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 representing a more complex and sophisticated 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 social and cultural context always influences our knowledge of the world. 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 individuals' behaviour and society's functioning, 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. On the other hand, interactionism 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. On the other hand, constructivism focuses more on analysing 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.

Interactionist Theory

Origins: The Chicago School

Major socio-demographic and economic changes took place in Chicago in the early 20th century. The city rapidly transformed into a metropolis, largely due to rapid industrialisation and mass immigration from Europe and the rural south of the United States. The massive influx of these new residents, seeking jobs in the booming industry, led to a rapid expansion of the city. However, it also exacerbated racial and ethnic tensions, created precarious living conditions and increased crime. New immigrants often settled in ethnically homogeneous neighbourhoods, sometimes called "ghettos", where living conditions were often difficult. Racial and ethnic segregation often led to tensions, which sometimes escalated into violence and race riots. At the same time, the lack of economic and educational opportunities for many young people increased juvenile delinquency. Similarly, poverty and despair have led some people to turn to prostitution as a means of livelihood. All these factors created a tense social climate and posed many challenges to the city authorities and sociologists of the time, who sought to understand and solve these problems. In this context, the Chicago School of Sociology developed, which adopted an interactionist approach to studying these social phenomena.

In the early twentieth century, the Chicago School of Sociology revolutionised the field of sociology by shifting the focus from structural factors and repressive responses to deviant behaviour to a more nuanced analysis of social interactions and the dynamics of marginality. Focusing on the marginalised and uprooted communities of Chicago's growing metropolis, the Chicago School's sociologists sought to understand the motivations, rationalities and social interactions that underlie deviant behaviour. They adopted an empirical approach, based on direct observation and fieldwork, which was a novelty in the field of sociology at the time. These researchers highlighted the role of social interactions in the creation of deviant behaviour, demonstrating that such behaviour is not simply the result of individual factors, but is also shaped by social conditions and interactions within the community. This paved the way for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of social deviance and laid the foundation for the interactionist approach in sociology.

The Chicago School of Sociology, building on the interactionist approach, has brought forward several major themes in its research:

Racial and ethnic minorities: The study of minority groups allowed for an understanding of the processes of assimilation, discrimination and segregation, and the impact of these processes on social structure and intergroup dynamics.
The marginal man: This concept, introduced by Robert E. Park, describes individuals who live on the border of two cultures or social groups and have difficulty fully integrating into either one. This marginality can lead to feelings of alienation, confusion and conflict.
The city: Chicago's transformation into a fast-paced metropolis has been a key field of study for understanding the social, economic and political processes that take place in urban areas.
Deviance: Chicago School sociologists were among the first to study deviance not as an isolated act, but as a social process, influenced by community interactions and dynamics.
Crime and Delinquency: Focusing on high-crime neighbourhoods in Chicago, these researchers sought to understand the underlying causes of crime and delinquency, emphasising social and environmental factors rather than individual dispositions.

These themes contributed greatly to understanding social dynamics in urban environments and influenced much subsequent research in sociology and political science.

The Chicago School of Sociology's work on minorities revealed that these groups often develop robust systems of interaction in response to challenges in the social environment. These systems, including shared norms, values and practices, serve as defence and protection mechanisms against external forces, including discrimination and exclusion. For example, in contexts of immigration or marginalisation, members of minorities may come together and create supportive communities to cope with adversity. These communities may be organised around certain common characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, language, religion or social class. As well as providing social and emotional support, these interaction systems can also facilitate the adaptation and integration of individuals into the wider society. They can help community members navigate everyday life's challenges, access valuable resources and maintain their cultural identities. Thus, the work of the Chicago School of Sociology has demonstrated that systems of interaction within minorities are not only manifestations of solidarity and resilience, but also essential to understanding the dynamics of social and political relations in urban contexts.

Key words in interactionism include:

Socialisation: This process refers to how individuals learn and internalise the norms, values and behaviours of their society. This occurs throughout life and shapes the way people interact with others and understand their place in society.

Symbolic interactionism: This perspective emphasises the creation of social meanings through interactions. Individuals are not simply passive in the face of society, but play an active role in creating their social reality by interpreting symbols and signs.

Participatory observation: This research method involves the researcher actively engaging with the community or group being studied. This allows the researcher to understand the experiences and perspectives of the participants from the inside.

'Social Darwinism: This theory applies Darwin's principles of natural selection to society, suggesting that the most adaptable individuals or groups succeed while others fail.

Functionalism: This theory views society as a complex system with all parts working together to ensure stability and harmony. Each part has a specific function that contributes to the overall functioning of the society.

Ethnomethodology: This approach focuses on the methods people use in their daily lives to understand and navigate their social world.

Urban ecology: This perspective examines how a city's spatial and physical characteristics influence individuals' social interactions and behaviour.

Disorganisation: This concept refers to a breakdown or degradation of social order, often caused by rapid change or conflict. This can lead to a decrease in the influence of collective norms and values on individuals

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

[File:Erving Goffman.jpg|thumb|Erwin Goffman.

Erving Goffman is indeed a renowned sociologist who made significant contributions to the sociology of interaction. Born in 1922 and died in 1982, he is particularly known for his work on the "staging of everyday life" and the theory of "social drama". In "The Staging of Everyday Life", Goffman uses the metaphor of theatre to describe how individuals present themselves to themselves and others in everyday life. He talks about the "face" (the image of oneself that one presents to others), "roles" (the expected behaviours according to social expectations) and the "stage" (the context in which the interaction takes place). According to Goffman, individuals are constantly 'playing' roles and adapting their behaviour to the situation and the expectations of others. He suggests that we are all actors on the 'stage' of everyday life, playing different roles and manipulating our 'performances' to manage the impressions we make on others. In the context of his work on psychiatric hospitals, Goffman studied how individuals navigate these institutions and how interactions and behaviour are shaped by the institutional context. His work revealed how institutions can exert social control over individuals and how individuals resist or adapt to these constraints. This work has contributed significantly to our understanding of how social interactions are structured and how individuals manage their identity and social performance.

Erving Goffman, although often associated with symbolic interactionism, has also contributed to constructivist theory. Constructivism focuses on how individuals and social groups construct and interpret reality through their interactions and representations.

Goffman argues that reality is shaped by the representations we make of it and by the representations we share with others. According to him, there are two aspects of reality:

Representations of reality: We form images, ideas and beliefs about reality from our personal experiences and interactions with others. These representations influence our understanding of the world and guide our behaviour.
The reality of representations: When representations of reality are shared and accepted by a group or society, they acquire real force and act on individuals and social interactions. In other words, collective representations become a social reality in themselves.

Thus, for Goffman, individuals actively participate in the construction of their social reality through their representations and interactions. Individuals are not mere passive receivers of reality, but active actors who shape and are shaped by their representations and social experiences. This approach emphasises the dynamic and changing nature of social reality and stresses the importance of processes of interpretation and negotiation in the construction of reality.

The notion of 'social dramaturgy' is central to the work of Erving Goffman. According to him, social life unfolds like a play, with actors (the individuals), a stage (the social environment) and an audience (the other people present). Each individual plays different roles, depending on the situation in which he or she finds himself or herself and the social expectations associated with that situation. From this perspective, public space is seen as a 'stage' where individuals enact their social roles. Goffman distinguishes between the 'front stage', where individuals conform to social norms and play a role to be seen by others, and the 'back stage', where individuals can relax, be themselves and prepare for their performances on the front stage. For Goffman, 'self-presentation' is an essential component of social interaction. Individuals seek to control the impression they give to others by manipulating their appearance, body language and behaviour. For example, a person may dress in a certain way or behave in a certain way to give a specific impression, such as appearing competent or trustworthy. Thus, for Goffman, public space is a place where individuals play out their social roles, seek to control the impression they make on others, and constantly negotiate their identities and relationships with others through their interactions.

Erving Goffman, in his analysis of social life, emphasises the forms of engagement that individuals make in their interactions. The three skills - cooperation, engagement and absorption - are central to how individuals behave and interact in different social situations. They are particularly relevant to Goffman's analysis of 'social drama', where social interactions are seen as theatrical performances.

Cooperation: Goffman emphasises that social interactions require some form of cooperation between individuals. This involves a mutual respect for social norms and behavioural expectations. Cooperation is essential to maintain social order and facilitate smooth social interactions. For example, in a conversation, individuals should cooperate by taking their turn to speak and listening when it is the other's turn.
Engagement: According to Goffman, engagement refers to the extent to which an individual is involved or committed to a social interaction. Engagement can vary depending on the situation and the role the individual is playing. For example, a person may be highly engaged in a serious conversation with a friend, but less engaged in a casual conversation with a stranger.
Absorption: Goffman uses the term 'absorption' to refer to situations where an individual is completely engaged in an activity to the point of being 'absorbed' by it. In these situations, the individual may be so focused on the activity at hand that they are less aware of their social environment and less responsive to social interactions.

These three skills are fundamental to how individuals navigate the social world, and are key components of Goffman's theory of social drama.

Erving Goffman's perspective on society as theatre implies that we are all actors and spectators in the public space. This perspective is often called 'social dramaturgy' and suggests that social life is a series of performances. In these performances, individuals play a certain role, and at the same time, they are also spectators of the performances of others. When we interact with others, we "play a role" according to what we believe are the expectations of others of us. These expectations may be based on social norms, social roles, stereotypes, etc. And while we are playing our role, we are also observing and interpreting the performances of others. In other words, we are both actors who shape social interaction and spectators who interpret it. These interactions are indeed strongly influenced by culture, as it is culture that provides the 'script' or general guidelines for our performances. For example, culture defines appropriate norms and values, gender roles, acceptable behaviour, etc. Thus, through our interactions in public space, we participate in both the creation of social reality (as actors) and its interpretation (as spectators). And these processes are both shaped by the cultural context in which they take place.

According to Erving Goffman, language and the body are two crucial elements in social interaction. They are the main tools we use to "play" our part in social performance.

Speech: Goffman emphasises the importance of verbal communication in social interaction. The way we speak, the words we choose, the tone we use, etc., are all elements of our performance. They help to express our identity, to indicate our social status, to show that we belong to a certain group, etc. Furthermore, speech is also an important way of interpreting the performance of others. By listening to others, we gather information about their role, status, identity, etc.
The body: Goffman also emphasises the importance of non-verbal communication in social interaction. Body movements, facial expressions, eye contact, etc., are key elements of our performance. They can convey a variety of information, such as our emotions, attitudes, comfort or discomfort in a situation, etc. In addition, our physical appearance (clothing, hairstyle, etc.) can also play a role in how we are perceived by others.

Thus, in social interaction, we use both speech and the body to "play" our role and to interpret the performance of others. These processes allow us to 'negotiate' our place in society and to understand the place of others.

== Symbolic interactionism

Erving Goffman has effectively studied various forms of social behaviour, including avoidance strategies. Individuals may use these strategies to maintain their 'face' (an image of themselves presented to others) or to navigate potentially uncomfortable or embarrassing social situations.

According to Goffman, some of these avoidance strategies may include:

Physical avoidance: This can include things like changing paths to avoid running into someone or leaving a room when certain people enter.
Communication avoidance: Not responding to a message, ignoring someone in a conversation, or avoiding talking about certain topics can be forms of communication avoidance.
Gaze avoidance: Sometimes individuals may avoid direct eye contact with someone to avoid an interaction.
Distraction avoidance: People may pretend to be busy or distracted to avoid an interaction.

These strategies are all used to manage how we are perceived by others, which is central to Goffman's framework of symbolic interactionism. However, it is important to note that these behaviours can also have negative consequences, such as impeding communication or creating misunderstandings.

Symbolic interactionism offers an interesting perspective for understanding politics. In politics, interactions between individuals, groups, political parties, institutions and even nations play a crucial role in how decisions are made and policies are implemented.

Here are some important points of interactionism in the political field:

Negotiation and debate: Politics is often a matter of negotiation and debate between different parties with various interests. Interactionism helps to understand how these processes take place and how individuals and groups use symbols and shared meanings to influence these negotiations.
Identity construction: Politics is also a process by which identities are constructed and contested. For example, an individual's political identity may be shaped by their interactions with others in their social and political environment.
Influence and power: Interactionism can help to understand how power is exercised and negotiated in political interactions. For example, how individuals or groups use language, symbols and rituals to influence others and gain power.
Social change: Interactionism offers a perspective on how social change can occur through everyday interactions. For example, social movements use interactions to mobilise support, disseminate ideas and change social and political norms.

Symbolic interactionism thus reminds us that politics is not only about institutional structures and formal processes, but also about social interactions, shared meanings and everyday negotiations.

Erving Goffman identified several situations that can disrupt ritual social interactions. A more detailed explanation of these three situations follows:

Offence and reparation: In this situation, a person may commit an offence, or a violation of the norms of interaction, which may cause a sense of shame or discomfort in the offended person. However, reparation is usually possible, where the person who committed the offence can apologise or make amends to restore the social order.
Desecration: Here a person deliberately refuses to follow the norms of interaction. This can occur when a person openly questions or criticises established social norms. This intentional violation of norms can cause a major disruption of social interactions.
Abnormality: In this case, a person is not able to follow the norms of interaction because of certain conditions or circumstances beyond his or her control. This may occur, for example, if a person has a mental illness or physical disability that prevents them from participating in social interactions in the usual way.

Any of these situations can disrupt the social order and cause embarrassment or discomfort to other participants in the interaction. However, Goffman argues that these disruptions can also be opportunities to examine and challenge established social norms.

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]