to emphasiz the social construction of reality is to denaturalize what is frequently taken for granted This points to several issues. One is with the origins of those social constructs that are now taken for granted. Sovereignty did not always exist; it was a product of historical forces and human interactions that generated new distinctions regarding where pol itical authority resided. The category of weapons of mass destruction is a modern invention. Although individuals have been forced to flee their homes ever since Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden, the polit ical and legal category of 'refugees' is only a century old. To understand the origins of these concepts requires attention to the interplay between existing ideas and institutions, the political calculations by leaders who had ulterior motives, and morally minded actors who were attempting to improve
humanity. Also of concern are alternative pathways. Although history is path dependent, there are con- tingencies, historical accidents, the conjunction of material and ideational forces, and human interven tion that can force history to jump the proverbial train tracks. The events of 11 September 2001 and the response by the Bush Administration arguably transformed the direction of world politics. This interest in possible and counterfactual worlds works against historical determinism. When Alexander Wendt (1992) famously argued that 'anarchy is what states make of it' he was not, as some ridiculed, sug- gesting that wishing the world was different would make it so, but rather calling attention to how exist- ing beliefs and practices make the world and if they change then so, too, would the organization of world politics. A world of Mahtma Gandhis will be very different from a world populated by Osama bin Ladens.
Constructivists also examine how actors make their activities meaningful. Following Max Weber's (1949: 81) insight that "we are cultural beings with the capacity and the will to take a deliberate attitude toward the world and to lend it significance', Con- structivists attempt to recover the meanings that actors give to their practices and the objects that they construct. The meanings that actors lend to their activities derive not from private beliefs but rather from society or culture. In contrast to the Rationalist presumption that culture, at most, is a constraint on action, Constructivists argue that cul- ture informs the meanings that people give to their action. Sometimes Constructivists have presumed that such meanings derive from a hardened culture. But because culture is fractured and because society is comprised of different interpretations of what is meaningful activity, scholars need to consider these cultural fault-lines and treat the fixing of meanings as an accomplishment that is at the essence of polit- ics. Some of the most important debates in world politics revolve around the meanings of particular activities. Development, human rights, humanitar- ian intervention, sovereignty are all important orienting concepts that can have any number of meanings. Individuals fight to fix the meanings of these concepts, and their rival interpretations fre- quently derive from their different cultural settings. The very fact that these meanings are fixed through politics and that once these meanings are fixed they have consequences for the ability to determine the fates of people suggests an alternative way of thinking about power. Most internationa relations theorists treat power as the ability of one state to compel another state to do what it otherwise that the means of would not. The assumption is power, such as military technology and economic statecraft, are material, and that evidence of power exists when states are forced to alter their behaviour. Yet the forces of power go beyond material, they also can be ideational. When human rights activists name and shame they are attempting to embarrass law breaking governments into changing their con duct by demonstrating how their conduct is not consistent with existing legal norms. Moreover, the effects of power go beyond the ability to change behaviour. Power also includes how knowledge, the fixing of meanings, and the construction of iden tities allocate differential rewards and capacities. lf development is defined as per capita income then some actors, namely states, and some activities namely industrialization, are privileged; however, if development is defined as basic needs, then other tors, namely peasants and women, gain voice, and other activities, namely small-scale agricultural ini atives and cottage industries, are visible. Power also exists when identities and interests are constructed in ways that benefit some to the di advantage of others. Most scholars who work on gender have evidenced careful attention to the rela tionship between gender and power; indeed, V. Spike Peterson (2003) has recently argued that a hallmark of gender analysis is attention to power. Most gender scholars accept the presumed differences between men and women are socially constructed, and the social construction of these differences generates dif ferential social capacities and opportunities. The importance of thinking about gender as a social con struct is highlighted in Box 11.2. see Ch.12 for a fuller discussion.) As scholars of gender have deployed their approaches to the study of inter national relations, they have made two central contributions of relevance here. One is to push Constructivist analysis to consider more fully how power operates in international politics. Until recently, Constructivists have been relatively inattentive to questions of power, and scholars of