Can Progressives Learn from Constructivist Theories of International Relations?

The United States is locked in an internal battle between normative orders. Norms are principled or moral beliefs held by a community. How beliefs spread across societies has been well studied by constructivist scholars, especially in international relations. What can these studies tell us about norm contestation in the United States and elsewhere? And what can norm contestation within countries tell us about norm diffusion internationally?

Central to constructivist thought is the idea that norms spread and enlarge the community of norm-holders through moral suasion, that is, arguments made and promoted by norm entrepreneurs that a particular belief is rightful, appropriate, or superior to some other belief. When new norms are sincerely held, we say the norm has been internalized.

Norms cannot be legislated or imposed, at least at first. If a norm is imposed top-down and violations are punished, individuals may conform to the behavior required by the norm and may even espouse it in public, but not change their previous beliefs. When compliance and public support are insincere, we call this preference falsification. To the outside world, it looks like the individual shares the belief, but he or she does not truly accept it. When preferences are falsified, sudden backlash can occur. Once individuals realize that others are insincere and do not accept the norm, they collectively stop publicly performing the norm. This change in behavior is often surprising: one day everyone appears to be complying with the norm, and the next day they collectively stop. Timur Kuran used this concept to explain the sudden collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989. Backlash is the inverse of norm diffusion, a perhaps sudden retrogression to a previous-but-not-forgotten norm.

Progressives in the United States and elsewhere have been engaging in moral suasion for decades, challenging and criticizing racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, and more as socially inappropriate. Tying these issues together, progressives have been building the case for egalitarianism, that all humans, regardless of background and ability, are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect. That this principled belief is deeply embedded in America’s founding creed has made it appealing, even though the widely venerated Declaration of Independence was written by a slaveholder and limited equality to men. Over decades, through moral suasion, the belief that all humans are equal diffused, and has even been institutionalized in universities, the arts, and media. This is just what constructivists would expect.

In the process of diffusion, however, individuals who have not yet internalized the norm often feel not only criticized but demeaned. The message is that, say, racism is immoral, and if you continue to hold racist stereotypes or beliefs that some races are superior to others you are not a moral person. Indeed, it is precisely through such criticism that moral suasion works, it is through criticism that norm-holders seek to convince others of the superiority of their beliefs. Individuals may conform if pressed, but criticism may actually reinforce their prior, now “immoral” beliefs. Some who hold the old-but-now-inappropriate norms resent the purveyors of new norms. From the perspective of these nonconforming individuals, they are being silenced, no longer free to espouse beliefs they continue to hold.

Progressives seemed to be winning in the 21st century. Norms of equality appeared to be diffusing and gaining support, even in perhaps unlikely circles. Many companies, universities, and civic institutions began diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In fact, by early in the new century, if your organization did not have such a program it was viewed with suspicion. All was good, from the perspective of progressives. Norms were being internalized—or so it seemed. Non-progressive norms were being rendered illegitimate through what came to be called “cancel culture.”

All was good, that is, until Donald J. Trump broke with the emerging orthodoxy and made it socially acceptable for holders of more “conservative” norms to come out of the proverbial closet. Trump was transgressive—perhaps because of his own personal sense of grievance against the establishment—and was willing to challenge and defy progressive norms. As more of his supporters followed the president’s lead and revealed themselves as conservatives, others felt free to come out of the closet as well, creating a surprising backlash to progressive norms. Those who felt canceled and silenced spoke up, demonstrating to all that there was a considerable reservoir of conservatives who did not share progressive beliefs.

Drawing on the work of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, there are five (near) universal moral foundations (and their opposites): care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Progressives tend to favor the more individualizing moral foundations of care and fairness, while conservatives weigh all five equally, including the community-oriented norms of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. This division leads naturally to progressives emphasizing individualism and egalitarianism and conservatives being more comfortable with group-based and more socially hierarchical norms. One can draw the distinction between progressives and conservatives too strongly, of course, and most people likely fit somewhere in the middle, but Haidt has argued that these different clusters of normative attachments have led in modern society to high levels of political polarization. The point, though, is that these normative inclinations are stickier and perhaps even more hard wired than progressives believed.

This takes us to where we are today, a clash of norms, a backlash of conservatives against progressives. So far, it does not appear that conservatives are succeeding in persuading progressives of the error of their ways, though perhaps they are succeeding in normalizing more conservative norms. Rather, they are attempting under a perhaps brief period of political dominance under Trump to dismantle and eradicate institutionalized progressivism, targeting universities, late-night comics, progressive law firms, and most visibly any program that rings of DEI. Where conservatives previously complained of cancel culture and limits on free speech from the left—precisely tools of moral suasion—they have completely turned the tables and are using these same tools to shut down progressive and raise up more conservative voices.

Progressives have not yet figured out how to respond to the conservative backlash. Shocked to learn that not all Americans shared their vision of egalitarianism, progressives are disarmed in the battle of norms and on the defensive. They are stunned to discover that after a half century or more of progressive hegemony, a significant fraction of Americans still hold conservative beliefs. In the face of a backlash, progressives stand as deer in headlights—how can you persuade a conservative that their beliefs are inappropriate and morally suspect? Progressives thought they had won, only to discover that they had driven conservativism underground, that folks were falsifying their preferences and self-censoring their beliefs.

There are limits to moral suasion, a fact that constructivists have not fully come to grips with. As my very religious mother once said to her atheist son—me—“belief is belief, either you believe or you don’t.” She could not persuade me of hers, nor could I persuade her of mine. We may succeed in inducing people to falsify their preferences, creating the appearance of agreement with certain norms, but actually convincing at least some people to internalize new beliefs appears to fail. Constructivists—who on average share and applaud progressive norms themselves—have not been sufficiently attentive to problems of backlash. We study norm cascades, but not reversals. Abolition and the delegitimation of slavery were followed by Jim Crow in the American South. The apparent diffusion of human rights during the heyday of international liberalism in the 1990s and 2000s is being followed by an authoritarian backlash led by China, Russia, and other autocratic states. The politics of backlash ought to be at the center of constructivist theory going forward.

What can progressives learn from the backlash? Rather than rely only on moral suasion, progressives might appeal to the baser interests of people and tout the material success of progressive programs. The intellectual alternative to constructivism is often called rational choice theory, which emphasizes interests and incentives—often material in nature—in shaping behavior. Of course, ideas shape interests and incentives, and interests and incentives shape ideas, so the distinction is artificial and merely a question of emphasis. But the alternative suggests that progressives, having focused on moral suasion, might do better to return to appealing to the material interests of average citizens. The centrism of recent Democratic administrations turned the party away from its working-class roots. Blue-collar workers became “the deplorables,” while educated urban elites were the future of the party. Rationalism suggests progressives should shift from identity politics to policies that improve standards of living for everyday Americans.

Progressives could also claim credit for past success, both material and ideational. They can highlight the improvement in the work and domestic lives of women since the 1960s. Back in the “good ole days,” women could not get a credit card or loan in their own names. Wage inequality and sexism in the workplace were so much worse than today. Progressives could also celebrate the rise of a Black middle class, the end of redlining, and success of the Voting Rights Act. Trumpet (if you will) the expansion of medical insurance under Obamacare.

Yet, while taking credit for how far we’ve come, progressives should also admit that there is still a long way to go—and that resistance to progressivism is now out in the open and getting stronger. Words must be backed up by deeds. Progressives have much to boast about and they should not be shy about proclaiming their past successes. They must also be bold in outlining a strategy for rebuilding and reclaiming the working class for the future.

David A. Lake is distinguished professor of the graduate division at the University of California, San Diego and a senior fellow at IGCC.

Thumbnail credit: Wikimedia Commons