Steele, Brent. "Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique". International Studies Review, Vol.9, No.1 (2007): 23-52.

Steele, Brent. "Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique". International Studies Review, Vol.9, No.1 (2007): 23-52.

• Realist IR scholars have claimed that the Constructivist and Liberal schools of IR theory are really one and the same. This assertion is made on the basis of claims that both schools are 'idealistic', both have adopted some constructivist assertions while the Realist school has not, and that scholars from both schools have collaborated (23).
• The author argues that this is totally bullshit man, and that the two schools are distinct. Dr. Steele argues that the Liberal school of IR is distinct in its ontology, epistemology, and normative assertions. The Liberal school remains empiricist and rationalist, whereas Constructivism allows for subjective motives and normative claims (23).
• Realist scholars claim that constructivist is an 'idealist' form of IR because it ignores -- read: does not privilege -- power dynamics in its understanding of IR. The same tactic of separating 'practical' realist theory from 'utopian' theories is used against the liberal school, making liberalism and constructivism alike in the derogatory labels given to them (28-29).
• Many scholars claim that the constructivist and neoliberal institutionalist schools of IR are similar. Jennifer Sterling-Folker claims that both theories mainly look at the ideological assumptions made within international organizations which facilitate their continued functioning. This may be true for certainly constructivist scholars like Alexander Wendt, but does not describe the many scholars in the constructivist school who do not subscribe to an evolutionary conception of norms or the view of states as rational actors (26-27).
• J. Samuel Barkin, a scholar of the realist school of IR, claims that both the constructivist and liberal schools explain international relations on the basis of shared norms which facilitate cooperation. Since they do not privilege power relations as the realist school does, Dr. Barkin assumes the schools are the same (28).
• The unique ontological and epistemological position of the constructivist school within IR scholarship is blurred by the incorporation of constructivist concepts into empirical IR research by liberal and realist scholars. Because constructivist terms are used in rationalist IR research, some make the false assumption that constructivism is rationalist (29).
• More conflation between constructivism and other fields of IR is caused by the early attempts of Dr. Wendt to establish an empirical research agenda for constructivism. Although this aim has been largely abandoned, it was generated a belief in other schools of IR that constructivism is primarily empirical and that it has failed by not meeting those goals of empirical research (29-30).
• Liberal IR theory holds to 'democratic peace theory', a belief that democracies are less likely to go to war than undemocratic polities, and that democracies almost never go to war with each other. This assertion is liberal because it assumes that the end goal of all rational states in democracy, that only liberal democracies are legitimate, and that these categories can be viewed objectively and scientifically (32-33).
• Liberal scholarship on democratic peace theory usually takes the form of 'systemic democratic peace idealism', wherein quantifiable properties related to democracy, like numbers of democracies, are studied. Moreover, all actions are explained by rational motivations, namely a desire to appease a democratic hegemonic order (34-36).
• Despite the concern in democratic peace theory for the domestic characteristics of states -- whether or not they are democratic -- the theory assumes that all democracies are the same in key ways. Most importantly, all democracies are assumed to be friendly with other democracies and automatically hostile to non-democracies (36).
• Liberal theory focuses on outcomes because they can be quantified and placed into empirical analysis. This predictive theoretical focus ignores important parts of how such outcomes were reached and the rhetoric and justification framing those outcomes (37).
• The importance of these ignored methods and perspectives is clear in the case of the 2003 Iraq war, where the liberal focus on the end outcome of a more democratic Iraq is utterly insufficient to capture the loss of international prestige incurred by the US during its democratizing war (37-38).
• Constructivist IR theory is heavily informed by structuration theory, which holds that social relations are structured differently in different spaces and times. This theory is the basis of the constructivist school's epistemology and ontology, arguing that individual experiences cannot constitute absolute truths and that all means of studying society look at only certain perspectives (34).
• The ontology of the constructivist school is also based on the idea of a 'double hermeneutic', whereby the ways in which social scientists categorize phenomenon will change societies and behaviors because the observed actors will read and be informed by the work of those social scientists (34, 38-39).
• The doctrine of the Bush administration in the immediate buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was heavily influenced by democratic peace theory, which asserted that a democratic Iraq would not pose the threat to regional security which the Hussein government had. This clearly demonstrates the impact of theory on real life, and thus the significance of the double hermeneutic in social science (39-41).
• This clear example of the influence of theory on state practice demonstrates the importance of recognizing double hermeneutics. This is also the core distinction between the constructivist and liberal schools in IR theory: constructivists recognize the importance of discourse and theory on policy, whereas liberals wrongly believe that concepts like democratic peace are set without reference to human agency (41-42).
• "As a general rule, the more people think that they understand the environment in which they operate, the more they attempt to manipulate it to their advantage. Such behavior can relatively quickly change the environment and the rules that appear to govern it" (42, original source of quote is pg. 51).
• Constructivism and critical theory often work together because they both see knowledge and 'facts' about the social world as being constructed for a purpose, either to open new possibilities or to control and restrict options seen as reasonable or possible (43).
• Contemporary liberal academics refuse the recognize the role which their scholarship and publications play in shaping political ideas and action. To have a more positive impact on the world, liberalism needs to actively look at how the use of its theories has resulted in unwanted political outcomes (45).
• Liberal IR theorists are generally disapproving of normative IR theory, criticizing it as unscientific and unprofessional. This is despite the fact that 'objective' and 'scientific' work by the liberal school of IR remains heavily, although not explicitly, normative. Implicit assumptions, like that democracy is good, flourish in liberal IR theory. Moreover, these normative assumptions are more integral to the liberal school because they are not explicitly discussed or debated (43).
• "There should be no doubt that liberal democratic peace theory and research is popular in IR in part because of its parsimonious explanation [...] This fact should be enough for IR scholars to critically question the amount of emphasis placed upon 'parsimony' as a criterion for evaluating IR research, [...] Why do we seek parsimonious solutions to complex problems? Is it possible that erring on the side of parsimony makes the practical solutions that follow from our research either meaningless in form or, even worse, dangerous in implementation? Removing the nuance and complexity from our explanations and understandings of international politics has its price" (47).

The author basically has a tizzy fit for the first part of the article because he thinks that his school is really different from that other theoretical school because someone said it wasn't and that's important for some fucking reason. It also talks about the big differences between the liberal and constructivist schools. Basically, constructivism recognizes that theories influence real world events and that politics is social constructs rather than scientific laws. Liberalism does neither of does things. That's the big difference and its important to the author that people recognize that they are different. As an example, the author talks about how the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified on grounds of democratic peace theory, yet the liberal scholars who created the theory do not recognize the influence of their work.