ABSTRACT
In the 1990s dissatisfaction with the three main paradigms of International Relations, and their myriad offshoots and hybrid theories, produced a range of theoretical challenges which coalesced into a fourth paradigm known as Social Constructivism. The way in which the Cold War ended and the panning out of the ‘New World Order’ which followed, prompted a number of scholars to challenge many of the assumptions of the discipline across the paradigms. In particular Social Constructivism argued that understanding political events in the world necessitated more introspection and less grand abstract theorizing. The paradigm favours a more sociological approach and advocates a greater appreciation of the cultural dimension of policy-making. It began to be argued that maybe the actors on the world stage do not really follow any kind of rational script, be it written in the language of self-interest, mutual interest or dictated by economic circumstance. Perhaps, at least some of the time, foreign policy reflects parochial ideological or moral guidelines rather than objective gains. By the 1990s Ruggie, a lifelong Pluralist, contended that that paradigm and Neo-realism had come to share so much common ground, in assuming states to be rational gaindriven actors, that they should henceforth be considered as a single paradigm of ‘neo-utilitarianism’ (Ruggie 1998: 1-39).
