideration of the “individualism-holism” problem. For example, constructivist scholars of foreign policy analysis have criticized the constructivist mainstream for its commitment to holism and underestimation of actor autonomy. Constructivism has had a major impact on contemporary theoretical debates. It has brought social, historical, and normative issues back to the center of the debate. The international relations theory’s old “materialistic” attitude was criticized, and the importance of intangible factors (ideas, norms, values) was reconsidered.
Key Concepts and Main Ideas of Feminism
Feminism is a movement that shows that the treatment of men and women has not been the same since ancient times and until today. Based on these factors, society has given unequal degrees of power to men and women. Views of gender and sex have reinforced unequal wages, discriminatory treatment at work or school, and unequal access to resources and political power. In addition, most societies have resorted to organized and individual violence to reinforce these sex and gender norms.
Violence against women and people who are perceived as women or who identify as women, such as transgender people, has until recently been the norm in most societies. Men have abused women at all times and in all parts of the world. This violence against women has taken many forms, from formal and organized – like the systematic rape of women by armies during the war – to what has taken place in the context of the home and family: domestic violence and intimate partner violence. Some forms also took place in the context of unequal social power, such as sexual assault on university campuses. Moreover, feminism is a recognition that these factors have affected women’s lives and a decision to organize to address these injustices and create an equal society.
Feminism has always faced difficulties in all countries. The greatest difficulty has been political disenfranchisement: women did not have the right to vote in many countries until the middle of the twentieth century. Without the right to vote, it was difficult to elect politicians who would listen to them. Second, women were always paid less money than men, a fact that remains to this day. With their lack of economic resources, they could not win their battles – they needed allies. The third circumstance was violence against women, through which men showed their superiority over the weaker sex. The idea that the police and the army never hit women is false. A fourth important factor is that women still face ridicule for feminism in the U.S. and worldwide. They try to keep them in line, give them nicknames, and say they are masculine and frigid.
Another important thing is the division of the feminist movement. There will never be a time or place where all women can unite. Feminist leaders often made mistakes that led to divisions among women. For example, white middle-class women thought their problems were the same as those of poor women, women of color, and lesbians, even though they were completely different. After women got the vote, Alice Paul, founder of the National Party of Women, was attacked by black women who were not allowed to vote in the South. In 1920 they were not allowed to vote because they were black (Amorosa, 2019). The National Women’s Party refused to help because it considered it a racial issue, not a women’s issue. Nevertheless, Paul defended workers’ rights, which helped millions of women.
Feminist challenges form the basis for including gender as a fluid category in international relations: gender as a theoretical construct in international relations and gender as a transformable method of knowledge and shaping international relations. Three epistemologies commonly referred to in feminist literature are thus considered, such as feminist empiricism, feminist theoretical positions, and feminist postmodernism (Gasztold, 2020). Many feminist theories identify the gendered composition of international organizations and the nature of international economic governance: male domination of decision-making and masculine privileges and priorities, such as production growth, and rational competitiveness, which have a gender-exclusive outcome.
International organizations develop policies that support and challenge male-female inequality. Sandra Whitworth argues that the International Labor Organization has begun to question its policies, which also have gender-discriminatory effects. Further, Whitworth and Hoskins discuss the influence of women on the political processes within and outside these male-dominated international organizations (Duriesmith & Meger, 2020). They examine the presence of women in international organizations, who largely occupy positions of secretaries or assistants in these male-dominated bureaucratic politics, and they also examine women who organize around certain issues in international organizations. Feminist scholars question the established structures of international organizations that continue to support the absence of women at the decision-making level. This is not because women are not participating or their experiences are inappropriate in international relations but because women’s lives and experiences have not been empirically explored in the context of world politics.
The big problem for feminism in the 21st century is the Millennial generation, which believes that women have largely already achieved equality. Indeed, great strides have been made due to the labor of all activists. Women can take out mortgages and get business loans. However, in popular culture, there is a normalization of violence against women in popular songs and music videos, a concentration of women among the world’s least-paid and most exploited workers, and a small number of women in positions of political power. Thus, the next generation of feminists has much work to do.
The main focus of feminists in the security field is women’s role in matters of war and peace. Feminists see women as peace-bearers and men as aggressors by nature, starting wars and conflicts because of their ambitions or, again, because of women. However, there is no consensus among feminists regarding the reasons for this striking contrast between the sexes. Some explain it by biological factors: women have the instinct of motherhood and care for the home, which is incompatible with violence, while men are born with the aim of competition and suppression of opponents. Another group of feminists attributes women’s peacefulness and men’s aggressiveness to the social structure. They believe this structure has not changed much since Neolithic times and is still based on the principles of patriarchy (Gasztold, 2020). At the same time, despite their differences, feminists agree on one thing: men are, by definition, incapable of organizing society on the principles of peace and stability, and therefore women should play a greater role both in governing society and in organizing the national security apparatus.
Thanks to feminism, international political science has been enriched with interesting insights into the nature of international relations. Feminism raises unexpected topics and offers new perspectives on the themes of justice, equality, and exploitation in the international arena. Nevertheless, the choice of the role and position of women in world politics often leads to theoretical and methodological inconsistencies that critics immediately notice.
The Comparative Assessment
The main difference between constructivist and feminist theory is the perception of gender in constructing power. Feminists see power and gender as inseparable parts of the process, whereas constructivists see the opposite – power remains an external element unrelated to gender.
Since constructivism views emergent ideologies as aspects amenable to change, it follows that this theory, to some extent, supports the feminist theory. From a feminist perspective, traditional paradigms of international relations have only referred to political action in the public sphere, which is traditionally a male domain. Women, on the other hand, have been relegated to the private, personal sphere. Consequently, to make women “visible” in international relations and the economic order, it is necessary to recognize that the person can also be political.
The current trend of globalization also only reinforces the patriarchal structure of the world. It contributes to an increase in the number of migrants and low-paid jobs, and it is women from underdeveloped countries who most often do such work. Moreover, as feminists emphasize, sometimes women become migrants by force, and this practice becomes a true sale into slavery. Modern globalization is based on gender, race, and class discrimination. On the other hand, constructivism does not consolidate historically established views of gender but allows them to be replaced by more modern ones.
Conclusion
The UAE remains a Muslim country, so women’s rights in the United Arab Emirates comply with Islamic law; these rights in the UAE are often controversial. The country maintains a traditional culture despite the glitz and glamor of the ex-pat center. The country has signed or ratified progressive international treaties to protect women but often lacks the structures to effect change. The country still has the same international treaties protecting women. Women have the same constitutional rights as men but remain unprotected in key areas. Women can vote, drive, own property, work and get an education – but some require permission from a guardian. The UAE is not a democracy, so Emiratis do not elect heads of state. However, in 2006, the government began allowing men and women to vote or run for the Federal National Council (FNC) (Burton, 2019). In the years that followed, more and more people gained the right to vote, and in 2015 nearly a quarter of a million people voted, and nearly half of the voters were women (Union, 2020).
Thus, following feminist theory, the conclusion is that women’s rights are not violated: women can participate in political processes and have the right to hold public office. The only point that the theory of feminism can share with this state is the complete freedom of action and the independence of women from their guardians. Women should have the right to take action and make decisions for themselves.
The main innovation of constructivism is that the interests of political actors are based not so much on the rational calculation of benefits as on relations, ideas, and behavioral norms arising from interaction with the surrounding society. National interest, its content, and “format” cannot be separated from social relations within society and outside it, as well as from the interpretation of previous events in relations between countries. Therefore, the main idea constructivist theory can share with the United Arab Emirates is a revision of attitudes and perceptions of established beliefs. The world moves forward, and people’s opinions on certain things or events change daily. The state must adjust to these changes to fit modern society.
References
Amorosa, P. (2019). Pioneering International Women’s Rights? The US National Woman’s Party and the 1933 Montevideo Equal Rights Treaties. European Journal of International Law, 30(2), 415-437. Web.
Bruneau, Q. (2021). Constructivism: History and systemic change. In Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations (pp. 80-89). Routledge. Web.
Burton, G. (2019). What Influence Do Advisory Assemblies Have? A Print Media Analysis of the UAE’s Federal National Council, 2011–15. Journal of Arabian Studies, 9(1), 13-32. Web.
Cho, S. (2018). Social constructivism and the social construction of world economic reality. In Research handbook on the sociology of international law (pp. 369-388). Edward Elgar Publishing. Web.
Duriesmith, D., & Meger, S. (2020). Returning to the root: Radical feminist thought and feminist theories of International Relations. Review of International Studies, 46(3), 357-375. Web.
Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Univ of California Press.
Fromm, N. (2019). National interest and international norms: A joint theoretical framework. In Constructivist Niche Diplomacy (pp. 19-55). Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Web.
Gasztold, A. (2020). The Theoretical Framework of Feminism. In Feminist Perspectives on Terrorism (pp. 13-36). Springer, Cham. Web.
Hooper, C. (2019). Masculinist practices and gender politics: The operation of multiple masculinities in international relations. In The “man” question in international relations (pp. 28-53). Routledge. Web.
Jovanović, M. (2021). Bourdieu’s theory and the social constructivism of Berger and Luckmann. Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society, 32(4), 518-537. Web.
Jung, H. (2019). The evolution of social constructivism in political science: past to present. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019832703. Web.
Laughlin-Schultz, B. (2020). The Political Thought of America’s Founding Feminists. Web.
Laurence, M., & Rhoads, E. P. (2020). Constructivism. In United Nations peace operations and International Relations theory (pp. 111-128). Manchester University Press. Web.
McCourt, D. M. (2022). Conclusion: The Space of Constructivism. In The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory (pp. 143-149). Bristol University Press.
Painter, N. I. (2018). 8. Difference, Slavery, And Memory: Sojourner Truth In Feminist Abolitionism. In The Abolitionist Sisterhood (pp. 139-158). Cornell University Press. Web.
Pastorello, K. (2019). Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement: Revolutionary Reformers. Web.
Pfadenhauer, M., & Knoblauch, H. (Eds.). (2018). Social constructivism as paradigm?: The legacy of the social construction of reality. Routledge.
Savu, L. M. (2021). Realism, liberalism and constructivism in the pursuit of security. STRATEGIES XXI-Security and Defense Faculty, 17(1), 20-31. Web.
Syed, I., & Ali, L. A. (2018). Systemic Theorizing: Traversing Between Constructivism and Structural Realism. Journal of Political Studies, 25(2), 55-67.
Tickner, J. A., & True, J. (2018). A century of international relations feminism: from World War I women’s peace pragmatism to the women, peace and security agenda. International Studies Quarterly, 62(2), 221-233. Web.
Todd, J. (2018). Feminist literary history. John Wiley & Sons.
Union, I. P. (2020). Women in parliament: 1995-2020–25 years in review.