Can a constructivist approach explain state security behavior and the workings of the nation-state system better than its rivals? Can it provide theoretical insights and practical policy guidelines to relax or surmount the security dilemma confronting peoples and states in ways beyond the scope of prevailing paradigms and behaviorist approaches? What is the “value added” to security studies that constructivism brings to the table?

Many constructivists are themselves unsure about what their responses should be to these questions. They are agreed that prevailing theories are wrongheaded and potentially mischievous as guides to security policy-making. The thrust of their work, however, is more to question prevailing theories than to advance an alternative paradigm for the study of security and international relations. As Nicholas Onuf, one of the leading founders of this school of thought, observes, “Constructivism is not a theory.” It is an approach to social inquiry. It is especially relevant and pertinent as a tool of criticism of widely held empirical and normative theories. Viewed in this way, as Onuf insists, “Constructivism applies to all fields of social inquiry” and “is a way of studying social relations – any kind of social relations.”

In keeping with constructivist practices, the discussion below problematizes Onuf's claim to assess what “value-added” constructivism brings to security studies and international relations theory. If constructivists eschew what they are doing as “theory,” in the sense understood by theory in chapter 1, it is also clear that constructivist scholarship has had – and continues to have – a great impact on how social inquiry is currently being conducted.