Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, J. Samuel Barkin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 194

980 Recensions / Reviews Micheline Labelle nous offre donc un ouvrage pertinent et cohérent. Le style est clair et la structure bien définie. Les nombreuses «conclusions-synthèses» mettent avantageusement de l’ordre dans les multiples citations qui parsèment les chapitres. Par contre, l’auteure fait un peu rapidement le lien entre l’influence des whiteness studies et des critical race studies pour expliquer la terminologie employée par les groupes. Se pourrait-il, par exemple, que l’emploi des vocables «race» et «minorité visible» ne soit pas nécéssairement un positionnement idéologique conscient et cache plutôt une incompréhension des débats théoriques sur le sujet ou une simple utilisation d’un langage populaire? Présumer une influence d’un discours par simple congruence des termes reste fragile. Surtout lorsque ceux-ci ont été utilisés longtemps avant la formation de ces théories. Bien que l’objectif initial de la recherche ne soit pas de mesurer le racisme au Québec, il aurait été judicieux de le préciser dès le départ, lors de l’exposition des limites de la recherche, plutôt qu’en conclusion ~158!. Plusieurs lecteurs pourront se voir déçus de ne pas y trouver de preuve de la présence de racisme au Québec ni d’identification d’acteurs racistes. Enfin, en cohérence avec ses observations et ses postulats théoriques, Micheline Labelle plaide en faveur d’un renouvellement du discours sur le racisme au Québec ~158!. Cette position est le cœur des implications pratiques de son ouvrage. En somme, la grande qualité de l’ouvrage reste dans son projet, c’est-à-dire l’analyse de dimensions du discours sur le racisme et l’antiracisme au Québec au moyen d’un corpus très bien choisi. La lecture d’un tel ouvrage ravira l’étudiant ou le chercheur désirant une cartographie juste du discours sur le racisme et l’antiracisme. STÉPHANE PAGEAU Université d’Ottawa Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory J. Samuel Barkin Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 194. doi:10.10170S0008423911000825 The book under review is part of an increasing trend in international relations ~IR! scholarship that moves research beyond the established theoretical paradigms: realism, liberalism and constructivism. The “war of paradigms” has probably reached a dead end, given the lack of value in proving one “ism” superior to the other or proving “one always wins.” Constructivists in general have also started to look at material factors as playing some role in outcomes, in addition to their preferred ideational and identity-based variables. Realists, on the other hand, are reluctant to move beyond their preferred variables, although neoclassical realism had emerged as an approach that can combine domestic and international-level variables. The big challenge has been how to combine the two kinds of variables offered by realism and constructivism without losing parsimony and rigour. Barkin’s book attempts to go beyond the fusion of variables. His effort is to combine the insights of the two paradigms, realism and constructivism. He calls it “realist constructivism” by focusing on corresponding elements in each paradigm. He argues that the claims of both paradigms against each other cannot stand scrutiny. “Claims by constructivists that realist theory is incompatible with inter-subjective epistemologies and methodologies are based on either caricatures or very narrow understandings of realism. And realist critics of constructivism are simply guilty of inferring from the worldviews of some ~perhaps many! practising constructivists that the methodology is inherently biased toward liberalism. An examination of constructivist epistemology and classical realist theory suggests that they are in fact compatible” ~3!. 981 Recensions / Reviews In subsequent chapters Barkin shows how the fusion can be accomplished. To him, there are methodological and practical benefits in combining the insights as opponents of both paradigms would be able to show the strengths and weaknesses of different concepts and variables used in each paradigm. As some recent works show constructivism can play a useful role in “providing epistemological and ontological heft to classical realist insights about morality and prudence in international politics” ~8!. In chapter 2 the author provides definitions of key concepts, “power politics” and “intersubjectivity,” while the focus of chapter 3 is on a discussion of the dichotomy between ideas and material factors. He argues that the dichotomy is overemphasized and that often scholars who emphasize the distinction between the two make claims based on hand-picked historical instances. Chapter 4 discusses the distinctions between rationalist and sociological approaches while making a case for methodological holism. Realism shares the logic of the social collectivity with constructivism. Chapter 5 examines the relationship between the logic of the social and the idea of national interests, while chapter 6 examines the problems with the logics both paradigms hold on the social. Chapter 7 discuses the agent–structure debate and shows that focusing on agency is necessary for both paradigms to offer predictive theories. It is argued that a realism that focuses on power, based on structure alone, cannot make predictions. Realists would tend to disagree with the author and make the argument that they are not talking minor events in world politics, but major transitions that take place at the systemic level using the lens of material power. The author also contends that “constructivism can help us understand how a particular politics is constructed, but it is much more limited in its ability to help us understand how politics in general is constructed” ~11!. While the effort at combining the insights of realism and constructivism can be useful, care must be taken that it will not end up in a mishmash variety of scholarly enterprise. The big challenge for scholars is to show under what circumstances the different variables matter. For instance, is it possible to explain security community formation in Europe initially by looking at power politics of the Cold War and then look at the social constructivist and liberal variables? This kind of stage-by-stage approach can offer a better scholarly framework than any single paradigm for the entire gamut of outcomes that one can identify in any crucial foreign policy issue area. The book would have benefited had the author engaged some of the key methodological works that have come out in recent years in the category of eclectic theorizing. The works of Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein have made strong methodological arguments in favour of eclecticism. Their recent book Beyond Paradigms ~Palgrave, 2010! summarizes a dozen books that attempt to synthesize the insights of different paradigms. One other issue the author could have addressed is the value of a puzzledriven IR theory where insights from two different paradigms can be used. In fact, over the years, comparative politics has become more puzzle-driven while IR has become paradigm-driven. There are several puzzles including war and peace that cannot be adequately explained using one paradigm or the other. Combination of variables would help in that pursuit. Can a realist-constructivist approach help in understanding different puzzles that IR scholars are trying to grapple with better than existing approaches? This is one of the rare books that make an explicit effort to link realist and constructivist insights. As such the author should be applauded for the bold attempt to bridge warring paradigms in international relations. T.V. PAUL McGill University