Journal: Constructivism and Wag the Dog

In chapter four, Cynthia Weber tackles the myth behind Constructivism (introduced by Alexander Wendt in 1992), which declares that “anarchy is what states make of it,” and that anarchy can either be cooperative or conflictual depending upon the states' identities and interests (60). She outlines Wendt's definition of Constructivism, explaining that Wendt put much emphasis on the question, “who is the author of international anarchy?” Weber argues that a more important question is how social practice shapes us to believe that there even is an author of international anarchy. Through the film Wag the Dog, she demonstrates how a seduced public tends to “reify” their world, meaning that they accept a socially constructed world as one that already exists as is; social shaping is “out-of-sight, out-of-mind.” This is particularly unsettling, because as Weber explains, “...this reification of authorship is terribly clever because there is no guarantee practices can reliably be traced to authors” (68).

Wag the Dog successfully portrays how easily major political events can be “produced,” and how seducing this production is to the public. It also shows that individual human beings are responsible for these manipulations, even though “the state” receives the credit for its actions. Constructivism allows for the production of international anarchy by states, but it fails to allow us to examine the authors behind the states' decisions. Weber blames this shortcoming on the lack of emphasis on state practice. As it is, Constructivism accepts anarchy as a structure that exists regardless of a state's reaction to it, just like Realism. Constructivism also tries to make a place for the behavior of the state, determining that it has the choice to either react cooperatively or conflictually. Wendt agreed that anarchy is a structural principle that makes states behave in a competitive, self-help manner, but thought that if practice amongst states could be restored, then the structure of anarchy could be avoided. By this, he meant that if we can recognize that our processes result from our social interactions, then we might be able to alter our practices - identities, interests, and institutions - and in turn, how we approach anarchical situations. Weber concludes that even this route misses the point. Constructivism still holds the state accountable as the author of international anarchy, therefore removing any accountability from the individual human beings whom are “wagging the dog.” Finger-pointing aside, this theory doesn't even explain how practices allow us to accept that there is an unknown author. Without understanding how, change to the Constructivist perspective is limited. States cannot be expected to change their policies without first changing (or even recognizing) their practices.

Wag the Dog emphasizes how the media contributes to this “seduction” and “reification.” Identities, interests and institutions are constructed and reconstructed before the public's eye through the media. The public tends to “reify” the world based on what they see on television with their own eyes. The seduction of “seeing is believing” takes hold of mainstream America even though we know the entire farce has been produced. Most importantly, however, the film focuses on the producer and his invisibility. For any production to be deemed successful, its producer must remain unknown and uncredited. “For if we knew about all the special effects and all the dramas behind the drama, we would lose interest in the drama itself,” says Weber (73). Because the public craves this form of dramatic entertainment, I am unconvinced that it will be willing to give up its reification of the world in order to learn who the true producers are. At the same time, Constructivism teases the public by telling it that states can be their own authors of international anarchy, but it stops short of holding the actual individual decision-makers accountable. I agree with Weber's assessment of the myth, which determines that the wording is misleading. If “anarchy is what states make of it,” then who is doing the interpreting?

Work Cited
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005.