مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 20 38 2026 2 3 Neo-Constructivism: An Analysis of Identity, Narrative, Norms, and Methodology in International Relations سازه‌انگاری نوین: تحلیل هویت، روایت، هنجار و روش‌شناسی در روابط بین‌الملل 161 191 fa زهرا احمدی دانشکده حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. محمدرضا دهشیری استاد گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده روابط بین الملل وزارت امور خارجه، تهران، ایران 2025 7 26 Neo-Constructivism: An Analysis of Identity, Narrative, Norms, and Methodology in International Relations   Zahra Ahmadi<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Mohammadreza Dehshiri<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   Over the past three decades, constructivism has become one of the dominant approaches in International Relations. However, most studies have focused on its classical dimensions, while the more recent developments of this intellectual tradition have received less systematic attention. Aiming to address this theoretical gap, this article examines four emerging strands of constructivism: Narrative Power, Ontological Security Framework, Norm Contestation Theory, and Constructivist Grounded Theory. Each of these strands highlights new dimensions of global politics, ranging from the role of narratives in legitimization, to the importance of identity continuity for states, the dynamics of normative conflicts within the international order, and methodological rethinking in constructivist scholarship.The article adopts a qualitative and theoretical approach, based on conceptual analysis and a systematic review of the literature. In each section, the main thinkers and key works are introduced, the evolution of ideas is traced, and their analytical capacities for understanding contemporary transformations in the international system are assessed. The findings indicate that by moving beyond static and materialist frameworks, these four strands possess strong explanatory power for identity crises, normative contestation, and the complexities of global politics. Accordingly, this article offers an integrated picture of late constructivism and opens new horizons for identity- and norm-oriented research in International Relations.   Keywords: Constructivism, Narrative Power, Ontological Security, Normative Conflict, and Contextual Constructivist Methodology.   Introduction According to constructivist theory, political reality is socially constructed through intersubjective processes. This perspective highlights the limitations of classical theories that focus narrowly on material power and instrumental rationality when addressing identity crises, normative conflicts, and competing narratives in the contemporary world. Constructivism, as an approach that treats meaning, identity, norms, and discourse as foundational elements of international order, emerged in the late twentieth century in response to the deadlocks of positivism and rationalism. Its development has been shaped by the works of Wendt, Onuf, Finnemore, Sikkink, and Adler. Despite conceptual and methodological expansion, much of the literature remains focused on classical formulations, while more recent constructivist branches have been less systematically developed. This study therefore asks how four emerging strands of constructivism—narrative power, ontological security, normative conflict, and contextual constructivist methodology—are addressed in contemporary literature and how they relate to new phenomena such as digital globalization, the role of non-state actors, and narrative-driven politics. The study aims to provide a framework for reviewing, comparing, and analytically structuring these strands in relation to foreign policy, normative developments, and global order without presupposing a specific explanatory claim.   Research Methodology This study employs a qualitative, theoretical, and analytical approach, using conceptual-developmental analysis and systematic literature review to investigate the four emerging strands of constructivism. Through conceptual inquiry, the study extracts foundational components and developmental trajectories for each strand. The review focuses primarily on literature from 2000 to 2024, using critical engagement with foundational and developmental works to construct a conceptual map of recent transformations. The primary analytical strategy is “theoretical content analysis,” in which key concepts are coded, inter-conceptual relationships are identified, and the explanatory capacity of each strand is evaluated within a comparative-analytical framework. Given the exploratory nature of the research question and the lack of prior integrated frameworks, this approach enables a deeper understanding of the internal evolution of constructivism and its capacity to explain contemporary global political dynamics.   Findings Theoretical and Epistemic Foundations of Constructivism Constructivism rests on the premise that social reality, identities, norms, and interests are constructed through intersubjective, discursive, and historical processes. It stands in contrast to materialist and rationalist approaches, which treat structures and interests as given. Within this framework, structures and actors are mutually constitutive, and norms are not external constraints but core elements shaping actors’ identities and preferences. Interests emerge from social identities, and political action follows a logic of appropriateness rather than pure utility. Language and discourse are instruments for shaping reality, and power extends beyond material resources to include the capacity to generate meaning, legitimacy, and norms. Accordingly, identities, interests, norms, and even boundaries of self/other are dynamic and mutable; global political transformation requires shifts in dominant interpretive frameworks, providing the analytical foundation for the emerging constructivist strands of narrative power, ontological security, normative conflict, and contextual methodology.   Classical Branches of Constructivism From its inception, constructivism has been a pluralist tradition rather than a unified theory, with diverse strands and epistemic positions. Wendt categorized constructivism into modern, postmodern, and feminist currents, while subsequent scholars, including Hough, conceptualized it in terms of conventional versus critical constructivism. Conventional constructivism employs limited positivist principles to produce conditional empirical generalizations and attempts to bridge rationalist and interpretivist approaches. Critical constructivism, drawing on critical theory, emphasizes power, inequality, subordination, and the historical contingency of knowledge, positioning the researcher as part of the meaning-making process. These strands differ in their treatment of identity, knowledge, and methodology: conventional approaches treat identity as a dependent variable, while critical approaches view it as socially constructed, fluid, and power-contingent. Methods vary from data-driven quantitative approaches to discourse- and genealogy-based analyses. Yet all constructivist strands share commitments to the social nature of institutions, the intersubjectivity of meaning, and the dialectical actor-structure relationship. Late developments have shifted focus from stabilized norms to the dynamics of meaning, narrative construction, and discursive power, enhancing the theory’s analytical capacity in understanding contemporary global complexity.   Narrative Power Approach Narrative power, as a late development of constructivism, posits that narratives are central mechanisms for producing meaning, shaping identity, and directing political action in international relations. Inspired by constructivist emphasis on social construction, narratives are seen not as mere reflections of reality but as discursive frameworks through which political actors interpret the past, present, and future, formulate interests, and legitimize actions. Power is thus not confined to material resources but resides in the capacity to produce, stabilize, and contest dominant narratives, which influence public perception, national identity, foreign policy, and even international order. Global politics is understood as a field of narrative competition, where states and non-state actors use storytelling, representation, and persuasion to define reality, legitimacy, and position within the international system.   Ontological Security Framework The ontological security approach assumes that states, like individuals, require continuity and coherence in their identity to act effectively and sustainably in foreign policy. Identity threats can provoke ontological anxiety. Unlike materialist perspectives, which focus on survival and physical resources, this approach emphasizes meaning, narrative, and identity as central to security and interprets foreign policy behavior as identity-driven and discursively mediated. States maintain ontological security by reproducing established narratives and obtaining legitimacy from others, a process that can foster either stability or crisis. Key concepts include identity, meaning, narrative, and intersubjective interaction, with applicability extending to institutions and societies. Ontological security thus provides an analytical lens for understanding actions that traditional rationalist and materialist theories cannot fully explain, particularly under crisis conditions.   Normative Conflict Approach The normative conflict approach focuses on the dynamics and reinterpretation of norms in international relations. Norms are not imposed, fixed structures but products of interactions among actors within socio-political contexts. Implementation, violation, and interpretation of norms are always contested; negotiation, resistance, adaptation, and localization drive their reproduction and legitimation. Historically, this strand traces back to Kratochwil and the critical development of Wiener, with further contributions by Brune, Risse, and Lantis, and recent operationalization by Bettiza, Lewis, Gadinger, and Niemann. Normative conflict reveals that even accepted norms are subject to reinterpretation, challenge, and local and international influence, highlighting the role of power in shaping and transforming meaning and norms. This approach enables analysis beyond simple rule compliance or violation, emphasizing the interplay of meaning, power, and context as drivers of normative evolution.   Contextual Constructivist Methodology (CCM) Contextual constructivist theory (CCM) is a qualitative, reflexive approach that views knowledge as socially constructed through interactions between researchers and participants, rather than discovered. Building on Charmaz’s reinterpretation of classic grounded theory, CCM emphasizes contextual dependence, co-construction of meaning, and the cyclical nature of data collection and analysis, with theoretical sampling linking data to theory. CCM allows multi-layered analysis of norms, identities, and political-social interactions, integrates digital data and interdisciplinary or indigenous methods, and enables study of complex identity and cultural phenomena in international relations and beyond. Its key advantage lies in analytical richness through interactive meaning-making, bridging the gap between researcher and subject, though coding and analysis require rigorous methodological frameworks to maintain coherence and validity. CCM offers a flexible, innovative tool for understanding socio-identity phenomena and global politics, treating meaning and knowledge as products of interactive processes rather than objective realities.   Conclusion This study examined late constructivist strands to provide insight into the internal evolution of the tradition and its capacity to address contemporary global political complexity. These strands demonstrate that constructivism is no longer solely a classical identity-focused theory but a network of analytical approaches capable of capturing diverse levels of political action—from meaning-making and narrative construction to identity anxiety and normative conflict. The study argues that current global political dynamics, including narrative competition, identity polarization, normative legitimacy challenges, and evolving knowledge production, require approaches that integrate fluidity of meaning, historicity of identity, and context-dependence of political action. Late constructivist strands offer a broader analytical horizon, enabling a move beyond reductionist materialist explanations. Limitations include a focus on four selected strands at the expense of others, and the analysis remains largely theoretical. Future research can enrich this framework through empirical studies in specific foreign policy contexts, especially non-Western societies, and by linking these approaches to technological developments, digital data, and new discourse analysis methods. The value of this research lies in providing a conceptual framework for understanding the less visible layers of global politics, where meaning, identity, and norms are not peripheral but constitute the core of political action. This framework can help scholars understand contemporary world order not only as a distribution of power but as an ongoing process of social construction and redefinition.   References Emam-Jomehzadeh, Seyyed Javad, et al. (2013) “A Comparative Study of the Concept of Identity from the Perspective of the English School and Constructivist Theory in International Relations.” Political Research Quarterly (Scientific–Specialized Journal), Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 128–144. Acharya, A. (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International organization, 52(8), 239–275. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024</a>. Ceydilek, E. (2023) not necessarily existential threats: identity-constitutive role of the foreign policy discourse on distant humanitarian crises. Alternatif Politika, 15(3), 445-470. <a href="https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.17">https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.17</a> Deitelhoff, N. (2020) what is in a name? Contestation and backlash against international norms and institutions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 715–727. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120945906">https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120945906</a>. Ejdus, F. (2020) Conflict, Peace, and Ontological Security. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_126-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_126-1</a> Falomir‐Pichastor, J., Muñoz‐Rojas, D., Invernizzi, F. & Mugny, G. (2004). Perceived in‐group threat as a factor moderating the influence of in‐group norms on discrimination against foreigners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 135–153. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.189">https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.189</a>. Gadinger, F. & Niemann, H. (2025) Normativity in practice: Ordering through enactment, learning, and contestation in global protests. Review of International Studies, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210525000142. Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23, 171–200. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267">https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267</a>. Isaacs, R. (2017) The micro-politics of norm contestation between the OSCE and Kazakhstan: square pegs in round holes. Third World Quarterly, 39(9), 1831-1847. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1357114">https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1357114</a> Jackson, C. & Subotić, J. (2024) The ontological security-seeking paradox: domestic and international effects of public architecture in North Macedonia’s ‘Skopje 2014’ project. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 53(1), 3–30. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298241231742">https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298241231742</a> Keohane, R. O. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589">https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589</a> Levinger, M. & Roselle, L. (2017) Narrating Global Order and Disorder. Politics and Governance, 5(3), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i3.1174 McSweeney, B. (2009) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99011332.pdf">https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99011332.pdf</a>. Mitzen, J. (2006) Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346. Onuf, N. G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, United States: University of South Carolina Press. Persaud, I. (2019) Insider and Outsider Analysis: Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Narratives of Seychelles’ Geography Education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842436">https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842436</a>. Risse, T., & Wiener, A. (1999) Something Rotten” and the Social Construction of Social Constructivism: A Comment on Comments. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), 775–782. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343379">https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343379</a>. Saltnes, J. & Thiel, M. (2021) The politicization of lgbti human rights norms in the EU-Uganda development partnership. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13141. Theys, S. (2017) Constructivism. In M. Stephen, International Relations Theory (pp. 36–41). Bristol, UK: E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory. Walker, R. J. (2019) East Wind, West Wind: Civilizations, Hegemonies, and World Orders. In Culture, Ideology, and World Order (pp. 1–21). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429044878-1/east-wind-west-wind-civilizations-hegemonies-world-orders-walker Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/0075548526. Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858.         <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Ph.D. Student, Department of International Relations, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:zahra.ahmadi@srbiau.ac.ir">zahra.ahmadi@srbiau.ac.ir</a> https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2696-4409 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Corresponding Author: Professor, Department of International Relations, School of International Relations, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:m.dehshiri@sir.ac.ir">m.dehshiri@sir.ac.ir</a> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8223-3358 سازه&zwnj;انگاری طی سه دهه اخیر به یکی از رویکردهای مسلط در روابط بین&zwnj;الملل بدل شده است. اما بیشتر پژوهش&zwnj;ها بر ابعاد کلاسیک آن تمرکز داشته، تحولات متأخر این سنت فکری، کمتر به &zwnj;طور منسجم بررسی شده است. این مقاله با هدف برطرف کردن این خلأ نظری، به واکاوی چهار شاخۀ نوظهور سازه&zwnj;انگاری می&zwnj;پردازد: قدرت روایی، امنیت هستی&zwnj;شناختی، منازعۀ هنجاری و نظریۀ زمینه&zwnj;ای سازه&zwnj;انگارانه. هر یک از این شاخه&zwnj;ها، ابعاد تازه&zwnj;ای از سیاست جهانی را برجسته می&zwnj;سازند؛ از نقش روایت&zwnj;ها در مشروعیت&zwnj;بخشی تا اهمیت تداوم هویت برای دولت&zwnj;ها، پویایی مناقشات هنجاری در نظم بین&zwnj;المللی و بازاندیشی روش&zwnj;شناختی در مطالعه سازه&zwnj;انگاری. روش مقاله، کیفی و نظری است و بر پایه تحلیل مفهومی و مرور نظام&zwnj;مند ادبیات تنظیم شده است. در هر بخش، ضمن معرفی متفکران اصلی و آثار شاخص، سیر تکاملی ایده&zwnj;ها ترسیم و ظرفیت&zwnj;های تحلیلی آنها برای فهم تحولات معاصر نظام بین&zwnj;الملل بررسی شده است. یافته&zwnj;ها نشان می&zwnj;دهد که این چهار شاخه، با عبور از چارچوب&zwnj;های ایستا و مادی&zwnj;گرا، توانایی بالایی در تبیین بحران&zwnj;های هویتی، منازعات هنجاری و پیچیدگی&zwnj;های سیاست جهانی دارند. بدین &zwnj;ترتیب مقاله حاضر، تصویری یکپارچه از سازه&zwnj;انگاری متأخر ارائه می&zwnj;دهد و افق&zwnj;های تازه&zwnj;ای برای پژوهش&zwnj;های هویتی- هنجاری در روابط بین&zwnj;الملل می&zwnj;گشاید.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50953