Martha Finnemore

Last updated

Martha Finnemore (born 1959) [1] is an American constructivist scholar of international relations, and University Professor [2] at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. She is considered among the most influential international relations scholars. [3] Her scholarship has highlighted the role of norms and culture in international politics, as well as shown that international organizations are consequential and purposive social agents in world politics that can shape state interests. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Contents

Biography

She is best known for her books National Interests in International Society,The Purpose of Intervention, and Rules for the World (with Michael Barnett) which helped to pioneer constructivism.

According to a review of her 1996 book National Interests in International Society, Finnemore became "the first scholar of international relations to offer a sustained, systematic empirical argument in support of the constructivist claim that international normative structures matter in world politics." [7]

In The Purpose of Intervention (2003), she finds that the types of military interventions that states engage in have changed over time. For example, it was accepted practice for states to intervene militarily to collect debts during the 19th century, but it became widely rejected in the 20th century. Similarly, she shows that the type and frequency of humanitarian interventions have changed drastically since the 19th century, with a massive increase in humanitarian interventions since the end of the Cold War. According to Finnemore, existing realist and liberal theories of international relations cannot account for these changes. Using a constructivist approach, she finds that changing normative contexts led states to conceive of their interests differently. International norms altered common understandings of the appropriate ends and means of military intervention, as well as which humans were deserving of military protection by outsiders. [9] [10]

In Rules for the World (2004), Finnemore and Barnett argue that international organizations derive power and autonomy from their rational-legal authority and control of information. [11] International organizations are therefore purposive social agents that can act inconsistently with the intentions of the founders of the organizations (which are often states). In contrast to some realist and liberal theories of international relations, Barnett and Finnemore show that international organizations are not just a reflection of state interests and that they do not necessarily act efficiently. International organizations can develop bureaucratic cultures that result in adverse outcomes (what they call "pathologies"). They list five mechanisms that breed organizational pathologies: [12] [13]

  1. Irrationality of rationalization: when an organization sticks to existing rules and procedures regardless of circumstances rather than act in ways most appropriate for the circumstances
  2. Universalism: the application of universal rules and categories may not reflect specific contexts
  3. Normalization of deviance: deviations from existing rules can become normalized and lead to aberrational behaviors
  4. Organizational insulation: when organizations do not get feedback from the environment about their performance and are unable to update their behavior
  5. Cultural contestation: different cultures within an organization may lead to clashes that produce adverse outcomes

Her 1998 study, co-authored with Kathryn Sikkink, on the life cycle of norms is among the most cited articles published in International Organization , the leading International Relations journal. [14] [15] [16] Finnemore and Sikkink identify three stages in the life cycle of a norm: [17]

  1. Norm emergence: Norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others to adopt their ideas about what is desirable and appropriate
  2. Norm cascade: When a norm has broad acceptance, with norm leaders pressuring others to adopt and adhere to the norm
  3. Norm internalization: When the norm has acquired a "taken-for-granted" quality where compliance with the norm is nearly automatic

In 2009, a survey of over 2700 international relations faculty in ten countries named her one of the twenty five most influential scholars in the discipline, and one of the five scholars whose work in the last five years has been the most interesting; [3] an earlier survey of over 1000 American international relations faculty also ranked her similarly in both categories. [18] In 2011, she was elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. [19]

Finnemore completed her B.A. at Harvard, followed by an M.A. from the University of Sydney and a Ph.D. in 1991 from Stanford. [20] [21]

Books

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social norm</span> Informal understanding of acceptable conduct

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International relations</span> Study of relationships between two or more states

International Relations (IR) are the interactions among sovereign states. The scientific study of those interactions is called international studies, international politics, or international affairs. In a broader sense, it concerns all activities among states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in international politics. The four most prominent schools of thought are realism, liberalism, constructivism, and rational choice. Whereas realism and liberalism make broad and specific predictions about international relations, constructivism and rational choice are methodological approaches that focus on certain types of social explanation for phenomena.

In international relations, the liberal international order (LIO), also known as the rules-based international order (RBIO), or the rules-based order (RBO), describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s. More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions and is constituted by human equality, open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation. The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.

The national interest is a sovereign state's goals and ambitions, taken to be the aim of government.

<i>International Organization</i> (journal) Academic journal

International Organization is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that covers the entire field of international affairs. It was established in 1947 and is published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Organization Foundation. The editor-in-chief is Erik Voeten.

Alexander Wendt is an American political scientist who is one of the core social constructivist researchers in the field of international relations, and a key contributor to quantum social science. Wendt and academics such as Nicholas Onuf, Peter J. Katzenstein, Emanuel Adler, Michael Barnett, Kathryn Sikkink, John Ruggie, Martha Finnemore, and others have, within a relatively short period, established constructivism as one of the major schools of thought in the field.

Humanitarian intervention is the use or threat of military force by a state across borders with the intent of ending severe and widespread human rights violations in a state which has not given permission for the use of force. Humanitarian interventions are aimed at ending human rights violations of individuals other than the citizens of the intervening state. Humanitarian interventions are only intended to prevent human rights violations in extreme circumstances. Attempts to establish institutions and political systems to achieve positive outcomes in the medium- to long-run, such as peacekeeping, peace-building and development aid, do not fall under this definition of a humanitarian intervention.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

The English School of international relations theory maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international level, despite the condition of anarchy. The English school stands for the conviction that ideas, rather than simply material capabilities, shape the conduct of international politics, and therefore deserve analysis and critique. In this sense it is similar to constructivism, though the English School has its roots more in world history, international law and political theory, and is more open to normative approaches than is generally the case with constructivism.

Michael Nathan Barnett is a professor of international relations at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. Known for his Constructivist approach, his scholarship and research has been in the areas of international organizations, international relations theory, and Middle Eastern politics.

Nicholas Onuf is an American scholar. Onuf is currently Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Florida International University and is on the editorial boards of International Political Sociology, Cooperation and Conflict, and Contexto Internacional. He is a constructivist scholar of international relations. He has been credited with coining the term "Constructivism."

Feminist constructivism is an international relations theory which builds upon the theory of constructivism. Feminist constructivism focuses upon the study of how ideas about gender influence global politics. It is the communication between two postcolonial theories; feminism and constructivism, and how they both share similar key ideas in creating gender equality globally.

<i>Social Theory of International Politics</i> Book by Alexander Wendt

Social Theory of International Politics is a book by Alexander Wendt. It expresses a constructivist approach to the study of international relations and is one of the leading texts within the constructivist approach to international relations scholarship.

The rationalist–constructivist debate is an ontological debate within international relations theory between rationalism and constructivism. In a 1998 article, Christian Reus-Smit and Richard Price suggested that the rationalist–constructivist debate was, or was about to become, the most significant in the discipline of international relations theory. The debate can be seen as to be centered on preference formation, with rationalist theories characterising changes in terms of shifts in capabilities, whereas constructivists focus on preference formation.

Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals." Its explanations are constructivist in nature. According to Ronald L. Jepperson and John W. Meyer, Sociological institutionalism

treats the “actorhood” of modern individuals and organizations as itself constructed out of cultural materials – and treats contemporary institutional systems as working principally by creating and legitimating agentic actors with appropriate perspectives, motives, and agendas. The scholars who have developed this perspective have been less inclined to emphasize actors’ use of institutions and more inclined to envision institutional forces as producing and using actors. By focusing on the evolving construction and reconstruction of the actors of modern society, institutionalists can better explain the dramatic social changes of the contemporary period – why these changes cut across social contexts and functional settings, and why they often become worldwide in character.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amitav Acharya</span> Indian-born Canadian scholar and author (born 1962)

Amitav Acharya is an International Affairs Scholar and Writer, who is a Distinguished Professor of International Relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Initiative. Acharya has expertise in and has made contributions to a wide range of topics in International Relations, including constructivism, ASEAN and Asian regionalism, and Global International Relations. He became the first non-Western President of the International Studies Association when he was elected to the post for 2014–15.

The logic of appropriateness is a theoretical perspective to explain human decision-making. It proposes that decisions and behavior follow from rules of appropriate behavior for a given role or identity. These rules are institutionalized in social practices and sustained over time through learning. People adhere to them because they see them as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate. In other words, the logic of appropriateness assumes that actors decide on the basis of what social norms deem right rather than what cost-benefit calculations suggest best. The term was coined by organization theorists James G. March and Johan Olsen. They presented the argument in two prominent articles published by the journals Governance in 1996 and International Organization in 1998.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

  1. ↑ As listed in Thamassat University library catalog Archived 2015-05-06 at the Wayback Machine .
  2. ↑ Announced Nov. 21, 2011: http://gwtoday.gwu.edu/people/marthafinnemorenameduniversityprofessor.
  3. 1 2 Jordan, Richard; Maliniak, Daniel; Oakes, Amy; Peterson, Susan; Tierney, Michael J. (2009), One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-07-11. For 2014 results that if anything ranked her even more highly see 2014 FP Ivory Tower Survey., 3 January 2012
  4. ↑ Price, Richard; Reus-Smit, Chrustian (1998). "Dangerous Liaisons?". European Journal of International Relations. 4 (3): 259–294. doi:10.1177/1354066198004003001. ISSN   1354-0661. S2CID   144450112.
  5. ↑ Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2014), Bennett, Andrew; Checkel, Jeffrey T. (eds.), "Mechanisms, process, and the study of international institutions", Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, Strategies for Social Inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–76, ISBN   978-1-107-04452-4
  6. ↑ Pouliot, Vincent (2004). "The essence of constructivism". Journal of International Relations and Development. 7 (3): 319–336. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800022. ISSN   1408-6980. S2CID   7659893.
  7. 1 2 Dessler, David (1997). "Book Reviews: National Interests in International Society.By Martha Finnemore". American Journal of Sociology. 103 (3): 785–786. doi:10.1086/231265. ISSN   0002-9602. S2CID   151346679.
  8. ↑ International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. Columbia University Press. 2003. p. 113. JSTOR   10.7312/iken12590.
  9. ↑ Finnemore, Martha (2003). The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Cornell University Press. ISBN   978-0-8014-3845-5. JSTOR   10.7591/j.ctt24hg32.
  10. ↑ Dessler, David; Owen, John (2005). "Constructivism and the Problem of Explanation: A Review Article". Perspectives on Politics. 3 (03): 597–610. doi:10.1017/S1537592705050371. ISSN   1537-5927. JSTOR   3689039. S2CID   145089464.
  11. ↑ Blyth, Mark; Helgadottir, Oddny; Kring, William (2016-03-17). Fioretos, Orfeo; Falleti, Tulia G; Sheingate, Adam (eds.). "Ideas and Historical Institutionalism". The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.001.0001. ISBN   9780199662814 . Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  12. ↑ Barnett, Michael; Finnemore, Martha (2012). Rules for the World. Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/9780801465161. ISBN   978-0-8014-6516-1.
  13. ↑ Ege, Jörn (2020-11-23). "What International Bureaucrats (Really) Want: Administrative Preferences in International Organization Research". Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 26 (4): 577–600. doi: 10.1163/19426720-02604003 . ISSN   1942-6720.
  14. ↑ "International Organization | Most cited". Cambridge Core. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
  15. ↑ Sandholtz, Wayne (2017-06-28). International Norm Change. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.588. ISBN   9780190228637.{{cite encyclopedia}}: |website= ignored (help)
  16. ↑ Snyder, Jack (2003). "Is" and "Ought": Evaluating Empirical Aspects of Normative Research. p. 371. ISBN   0-262-05068-4. OCLC   50422990.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  17. ↑ Owen IV, John (2010). The Clash of Ideas in World Politics. Princeton University Press. p. 76. ISBN   978-0-691-14239-5.
  18. ↑ Peterson, Susan; Tierney, Michael J.; Maliniak, Daniel (2005), Teaching and Research Practices, Views on the Discipline, and Policy Attitudes of International Relations Faculty at U.S. Colleges and Universities (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-16.
  19. ↑ Article on election to AAAS [ permanent dead link ].
  20. ↑ Finnemore's web page at GWU.
  21. ↑ Entry for her thesis, "Science, the state, and international society" Archived 2012-02-23 at the Wayback Machine , in the Stanford library system.
  22. ↑ Review by Rob Dixon in Millennium26: 170 (1997), doi : 10.1177/03058298970260010313.
  23. ↑ Review by David Dessler in American Journal of Sociology103: 785–786 (1997), doi : 10.1086/231265.
  24. ↑ Review by Ted Hopf in American Political Science Review 93: 752–754 (1999), doi : 10.2307/2585645.
  25. ↑ Review by Simon Collard-Wexler in Millennium33: 183 (2004), doi : 10.1177/03058298040330010906.
  26. ↑ Review by Georg Nolte in European Journal of International Law16: 167–169 (2005), doi : 10.1093/ejil/chi113.
  27. ↑ Review by Richard Ned Lebow in Journal of Cold War Studies8: 148–149 (1006), doi : 10.1162/jcws.2006.8.1.148.
  28. 1 2 GWU Elliott School Professor Finnemore Awarded for her Rules of the World, GWU, November 29, 2005.
  29. ↑ Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award Archived 2015-05-18 at the Wayback Machine , APSA.
  30. ↑ Review by Michelle Egan in Millennium34: 591 (2006), doi : 10.1177/03058298060340021703.
  31. ↑ Review by Pepper D. Culpepper in Perspectives on Politics4: 623–625 (2006), doi : 10.1017/S1537592706670369.
  32. ↑ Review by Jacob Katz Cogan in The American Journal of International Law100: 278–281 (2006), doi : 10.2307/3518865.
  33. ↑ Review by Paul F. Diehl in Journal of Cold War Studies9: 129–130 (2007), doi : 10.1162/jcws.2007.9.4.129.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.