A Primer on IR- Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism and "Rational Actors"

In preparation for anything else I might post on the subject, some of you may need a bit of a background on schools of thought in International Relations. When we're talking about "conservative", "liberal", etc. we are rarely if ever referring to a specific party or country.  We're normally talking about a school of thought to which someone subscribes. These ideas are attempting to explain why states do what they do. Now for the big three ideas!

Realism! It is not objective, regardless of how the name sounds. Realism refers to the idea that states (in IR we almost always look at the state level first, not individual) act in their own self-interest. Gritty. Wow. In any case, it says that anarchy is the natural state of the world, because states are going to always put their own interests ahead of the interests of the world at large.  TLDR: "rational", self-interested states compete for power and security in a lonely world. Get your bootstraps on.  In this theory, states use military and economic resources to achieve their goals. So, in realism, a states MAIN MOTIVATION is itself and its own goals.

Liberalism is the idea that institutions have an effect on state behavior. The UN, the EU, the United States (which is actually just the oldest iteration of the idea that became the EU- it used to be separate!), NATO... they influence state behavior. But they didn't just come, fully-formed from seafoam like Aphrodite. No, we made them. In liberalism, states realize they they have common goals and interests, and they "rationally" pursue them by cooperating. So here, instead of beating other states to death with military power, they use international organizations (int orgs from now on, I'm not made of keystrokes), trade, and the promotion of democracy and human rights. SEE: Francis Fukuyama

If you're American or even passingly familiar with American politics, you may recognize that not long ago our most prominent decisionmakers subscribed to some form of liberalism, "liberating" other countries and installing democracy, and has now shifted dramatically to more realist terms. 

Constructivism is relatively new in the IR world. It states that things like culture, shared history, and experiences help to influence state decisions. Instead of analyzing states, this one looks at people- particularly leaders, decisionmakers. The experiences and beliefs of people shape their perceptions and actions! Who knew. Here, these people use ideas, narrative, and history to help accomplish their goals.

So, which one is right? It's a misleading question. I'm sure you all can recognize that all of these things (and probably more) influence decision-making. We could get into bureaucracy, psychology, etc. on the individual level. There's so much that helps to explain the decisions states make every day. But most, if not all, theories rely on states being "rational actors". That has so many implications past what we would assume. 

When we say "rational actor model", or RAM,  in IR, we mean not only do we assume that the actor is making the best, most logical decision, but has accurate information, significant checks on that information, and is not influenced by political machinations, social pressure, emotions, or personal preference. That's a LOT to expect out of leaders, and is likely almost never the case. 

So why do we use them? Political Science, like other sciences, has to have models to start to understand the world around us. However, we don't really get to run lab tests. We can't fake elections, set up whole countries, and see how this thing goes. We only have the real world to draw examples from, to try to develop the closest things to rules and laws that we can.