Interactionism and Constructivism

Données clés
Faculté	Faculté des sciences de la société
Département	Département de science politique et relations internationales
Professeur(s)	Rémi Baudoui
Cours	Introduction to Political Science

Lectures

L'interactionnisme et le constructivisme sont deux cadres théoriques clés qui enrichissent notre compréhension des dynamiques en science politique.

L'interactionnisme est une théorie qui met l'accent sur les relations entre les individus pour décrypter les comportements politiques. Elle postule que les individus ne sont pas simplement le produit de leur environnement ou des structures sociales, mais qu'ils ont un rôle actif dans la formation et la transformation de ces structures par leurs interactions. Dans un contexte politique, l'interactionnisme peut aider à analyser comment les politiciens, les bureaucrates et les électeurs interagissent, et comment ces interactions déterminent les politiques publiques et les résultats électoraux.

D'autre part, le constructivisme se focalise sur la manière dont les acteurs politiques utilisent leurs idées et croyances pour construire leur réalité sociale et politique. Selon cette approche, les structures politiques et sociales ne sont pas préétablies, mais sont plutôt construites par les acteurs politiques à travers leurs discours, leurs idées et leurs actions. Le constructivisme, dans le domaine de la science politique, permet d'explorer comment les croyances et les idées des acteurs politiques façonnent les structures politiques et les politiques publiques.

Ces deux cadres théoriques peuvent être utilisés conjointement pour une compréhension plus approfondie de la politique. Par exemple, l'interactionnisme peut être utilisé pour examiner comment les acteurs politiques collaborent pour élaborer des politiques, tandis que le constructivisme peut permettre d'analyser comment ces politiques sont influencées par les idées et les croyances de ces acteurs.

Languages

English

Français

Interactionism and Constructivism

Interactionism and constructivism are two key theoretical frameworks that have emerged from distinct production contexts and have shaped our understanding of social and political processes.

Interactionism

Interactionism, particularly symbolic interactionism, has its roots in the Chicago School of the early 20th century. The rapid and massive changes that the city of Chicago underwent at that time provided the backdrop for the development of this theoretical approach.

Chicago grew from a small city to a thriving metropolis in just a few decades, with a population that exploded due to immigration and internal migration. This led to profound changes in the social and spatial structure of the city. Newcomers from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds have settled in separate neighbourhoods, creating a mosaic of cultural communities in the city. In response to these changes, sociologists of the Chicago School sought to understand how individuals and groups interacted in these new urban environments. They began to develop interactionist theories that emphasised the role of social interactions in the formation of individual and collective identity, the construction of communities, and the creation of social order. Sociologists of the Chicago School, such as Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess and Herbert Blumer, played a crucial role in the development of interactionism. They emphasised direct observation of social interactions and used innovative research methods, such as ethnographic study and participant observation, to study social interactions in the changing metropolis.

Interactionism was thus born out of the effort to understand the social and spatial transformations taking place in the changing metropolis. It continues to be a key theoretical approach in sociology and political science, helping to explain how social interactions shape individuals, groups, and society as a whole.

Sociologists of the Chicago School were among the first to tackle these complex and interrelated challenges head on. Their work highlighted the difficulties of social, occupational and cultural integration faced by newcomers to the city. They observed how these challenges led to an ethnicisation of the city, where different ethnic groups settled in separate neighbourhoods, creating a complex 'ethnic mosaic'. They also studied the emergence of social marginality, including crime and delinquency, in this changing urban context. The phenomena of marginality and social deviance, such as gangs and organised crime, were of major concern to these sociologists. They sought to understand why certain individuals and groups choose to engage in illegal activities and how these choices are shaped by their social and economic environment. The work of the Chicago School on social deviance has been particularly influential. Scholars such as Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay developed the theory of social disorganisation, which suggests that crime is primarily the result of the disintegration of traditional social institutions in deprived urban areas. This theory has profoundly influenced the way we understand crime and deviance today. The sociologists of the Chicago School were pioneers in the study of urban phenomena and the social problems associated with rapid urbanisation and industrialisation. Their interactionist approach paved the way for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals and groups interact with their social environment and how these interactions shape their experiences and behaviour.

Interactionism, as conceptualised by the Chicago School, places interaction at the heart of social experience. This approach emphasises the idea that individual behaviour is shaped by interactions and exchanges with others. In other words, individuals do not act in isolation, but are constantly engaged in a process of interaction with those around them. From this perspective, society is not simply a set of rigid structures that determine the behaviour of individuals, but a dynamic network of social interactions. Individuals are not simply passive recipients of social norms, but play an active role in creating and modifying these norms through their interactions. This means that in order to understand the behaviours of individuals, we need to examine the nature of the interactions in which they are engaged. For example, how do individuals interact in different contexts, such as family, work, school, etc.? How do these interactions influence their beliefs, attitudes and behaviour? And how do these interactions contribute to the creation and transformation of social structures? Furthermore, interactionism argues that all human relationships involve some form of exchange or interaction, whether verbal or non-verbal, formal or informal, positive or negative. Therefore, interactionism provides a valuable framework for the study of social phenomena, ranging from everyday interactions between individuals to broader processes of social and political change.

Interactionism emphasises that an individual's behaviour is profoundly influenced by his or her interactions with others, and that it does not exist in isolation from its social context. This perspective highlights the fact that behaviour is never static or constant, but is always in the process of transformation through social interactions. This is where interactionism differs from functionalist theory. Functionalism, by focusing on how different parts of society work together to maintain balance and harmony, tends to see individual behaviour as largely determined by the functional role they play in society. This perspective can sometimes be criticised for its lack of consideration for power dynamics, conflict and social change. In contrast, interactionism emphasises how individuals negotiate, interpret and contest their social roles through their interactions with others. It emphasises the complexity and dynamics of human behaviour, rather than its conformity to predetermined functional norms. Furthermore, interactionism sees society not as a fixed structure, but as a constantly changing process shaped by human interactions. Thus, interactionism offers a more nuanced and dynamic perspective on human behaviour and society. It emphasises the active role of individuals in creating and transforming their social reality, and the way in which behaviour is shaped by interactions and exchanges with others.

There are four principles in interaction:

Units of interaction: Interactionism recognises that interactions can occur between individuals (interpersonal interaction) or groups (group interaction). These units of interaction are the basic actors in society.
Rules of interaction: Interactions are governed by rules, which may be explicit (such as laws or regulations) or implicit (such as unwritten social norms). These rules help to structure interactions and give meaning to behaviour.
Ordered process: Interactionism sees social interactions as an ordered process. This means that interactions follow certain sequences and patterns, which can be analysed and understood. For example, interactionism has been used to study phenomena such as violence, by placing them in their specific interaction context.
Exchange: Interactionism emphasises the idea that social interactions are fundamentally based on exchange. This can be an exchange of goods or services, but also of information, feelings, ideas, etc. This emphasises the reciprocal and mutually influencing nature of social interactions.

These principles provide a framework for understanding how individuals and groups interact with each other, how these interactions are structured and regulated, and how they contribute to social creation and change.

Constructivism

Constructivism, which took off in the 1960s-1970s, is a school of thought that has profoundly influenced many fields, including sociology, philosophy, anthropology and linguistics. Constructivism is based on the idea that knowledge is not simply discovered, but is actively constructed by the individual or society. Jean Piaget, a famous Swiss psychologist, is a key figure in constructivism, although his work is generally classified in the field of developmental psychology. Piaget proposed that children actively construct their understanding of the world through their interaction with their environment. According to his theory, cognitive development occurs through a series of stages, each stage representing a more complex and sophisticated level of understanding of the world. In the field of linguistics, Piaget saw language as a social and cognitive construct. He argued that children acquire language not simply by memorising words and rules, but by actively constructing their understanding of language through their interactions with others. This reflects the general approach of constructivism, which emphasises interaction and the active construction of knowledge.

The fundamental premise of constructivism is that knowledge is not a static set of facts waiting to be discovered, but is actively constructed by individuals and groups. This means that knowledge is not simply something we have, but something we do. Each new piece of information or experience is integrated into our existing knowledge base, modifying and developing our understanding of the world. From this perspective, reality is not an objective entity independent of us, but is constantly constructed and reconstructed through our interactions with the world and with others. This means that our knowledge of the world is always developing, always being 'constructed'. Furthermore, constructivism recognises that our knowledge of the world is always influenced by our social and cultural context. Our beliefs, values, experiences and interactions with others all play a role in how we construct our knowledge of the world. For this reason, constructivism is often associated with methodological approaches that focus on exploring people's perceptions, interpretations and experiences, such as case study, ethnography, or narrative analysis. These methods aim to understand how individuals and groups construct their knowledge of the world and how this knowledge influences their behaviour and interactions.

Constructivism holds that our understanding of reality is socially constructed, rather than objectively observed. Reality, as we know it, is shaped by our knowledge systems, which are themselves influenced by social norms, values and practices. Reality is not perceived directly, but is interpreted through these social constructions. Therefore, according to constructivism, in order to truly understand reality, we must understand the processes by which it is constructed. This means that we must examine the knowledge systems - the sciences, norms, rules, ideologies, etc. - that shape our perception and understanding of reality. - This means examining the knowledge systems - the sciences, norms, rules, ideologies, etc. - that shape our perception and interpretation of the world. This implies a 'second level' analysis: not only do we need to examine reality as it is constructed, but we also need to examine the construction processes themselves. From this perspective, knowledge is never neutral or objective, but is always influenced by the social and cultural context in which it is produced. This underlines the fundamentally subjective nature of knowledge and reality. Constructivism has important implications for the way we approach research and practice in many fields, from sociology to politics, education and psychology. It reminds us that our perceptions and interpretations of the world are always shaped by our social and cultural context, and that reality is always a construct, never a given.

Constructivist theorists argue that reality is constructed over time by a multitude of actors in a given society. It is a collective and complex process that involves many interactions and negotiations between individuals and groups. Constructivism focuses on the analysis of social structures rather than individuals. It examines how ideas, norms, values, beliefs and social practices shape our understanding of reality. For example, in the field of politics, constructivists can analyse how political ideas and ideologies influence the formation of public policy. Furthermore, constructivists recognise that social constructions of reality have coercive power. In other words, they structure our thoughts and behaviours and make us conform to them. For example, social and cultural norms may make us feel obliged to act in a certain way, even if we do not personally agree with these norms. However, constructivism also recognises that social constructions of reality can be challenged and changed. Individuals and groups can resist social norms, challenge dominant ideas and propose new ways of understanding and interpreting the world. Therefore, constructivism offers a dynamic and flexible perspective on social reality, which emphasises both its stability and its potential for change.

Constructivism offers valuable tools to analyse and compare constructed realities in different contexts. Two important dimensions of constructivism are :

Comparison of constructed realities: Constructivism recognises that different societies can construct different realities. Therefore, a constructivist approach may involve comparing these different constructed realities. For example, how do norms and values differ between societies? How do these differences influence the behaviour and attitudes of individuals in these societies?
International Relations: Constructivism has had a significant impact on the field of international relations. It offers a unique perspective on issues of power, conflict and cooperation between nations. According to constructivism, international relations are not only influenced by material factors such as military or economic power, but also by ideas, norms and identities. The constructed realities of each country, which are shaped by their specific political, economic, cultural and social systems, can conflict with each other, leading to international tensions and conflicts.

These two dimensions highlight the role of social construction in shaping our understanding of reality, and how this construction can vary considerably between different societies and international contexts.

Constructivism encourages the conceptualisation of space not as a fixed physical entity, but as a product of our social and cultural constructions. Space, in this perspective, is seen as a series of 'constructed realities' that are shaped and defined by the individuals and societies that inhabit them. This means that our understanding and experience of space is influenced by a multitude of factors, including our beliefs, values, social norms, political and economic systems, and our interactions with others. For example, an urban space may be perceived differently by different groups depending on their socio-economic status, ethnicity, age, gender, etc. Furthermore, spaces themselves can be seen as influential actors in the construction of our realities. They have the potential to shape our behaviours, attitudes and interactions in significant ways. For example, the layout of a city, the presence or absence of certain infrastructures, the layout of residential and commercial areas, etc., can all influence the way we experience and interpret our environments. Thus, constructivism offers a rich and nuanced perspective on how we understand and interact with space, emphasising its role in shaping our constructed realities.

Interactionist and Constructivist theories as critical alternatives to functionalist, structuralist and systemic theories

Interactionist and constructivist theories offer critical alternatives to functionalist, structuralist and systemic theories in political science and sociology.

Interactionism, with its focus on micro-social interactions and how they shape the behaviour of individuals and the functioning of society, offers a direct critique of functionalism. Functionalism tends to view society as an organised system where each part has a specific function to perform for the good of the whole. Interactionism, on the other hand, emphasises the role of individuals and their interactions in structuring society. Constructivism, on the other hand, offers a critique of structuralist and systemic approaches. Structuralism tends to see society as a structured set of relationships that determine the behaviour of individuals. Constructivism, on the other hand, emphasises the role of individuals and groups in the construction of their social reality, including the social structures themselves. Similarly, constructivism is opposed to systemism, which views society as a system of interconnected elements that interact with each other. Constructivism, on the other hand, focuses more on the analysis of specific cases and how social realities are constructed and change over time.

Both approaches - interactionism and constructivism - thus offer a more dynamic and flexible view of society, emphasising the active role of individuals in shaping their social reality.

The Interactionist Theory

Back in the day: Chicago School

At the beginning of the 20th century, Chicago moved from the city to the metropolis with a massive influx of foreign immigrants which led to racial conflicts, the establishment of ghettos, poverty, prostitution and juvenile delinquency. There will also be violent racial riots.

It is a very new sociology because at the beginning of the 20th century we did not have a sociology of deviance which was on the side of lawyers and repression. Basically, the novelty is to question the social and marginal configurations that will revolutionize the field of knowledge in sociology, particularly by the fact that we will realize that there are rationalities that also pass through the interactionist question.

It is an attempt to understand and solve social problems based on the lives of uprooted people.

The major themes are racial and ethnic minorities, the marginal man, the city, deviance or crime and delinquency.

The study of minorities shows that interaction systems are very strong because they are defence and protection systems. The sociology of the Chicago School will study all these questions and show that there are systems of action, of solidarity in interactive logics and which are true modes of collective functioning.

Among the keywords of interactionism are:

Socialization: all the mechanisms by which individuals learn social relations between men.
Symbolic interactionism: the idea that individuals do not suffer social facts, but that they produce them through their interaction. It is a very dynamic interpretation, individuals are actors in the social field, but they are not necessarily subject to the social field, they produce it themselves through their interaction.
Participant observation: the interviewer gets involved in the group he is studying.
Social Darwinism: Darwinism is based on Darwin's theory of natural selection to describe the behaviour of individuals in society.
Functionalism: theory that considers the social system as a unified whole, all the elements of which are necessary for its proper functioning.
Ethnomethodology: sociological approach focusing on the knowledge and capacities of each member of society.
Urban ecology: sociologists try to explain the perpetual recomposition to which the city of Chicago is subjected.
Disorganization: the decline of the influence of collective values on the individual as a consequence of rapid changes in the economic environment.

Erwin Goffman (1922-1982): the staging of everyday life

Erwin Goffman.

Goffman was to publish a very important work after studying sociology in Toronto and at the University of Chicago, but who also taught in Berkeley and Philadelphia. He will work on the question of illness and social phenomena as well as on the psychiatric hospital in order to study the interactionism that is built either on the one hand with medical power or with other patients. His hypotheses is published in his book "The staging of everyday life" is that every individual is an actor, we are all actors who are actors of comedies and in theatrical performance, at every moment we must expose our character through a ceremonial and with techniques of representation.

Goffman's constructivism is that we all put ourselves in positions of construction as subjective beings and as social beings. He himself will take up the question of reality by saying that all reality has two meanings:

representations of reality: one represents reality;
the reality of representations: from the moment a collective field of representation is created, these representations acquire an active reality; representations of reality have been created and finally become accepted. This means that as individuals we work with representations.

He wonders about the importance of public space. For Goffman, the public space and a theatre stage. The individual is conceived as an actor performing in front of his audience. The role of the spectator is extended to any person in a daily activity.

For Goffman, there are three skills in which reality is played out: cooperation (1), commitment (2) and absorption (3).

Public space means that we are both spectators and actors: at the same time, we manufacture them and at the same time they are inscribed in constructed realities. It has interactions that are going to be cultural.

According to Goffman, these systems of interactions are invested by speech, because it is fundamental in the interaction and by the body, i.e. in the movements of the body and its ability to adapt. We are in a field of interactions, gestuality of the body and language that allow us to define pluralities of situations in which we collectively manufacture devices of recognition of action and development.

The Symbolic Interactionism

Goffman will say that public space favours the construction of the avoidance theory. The avoidance strategy is when one feels the threat; the threat can also be completely of the order of the representation that refers to the constructed reality. However, there are also many other avoidance strategies.

What we observe in the sociological field and which is important in the political field is that the principle of interaction is also in the political field which also works through interaction.

Interactionist thinking is interesting because it shows that on the political level we are well in a field where situations are negotiated. This means that when we work from an interactionist point of view on the political field, we will work on a space for debate and not on something closed.

All individuals follow rites of interaction; it will give three situations that undermine the interactive ritual. Often, the interaction is ritualized, it does not reveal spontaneity. Goffman identifies rites of rupture with the classical authority that disrupts the ritual order:

offense and reparation: one can escape interaction because of violence or significant force ;
desecration: rejection of rules of interaction that go beyond ritual;
Abnormality: these are symptoms that damage the rules of interaction, it is a rupture of ritualized integration.

The constructivist theory

The origins: the epistemology Alfred Schütz (1899 - 1959)

Alfred Schütz.

One of the origins and epistemology that is the science of language. Schütz is a philosopher and sociologist who fled Nazism by taking refuge in the United States. In Goffman's lineage, he will question the scientific construction of constructed reality. In other words, he will ask himself what a thought object is.

In science, a thought object is a constructed object. Basically, when we want to capture a social reality, we will make a constructed object. In order to observe a new phenomenon, it will be necessary to build a scientific device to analyze it. Science is a constructed object whose function is to try to understand a social reality itself constructed: the objects of thought constructed by the researcher in the social sciences must be based on constructed objects, which means that any scientific approach is constructed.

The big question is going to be to analyze reality which is itself a construct. For Schütz, the object of science is second-degree construction. We are in a double constructivist logic and then this object of social science has for only object to understand the constructed reality such as it gives itself to understand and not such as it gives itself to see. Here too, there is a significant gap between what we see as subjective and what is actually constructed, but above all, constructivist scientific tools must be developed.

This shows that we are in a philosophical and epistemological reflection of the relationships between our capacities to construct modes of analysis and the capacity to understand the construct of the society in which we are.

John Searle's language philosophy

John searle en 2005.

John Searle is an American philosopher who will work on the question of language and will publish in1995 The construction of social reality^[1]. He will assume that just like Piaget that language is a construction, it is fundamental because it allows dialogue. Language is a construction insofar as it is thanks to the fact that we have acquired it, that we can exchange, discuss and negotiate.

On the other hand, language participates in its own way in the social construction of reality. Language is not simply a framework for exchange, but a tool for building reality.

The etymology says a lot about the ability to use it as a scientific object and tells a lot about its weaknesses and conceptual strengths. By working on language, we work on a strong object that allows us to understand the construction of a statement and thus the conception of reality.

Not only does language allow us to understand ourselves, but it participates in the social construction of reality.

Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman: "The social construction of reality"

For Berger and Luckman, language remains fundamental, reality is a social construct and the object of the social sciences can understand reality through language. If we have understood how this reality was made, then we have the means to understand the world in which we live and to understand the weight of norms and institutions in making this reality.

Berger and Luckman ask how reality is constructed? They postulate that the foundation of knowledge of everyday life is language, other parts than society as objective reality subjects the individual to power and that society as subjective reality is identification with the other.

From the point of view of political science, every society must subject the individual to power: we are all subject to power and to the social construction of reality that is not external to us, but we will participate in it through the question of power.

Power is the construction of rules and norms that are in fact behaviors; basically, a society or a state function from the construction of norms that make social reality function to build. In other words, it is a constructed social reality.

Secondly, society's stake must stick to the constructed social reality. Therefore power is the fact that we will have to make individuals stick to this constructed social reality. Power will have a dimension or institution of gathering in relation to an ideal of constructed social reality. He who breaks the constructed social reality can be condemned to death as Galileo was.

How does reality translate into everyday life?

This means that at Berger and Luckman, societies, like language, are based on stocks that define and adapt behaviour in everyday life. We are going to have two important phenomena, the institutionalization process and the legitimization process.

The process of institutionalization is the fact that any society must channel the behaviour of individuals into a social order. The individual's relationship with society will be institutionalized through habituation and the division of tasks. Habit is a repetition and the transmission of its values and ways of thinking will be transmitted as a legacy to those who come behind us and must adopt the same behaviors of this constructed social reality. The concept of transmission becomes a fundamental concept for any society, because if it can no longer transmit the constructed social reality and can no longer transmit its modes of representations, governments, actions and efficiencies.

The social world cannot be separated from human activity and the question of governmentality. They will describe a social world as a world of institutionalization and integration sedimented by language and traditions that are legitimation.

In all societies, there is symbolism, especially at the level of government and power, it is a manifestation of a continuity that is on the side of the construction of social reality.

The legitimation process creates a process to legitimize. It is necessary to remain in the universe of the symbol in order to permanently legitimize the collective function of integration of individuals in the face of this constructed social reality. We are in a process of permanent legitimation of what needs to be done and which imposes prohibitions on everyone. This process creates legitimacy and acceptance for all.

We see that the purpose of this process is to make all elements of society accept this constructed social reality.

Constructivism in the theory of international relations

This theory will conceive that the field of international relations is not an established field, but in permanent construction, in this framework constructivism theory brings us back to the side of a process in action, that is to say that what we will analyse at a given moment describes the field of international relations as a field in movement. In other words, constructivist theory describes the field of international relations as a field in perpetual motion according to interactionist strategies.

We must, therefore, understand mobility and strategies. In an interactionist field, strategies can evolve.

The constructivist hypothesis will be to say that the fundamental issue depends on several levels:

role of actors: they interpret situations. From then on, we are in a field of interactions that always proceeds from the social construction of reality, it is a construction. There are situations that evolve through the role of actors in given times and circumstances. First, we must understand the role, the regulations, the values and the ideologies in international relations, knowing that this is not necessarily enough because we may have opposing ideologies.
He understood how these social realities are constructed.
understand the scope of interactions that exist in the field of international relations because it explains strategies at the global level.

Constructivism is interesting because it puts us in a set of considerations, of continuity of continuous movements in the field of international relations. It will oppose functionalists in the field of international relations, we cannot simply, but also in terms of interactions that may be ideological of long duration, but there may be interactions of circumstances in relation to a given problem. But also criticizes systemicism which is an approach that will develop at the end of the 1980s at the end of the Cold War when we can no longer understand the composite field of multilateralism. One may wonder how to understand the complexity of the field of international relations if not by coming back to the question of the interaction of actors in the field of international relations.

Basically, he abandons the great pre-structured narratives in order to question a social reality of actors. It is a critique of a classic theory of international relations to return to the complexity of the field of international relations by also putting into crisis concepts such as the concept of anarchy. In fact, there is never anarchy, it is itself a construction. This means that in a state in a situation of anarchy it is necessary to reflect on how this situation was constructed.

In the field of international relations there are national actors, but they cannot exist as such if they are not interacting. We are in a world of coaction or co-sharing of national action that allows us to understand the complexity of the field of international relations. If we take the issue of actors, we also take the issue of power relations.

Anarchy according to constructivist theory is not a previous pre-social state, it is something that is something that is also a result and therefore anarchy in international relations also results from a process.

In the field of international relations, constructivist theories appear: they will think about the reality of structures and conflicts and also think about intersubjectivity, that is, the fact that we are in representation and how certain countries can allow themselves to characterize another in the name of the interpretation of their own development.

Constructivists advocate that the general principle at the global level is state sovereignty, but that it is, in reality, subjective, that is, a function of what the actors recognize. There are explicit but also implicit rules that must be accepted as in interaction and if these rules are not accepted then there may be specific forms of reactivity in the field of international relations.

Above all, it is the analysis of the process of construction of social identities and actors of modern politics and then how according to these rules and these enormous how actors and agents interact and influence each other or fight each other.

Annexes

Vers un « constructivisme tempéré ». Le constructivisme et les études européennes, SiencePo - Centre d'études européennes

References

↑ Searle, John R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free, 1995.

[1] Searle, John R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free, 1995.

[1]