Bridging the Gap: Toward A Realist-Constructivist Dialogue

Editor's Note:J. Samuel Barkin's International Studies Review article “Realist Constructivism” (2003) makes the important point that the opposition between realist and constructivist schools of thought in international relations (IR) may not be as clear-cut as is commonly supposed. In doing so, he focuses on how certain classical realist notions are compatible with constructivist sensibilities about the role of norms and other intersubjective factors in producing social and political outcomes. In effect, Barkin proposes a fusion of certain elements of realism and constructivism to produce a novel IR perspective. Although Barkin is not the first or only scholar to advocate a more evenhanded dialogue between realism and constructivism, his piece is one of the most comprehensive attempts to articulate points of agreement between the two approaches and to delineate the contours of a “realist-constructivist” research program. As such, Barkin's piece provides an excellent opportunity for exploring and elaborating the nature of and possibilities for “realist constructivism.” Barkin's emphasis on the tension between normative transformation and the limits imposed by power in the international arena is one way to initiate a dialogue between realism and constructivism. The contributors to this Forum are each trying, in their different ways, to further this dialogue and to explore the possibilities raised by dissociating constructivism from the liberal tradition. They share Barkin's basic contention that realism and constructivism are not implacably opposed. However, they disagree with Barkin's specific formulation of realist constructivism. The differences among the contributors also indicate precisely how much is still up for debate in this ongoing discussion. The Forum includes brief statements by each of the contributors, along with a reply by Barkin.