"The character of international life is determined by the beliefs and expectations that states have about each other, and these are constructed largely by social rather than material structures," (Ibid.) Material power and capabilities matter, but only insofaras states have delineated the meaning of power and capability. Two, state identities are constructed by the international system by ways that a pseudo-economic approach can explain (Wendt 1999, 21). States are identified as states because other states identify them as such, not merely because of existence. What states view as the quality of "state" is determined by the interactions between these actors over the existence of the system. Three, anarchy has no logic apart from the process of interaction (Wendt 1999, 21). Interaction is structured by the embedded norms of the system. Wendt states that this does not undermine systemic theory (Wendt 1999, 21). Whether or not it does or does not undermine systemic theory shall be discussed in the conclusions of this work. Before turning to the offerings of constructivism, I first examine its philosophical and social science aspects and offer a critique of these fundamentals of the theory.
What then are the philosophical roots for this theory? The philosophical basis for the theory is best understood from the perspective of critical or postmodern theory. Because identity and norms are so important to constructivism we must ask whose identity and whose norms? It is also important to understand constructivism is a means of knowing or understanding phenomenon, which is the goal of existential and postmodern philosophical theory.
Postmodern philosophy informs constructivism along two lines. First, it is impossible to "know" anything or have a universal definition outside of those involved in the discourse. Second, how actors will behave is determined by the system in which the actor is located.