The Social Construction of State Power

Applying Realist Constructivism 1st

Edition J Samuel Barkin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-social-construction-of-state-power-applying-realist
-constructivism-1st-edition-j-samuel-barkin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Girls and Juvenile Justice: Power, Status, and the

Social Construction of Delinquency 1st Edition Carla P.
Davis (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/girls-and-juvenile-justice-
power-status-and-the-social-construction-of-delinquency-1st-
edition-carla-p-davis-auth/

A Gateway to Number Theory Applying the Power of

Algebraic Curves 1st Edition Keith Kendig

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-gateway-to-number-theory-
applying-the-power-of-algebraic-curves-1st-edition-keith-kendig/

The Power of Metaphor Examining Its Influence on Social

Life Mark J. Landau (Ed.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-power-of-metaphor-examining-
its-influence-on-social-life-mark-j-landau-ed/

Social Class and State Power: Exploring an Alternative

Radical Tradition 1st Edition David M. Hart

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-class-and-state-power-
exploring-an-alternative-radical-tradition-1st-edition-david-m-
hart/
Ocean Science and the British Cold War State Samuel A.
Robinson

https://textbookfull.com/product/ocean-science-and-the-british-
cold-war-state-samuel-a-robinson/

The Sinews of State Power : The Rise and Demise of the

Cohesive Local State in Rural China 1st Edition Wang

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-sinews-of-state-power-the-
rise-and-demise-of-the-cohesive-local-state-in-rural-china-1st-
edition-wang/

Social Media in the Marketing Context A State of the

Art Analysis and Future Directions Cherniece J. Plume

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-media-in-the-marketing-
context-a-state-of-the-art-analysis-and-future-directions-
cherniece-j-plume/

Fundamentals of construction estimating David J. Pratt

https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamentals-of-construction-
estimating-david-j-pratt/

Power, Interests, and Internal Factors: A Neoclassical

Realist Perspective on the Taiwan Issue Xiaochuan Sang

https://textbookfull.com/product/power-interests-and-internal-
factors-a-neoclassical-realist-perspective-on-the-taiwan-issue-
xiaochuan-sang/
 THE SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF STATE
POWER
Applying Realist Constructivism

Edited by
J. Samuel Barkin
First published in Great Britain in 2020 by

Bristol University Press North America office:

1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press
Bristol 1427 East 60th Street
BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA
UK t: +1 773 702 7700
t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773-702-9756
www.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk sales@press.uchicago.edu
www.press.uchicago.edu

© Bristol University Press 2020

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 978-1-5292-0983-9 hardcover

ISBN 978-1-5292-0985-3 ePub
ISBN 978-1-5292-0984-6 ePdf

The right of J. Samuel Barkin to be identified as editor of this work has been asserted by
him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press.

Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted
material.
If, however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editor
and contributors and not of The University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The
University of Bristol and Bristol University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to
persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication.

Bristol University Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race,

disability, age and sexuality.

Cover design by blu inc

Front cover: image jr-korpa / Unsplash
Printed and bound in in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Bristol University Press uses environmentally responsible print partners
 Contents

Notes on Contributors

1 Realist Constructivism: An Introduction

J. Samuel Barkin
2 Causation in Realist Constructivism: Interactionality, Emergence and
the Need for Interpretation
Germán C. Prieto
3 Constructivist and Neoclassical Realisms
J. Samuel Barkin
4 Huadu: A Realist Constructivist Account of Taiwan’s Anomalous
Status
Martin Boyle
5 The India–US Nuclear Deal: Norms of Power and the Power of
Norms
Saira Bano
6 Coercive Engagement: Lessons from US Policy towards China
Chi-hung Wei
7 Taking Co-constitution Seriously: Explaining an Ambiguous US
Approach to Latin America
Justin O. Delacour
8 The Bridging Capacity of Realist Constructivism: The Normative
Evolution of Human Security and the Responsibility to Protect
Andreea Iancu
9 Permutations and Combinations in Theorizing Global Politics:
Whither Realist Constructivism?
Laura Sjoberg
10 Saving Realist Prudence
Stefano Guzzini
Index
 Notes on Contributors

Saira Bano is a lecturer at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Canada. She

completed her PhD in the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
at the University of Calgary. She is the recipient of a doctoral scholarship by
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, a graduate
research award by the Simons Foundation and the Kodikara Award by the
Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, Sri Lanka. She was a visiting research
fellow at the Stimson Center, Washington, DC. Her research focuses on
Constructivist approaches in International Relations theories, the nuclear
non-proliferation regime and nuclear weapons issues in South Asia.

J. Samuel Barkin is Professor in the Conflict Resolution, Human Security,

and Global Governance Department at the University of Massachusetts
Boston. His research focuses on IR theory and epistemology, sovereignty and
international organization, and global environmental politics. He is the
author or editor of 10 books, including Realist Constructivism: Rethinking
International Relations Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and, most
recently, International Relations’ Last Synthesis (with Laura Sjoberg, Oxford
University Press, 2019).

Martin Boyle is a teaching fellow at University College London. He

received his PhD in International Relations from the University of Kent
with a thesis on Taiwan’s state identity. He is the recipient of an Erasmus
Mundus visiting fellowship at Peking University and a European Association
of Taiwan Studies research grant at Leiden University. His research explores
the interface between language and power to interrogate various realisms,
constructivisms and Marxisms. His current research interests range from
China–Taiwan relations to Brexit, British state identities, Brazilian political
speech and the discourses of social movements. He has authored a number of
books for Chinese international students and articles on pedagogy and
academic sojourner adjustment.

Justin O. Delacour is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lewis

University in Romeoville, Illinois. He studies how the interests of the
American state and US cultural discourses interact in shaping US policy
towards Latin America. His other research interests are in comparative
political development, with a particular focus on why states differ in their
capacities to improve the health and longevity of their populations. He has
co-authored articles in Democratization and NACLA Report on the Americas.
He earned his doctorate in political science from the University of New
Mexico.

Stefano Guzzini is Professor at Uppsala University and PUC-Rio de

Janeiro, and Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International
Studies. His research focuses on international theory, social and political
theories of power, critical security studies, approaches to foreign policy
analysis and interpretivist methodology. He has published nine books,
including The Return of Geopolitics in Europe?: Social Mechanisms and Foreign
Policy Identity Crises (Cambridge University Press, 2012) and Power, Realism
and Constructivism (Routledge, 2013), winner of the 2014 ISA Theory
Section Best Book Award. From 2013–2019 he served as President of the
Central and East European International Studies Association. He is co-editor
of International Theory.

Andreea Iancu has a PhD in Political Science from Alexandru Ioan Cuza
University of Iaşi, Romania. She has also been a research fellow and
Fulbright Visiting Researcher in the Department of Conflict Resolution,
Human Security and Global Governance at the University of Massachusetts
Boston. She currently serves as a diplomat with the Romanian foreign
service. Her research interests include constructivist approaches to
international relations theory, the evolution of norms in the international
system, human security and the responsibility to protect, on which she has
published several papers.

Germán C. Prieto is Associate Professor in the Department of

International Relations at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogota,
Colombia. He holds a PhD in Politics from the University of Manchester.
His current research interests revolve around philosophy of science and IR,
particularly constructivism, critical realism, interpretivism and the issue of
causation. He has also engaged in research on the topic of regionalism in
Latin America. His recent publications are Identidad Colectiva e Instituciones
Regionales en la Comunidad Andina: Un Análisis Constructivista (Editorial
Javeriana, 2016), and ‘Identity in Latin American Regionalism: The Andean
Community’ in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Latin American Politics (Oxford
University Press, forthcoming).

Laura Sjoberg is Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida

with a courtesy affiliation in women’s and gender studies. Her research on
gender and war has been published in more than three dozen journals in
political science, gender studies, geography and law. She is author or editor
of more than a dozen books, including, most recently, International Relations’
Last Synthesis (with J. Samuel Barkin, Oxford University Press, 2019) and
Handbook on Gender and Security (with Caron E. Gentry and Laura J.
Shepherd, Routledge, 2018).

Chi-hung Wei is Assistant Professor in the Institute of European and

American Studies at Academia Sinica, Taiwan. His research interests include
the US–China–Taiwan triangle, international relations theory, economic
statecraft, the politics of resource wealth and ethnic conflict in Latin
America. His work has been published in numerous journals, including
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, International Political Science Review
and International Relations of the Asia-Pacific.
 1

Realist Constructivism: An Introduction

J. Samuel Barkin

The relationship between realism and constructivism in international

relations (IR) theory is a fraught one. The two paradigmatic framings of IR
are often understood, and taught, as being in opposition to each other. The
relationship is also an important one. Realism and constructivism are two of
the central concepts around which the academic discipline is organized.
They are often presented as incompatible or paradigmatically irreconcilable,
not only to most graduate students studying to be IR scholars, but also to
most students in undergraduate introductory IR classes as well. This leads
both scholars of IR and informed non-specialists more broadly to understand
power politics on the one hand, and constructivist research foci such as
norms, identity and discourse on the other, as incompatible and to engage in
sterile debates about whether material power or discourses matter more.
Assuming that realism and constructivism are mutually hostile understandings
of how international politics work impoverishes both understandings; it takes
away from realists the ability to study normative phenomena that matter to
the conduct of power politics, and it limits constructivists’ ability to study
power politics in the first place (Barkin 2010).
The mutual hostility of the two paradigms is easy to trace historically;
some of the best-known early works of constructivism cast themselves either
as critiques of particular realisms (eg Wendt 1999), or of a rationalist
understanding of politics under which neorealism is subsumed (eg Ruggie
1998). However, these critiques are not really aimed at political realism in
general, but rather at specific variants of neorealism. More recently a number
of scholars have either proposed readings of classical realism that are
compatible with constructivism or argued explicitly that the two are
compatible (eg Sterling-Folker 2002; Steele 2007a; Steele 2007b; Barkin
2010). However, these discussions have tended to be at a theoretical rather
than applied level; they have opened up spaces for discussions of the
relationship between the two understandings, but they have not necessarily
given clear guidance to scholars as to how to combine realism and
constructivism as parts of a specific research design. In part this is because
there are a variety of ways in which one could reasonably combine the two.
Realist constructivism is in this sense a space for a conversation between the
two paradigmatic understandings, rather than a specific combination of
them.
Creating the space for that conversation can usefully be supplemented by
some examples of what the conversation has produced. Is it generating
interesting research? How are the two understandings being combined in
practice? This volume is about how to apply the concept of realist
constructivism to specific research projects in IR. Rather than develop a
single methodology for doing so, it examines the range of creative ways in
which it is currently being done. It collects some of the most exciting work
done by scholars who self-describe as realist constructivists and uses this
work as the basis for an analysis of the range of the possible offered by the
concept, and for thoughts on where realist constructivism might be headed.
There are in fact a number of examples of published scholarship that
could reasonably be called realist constructivist and that may well be so
described by their authors. These include work on the strategic use of
discourse as a power resource (eg Krebs and Jackson 2007), and on the
construction of identity that necessarily underlies the idea of the state as an
actor (eg Risse 2001). These two bodies of work, however, only skim the
surface of the possibilities of combinations. This volume provides a set of
examples of applications of different realist constructivisms and an analysis of
where they fit in this conversation, and how they speak to each other.
Providing such a set of examples serves several functions. It helps to establish
the range of the possible in the conversation between realism and
constructivism as a set of research practices rather than deductive claims. In
doing so, it helps theorizing on the relationship between realism and
constructivism overcome a stagnation that suggests the limits of primarily
deductive theorizing. Finally, it provides examples to junior scholars of how
to build research programmes that combine constructivism and realism.
The first section of this volume, consisting of this introduction and the
following two chapters, lays some theoretical background for the discussion
of specific realist constructivisms. This is followed, in Chapters 4–8, by five
specific applications. The volume concludes with two chapters that
contextualize the contributions in a pair of broader analyses and critiques of
the conversation between realism and constructivism, in order to create a
more effective map of the terrain. The bulk of this introductory chapter
provides a brief overview of the relationship between constructivism and
realism, to set the stage for what follows.

Realism and constructivism

Key to the claim that there are many different realist constructivisms (which
is distinct from the claim that there are many applications of a single realist
constructivism) is the intellectually prior claim that there are both many
realisms and many constructivisms. The argument in support of this claim
has been made elsewhere with respect to both realism and constructivism
and need not be rehashed here (Barkin 2010). Nonetheless, a useful starting
point for this volume is to lay out a common understanding of what both
constructivism and realism are and are not. This section briefly discusses each
individually and the spaces of overlap between them. It looks at two of the
dichotomies often used to separate them: materialism versus idealism, and
the logic of consequences versus the logic of appropriateness. Finally, it looks
to the logic of the social and questions of agency for common grounds for a
realist constructivism. The next section looks at different strains of realism
and constructivism and asks how they might fit into the realist
constructivism conversation.
 A context for these discussions is a look at the role of both constructivism
and realism in IR; a prior question to asking whether a piece of scholarship
is realist constructivist is asking what we mean when we call a piece of
scholarship either realist or constructivist. One potential usage, which is
reflected in the introduction to this chapter, is as a paradigm, although this
begs the question of what we mean by a paradigm in the social sciences. In
practice, often we mean either a research programme or a research network
to which a set of scholars are committed (on the subject of paradigms as
research networks, see Barkin and Sjoberg 2019). A paradigm, in either case,
can easily become an exclusive group, both in the sense that some scholars
are in and others out, and in the sense that individual scholars come to be
seen, and see themselves, as partisans of one paradigm or another. In this
context it is easy to understand how constructivism and realism can be seen
in opposition to each other and as mutually exclusive. Understood as
paradigms, they are too easily seen as incompatible by assumption; by this
understanding, if one is paradigmatically a constructivist or a realist one
cannot by definition be the other.
Another potential usage of terms like realism and constructivism in IR
theory is as concepts, as understandings about how politics works. This usage
is described by Patrick Thaddeus Jackson as scientific ontology, by which he
means assumptions about what matters in the world (Jackson 2010). By this
usage there is no inherent incompatibility between a piece of scholarship
being both constructivist and realist at the same time unless the conceptual
underpinnings of the two assumptions are directly in opposition to each
other. But the conceptual underpinnings of paradigmatic terms in IR that
are sometimes taken to be in direct contradiction of each other are often not.
This is true even of realism and liberalism. Many if not most of the most
noted mid-century classical realists, such has E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau,
Innis Claude Jr and John Herz for example, were both realists and liberals,
the former describing their understanding of how politics works, and the
latter describing their understanding of what the goals of politics should be
(Morgenthau 1948; Claude 1962; Herz 1957; Carr 1964). And many
neorealisms are liberal in their assumptions about how to model international
politics, drawing as they do on microeconomic theory and market analogies
(Boucoyannis 2007).

Concepts and definitions

Similarly, understood as scientific ontologies, the assumptions of
constructivism and realism are orthogonal to each other. The core
assumption of realism is that power matters, and that as a result, however
robust the institutional structure of IR, those relations will remain political.
The core assumption of constructivism is that social, and therefore political,
institutions are socially constructed, meaning both that they are changeable
over time, and that they cannot be deduced from first principles (Barkin and
Sjoberg 2019). The first is an assumption about how politics works, the
second about what politics is made of. There is no necessary reason that
both cannot be true at the same time, and some reasons (discussed in the
next section of this chapter) why the two assumptions can work well
together.
To unpack these core assumptions, realism’s understanding of power is as
power politics, or realpolitik. This understanding is relational, meaning that
it is a measure of the effect one actor can have on another, as distinct from
critical understandings of power as structural constraint (Barnett and Duvall
2005). Power can come from a variety of sources, ranging from military
materiel to ideological cohesion to rhetorical skill, and may or may not be
fungible across both target actors and issues. It is also worth noting in a
discussion of the relationship between realism and constructivism that realists
see power as corporate, allowing them to focus on social institutions such as
the state, rather than (or instead of) individuals, as actors in international
politics.
While various IR theorists have defined political realism in various ways
over the years, power politics, and the susceptibility of political institutions,
however well designed, to power politics, provides both the common theme
across and the ultimate logic behind most definitions. This is clear both in
E.H. Carr’s critique of utopia and Hans Morgenthau’s critique of ‘scientific
man’, as well as in Kenneth Waltz’s claim that even when stripped down to
the simplest model, the anarchy of IR leads to self-help (Morgenthau 1946;
Carr 1964; Waltz 1979). It underlies the realist focus on the state, the
centrality of which to international politics is the result of its power
potential, not its cause. And it underlies realist claims on rationality,
inasmuch as an actor that is not rational in a world of power politics is
unlikely to thrive.
Meanwhile, to say that the core assumption of constructivism is the social
construction of political institutions and actors skirts close to tautology.
However, unpacking the two words of the phrase social construction points
to two key conceptual components. The first, drawing on the social, is the
idea of intersubjectivity. Central to constructivism is not how actors
individually understand, internalize and reproduce ideas, norms, discourses,
rules, practices, identities and so on, but how actors collectively do so.
Intersubjectivity suggests that constructivist analysis studies political
institutions neither as objective, existing outside of actors’ beliefs about and
practices within them, nor as purely subjective, existing within the heads of
individual actors. Rather, it studies institutions as being what actors
collectively take them to be.
The second component is co-constitution, the idea that political actors
and institutions are simultaneously constitutive of each other. Agents are not
only constrained, but also constructed by the structures within which they
developed; the identities agents hold, the norms they believe in, the
discourses and practices through which they act, all of which are constitutive
of them as agents, develop from existing social structures. But at the same
time those structures have no existence independent of the agents that
created them and continually recreate them through discourse and practice.
Constructivist research therefore looks at international politics as a set of
historically contingent institutions that exist because their constituent actors
hold them in common, and which both constitute, are created by, and can
be changed by those actors.

Oppositions
There can certainly be non-constructivist realism and non-realist
constructivism. For example, Kenneth Waltz simply assumes his agents into
existence, and builds his structures from them (Waltz 1979). There is no
intersubjectivity and no co-constitution in his model. Conversely, many
constructivisms assume that a secular normative progress in the construction
of international political institutions is possible (Price 2008). But how
compatible are the assumptions, the scientific ontologies, of constructivism
and realism? Before discussing ways in which they might be compatible, it is
worth debunking briefly arguments that they are incompatible. The first of
these arguments is that realism is necessarily materialist while constructivism
is idealist. The second is that realism focuses on a logic of consequences, and
constructivism on a logic of appropriateness.
An opposition between realist materialism and constructivist idealism
(understood here as being about ideas, not ideals) plays a major role in
arguments distinguishing the two, both in key early works of constructivist
theory (eg Wendt 1999) and in various recent realisms, both of the structural
and neoclassical varieties (eg Mearsheimer 2001 and Ripsman, Taliaferro and
Lobell 2016 respectively). The basic claim underlying this opposition is that
constructivism, grounded as it is in the concept of intersubjectivity, is
necessarily about ideas, specifically about those that political actors hold in
common at any given time. However, realism, so the argument goes, being
grounded in the concept of power, is focused on the capabilities that are the
basis of power, such as military might and economic potential. At the
margins, non-material sources of power, such as morale or diplomatic skill,
might matter a little, but even then primarily via the ability to marshal
material resources.
This argument gets both the relationship between materialism and
idealism and the relationship between materialism and realism wrong. It gets
the relationship between materialism and idealism wrong by positing that
they are categorically distinct and distinguishable. But the purely material is
rarely a source of social power unless embedded in a set of ideas about how
the material can and should be used, and ideas often involve material
referents. Money, for example, need have no particular material
embodiment. It is in a sense a pure exercise in intersubjectivity; it has value
because its users collectively ascribe value to it. And yet financial capabilities
are often taken as indicators of power measured as capability. Phrased
differently, the material bases of power in IR are not separable from the ideas
they embody. To fully understand relational power in IR, one must therefore
understand the relationships between ideas and the material, and the ideas
that make materiel in power capabilities.
It gets the relationship between materialism and realism wrong as well. In
the most direct sense, the reason for this follows from the argument that it
gets the relationship between materialism and idealism wrong. Not all
material capabilities translate equivalently into relational power, and not all
capabilities that support relational power, not least discourse, can be
meaningfully reduced to the material. This observation speaks to realist
arguments against constructivism; the relationship between ideas and power
cannot be dismissed so easily. From the perspective of constructivist
arguments as well, materialism is being blamed for epistemological damage
that it has not caused. Specifically, it is blamed for the propensity of
neorealists to create static models of the international system, which is
incompatible with the constructivist view of political institutions as
historically contingent. But this disagreement about historical contingency is
not in fact directly related to a materialism/idealism dichotomy, and in any
case identifies an incompatibility between constructivism and certain kinds
of neorealist modelling, rather than political realism more broadly.
The second of the two oppositions often used to distinguish between
realism and constructivism is between the logic of consequences and the
logic of appropriateness (Ruggie 1998). The logic of consequences is the
logic of rational choice theory, of homo economicus, in which actors are
assumed to make decisions that maximize their individual utility. The logic
of appropriateness, which comes to IR from organizational theory, assumes
that actors behave in ways that reflect what is expected of them in given
contexts, that they follow institutional norms (March and Olsen 1998). The
dichotomy as used in IR theory is more about distinguishing constructivism
from rationalism than from realism per se, but realism’s frequent invocation
of rationality makes it a target of the argument by association.
This opposition does not effectively distinguish between realism and
constructivism, however, because realist analysis does not require assumptions
that people behave rationally, and constructivism does not require
assumptions that they behave appropriately. Many, if not most, realists speak
of rationality, but they mean a variety of different things by it, and those
meanings are often different from the narrow technical use implied by the
logic of consequences, that individuals can be assumed to be instrumentally
rational. Classical realists, for example, used the term in its colloquial rather
than economic sense, to mean reasonableness. Furthermore, they used it as
exhortation rather than assumption – arguing that statespeople should be
rational to maximize the national interest, rather than that statespeople (let
alone states) can be assumed to be rational (eg Morgenthau 1948). Even in
neorealisms that draw on microeconomic models there is not a necessary
assumption of rationality. These arguments posit that actors (generally
defined in this case as states rather than people) that respond rationally to
systemic incentives are most likely to thrive in an anarchic system, but do not
assume that all actors will necessarily do so (eg Waltz 1979).
Some constructivist analyses, meanwhile, do concern themselves more
with appropriate than consequentialist behaviour. This is particularly the case
for norms-based constructivisms and is true perhaps to a lesser extent for
habit- and practice-based constructivisms. But this concern is particular to
those constructivisms, rather than conceptually inherent in constructivism. A
focus on a logic of consequences, on strategic behaviour, is in no way
incompatible with intersubjectivity and the study of the co-constitution of
agents and structures in international politics. Political actors can recognize
socially constructed norms and rules and employ those norms and rules for
strategic ends that are themselves constituted by social institutions. They can
rhetorically deploy discourses to frame and reframe political context for their
own purposes, purposes that again are themselves constituted by social
institutions. Constructivist analysis, in other words, is not necessarily biased
to the logic of either appropriateness or consequences; both are features of
the social construction of international politics.
The failure of these two oft-cited dichotomies to establish a clear
conceptual disjuncture between constructivism and realism suggests that they
do not live on opposite ends of any particular spectrum. The conceptual
underpinnings of constructivism and realism are orthogonal to each other;
they are neither necessarily incompatible nor necessarily compatible. This
suggests that conceptual combinations of realisms and constructivisms are
viable when both sets of conceptual underpinnings are relevant to a
particular research question. The next issue, then, is under what
circumstances this is likely to happen.

Institutions and interests

The most obvious area of overlap between the conceptual underpinnings of
realism and constructivism is the focus on social institutions. Constructivist
analysis assumes that social institutions, broadly defined, are what matter in
IR. Realist analysis focuses much more narrowly on one such institution, the
state. Many realists, more so in recent than classical realisms, simply assume
the state as a rational actor with externally given interests, the international
equivalent of the individual in rational choice theory. But realist theory at a
more fundamental level is premised on the idea that the state is more than
the simple cumulation of interests within it. States are corporate actors, with
corporate interests, and realist theory assumes that individual people,
whether statespeople making decisions or soldiers risking their lives, will act
to promote that corporate interest. States, in this sense, are constitutive of the
people within them, in a way that is integral to realism.
This does not necessarily mean that all realists will be sympathetic to
constructivist modes of analysis (although some that are not sympathetic
should be, as is discussed with reference to neoclassical realism in Chapter 3
of this volume). Some realisms may well start with epistemological
assumptions, or neopositivist methods, that make them incompatible with
constructivist analysis. Nor does it mean that all constructivists will, or
should, focus on states, either as agents or structures. But the state as a social
institution is fertile ground for a realist constructivism that takes the social
construction of the institution seriously.
Taking the social construction of the state as a corporate agent with
relational power seriously means taking the idea of its corporate interest
seriously, or what realists generally refer to as the national interest. Many
realists assume that survival is the core state interest and argue that this
assumption is sufficient as a starting point for analysis of international politics
(eg Waltz 1979; Ripsman, Taliaferro, and Lobell 2016). For most research
questions, however, this assumption is inadequate; it is both insufficient and
imprecise. Insufficient because most foreign policy is not about core threats
to state survival. Such threats, in fact, are quite rare, particularly in the day-
to-day conduct of foreign policy, and almost all foreign policy is informed by
goals beyond immediate survival. Imprecise because it is not entirely clear
what survival, in the context of a non-corporeal corporate agent, means. Is it
survival of the nation, the country, the institutional structure of the state, or
the regime? Did, for example, Sudan survive the creation of South Sudan as
an independent state, or did it not? Did the countries of the Soviet bloc
survive the end of the Cold War, or did their states understood as communist
regimes die? Any definite general answer to such questions is likely to be
arbitrary.
Beyond survival, what can we assume about state interests? Very little.
Some realists argue that there is an objective national interest in maximizing
the capabilities associated with power (Krasner 1978). But again, this is both
insufficient and imprecise. Insufficient, among other reasons, because it is not
borne out by empirical observation. Most states, for example, spend less on
their militaries than they could without undermining their economies, and
many can be prickly about issues of national pride, deploying policy on an
issue which is not necessarily related to survival. Imprecise because it
conflates capabilities with power, and thereby assumes that power is more
fungible than is the case. Finally, defining the national interest as maximizing
power begs the question of what the power is to be used for (beyond perhaps
survival, but see earlier discussion). Power is a means, not an end, and the
concept of a national interest is hollow without ends. Realisms that assume
that those ends are consistent across place and time are not compatible with
constructivism. Realisms that see them as socially constructed are.
There are different ways that various constructivisms interact with the
idea of corporate, and by extension state, interest. Some speak of interest as
closely related to and informed by identity (following Wendt 1999). Others
suggest that interests are both constituted and circumscribed by the
discourses of politics in a given context (Steele 2008; Goddard 2009). Still
others speak of social purpose, a concept broader than corporate interest but
which can usefully inform discussion of the national interest (Ruggie 1982).
All of these, each in its distinct way, is compatible with a realist focus on
states and relational power. Whether in the conceptual language of identity,
discourse, purpose or some other mode of social construction, some idea of
the national interest, how it differs across countries, how it expresses itself or
where it comes from, is likely to be a common feature of most if not all
realist constructivisms.

Agency and prudence

Two other likely common features are a space for agency and an ethic of
prudence. Agency is understood here to mean purposeful action by an
individual or corporate actor with respect (in this context) to some aspect of
international politics (Barkin 2010). Purposefulness here should be thought
of as distinct from reactive behaviour. When actors behave in a way
determined by structures, be they social or biological, they are being reactive
rather than truly agentive – in such situations structure is determinative,
leaving little or no scope for real agency. Not all realisms or constructivisms
leave much scope for agency. But a combination of the two is likely to do so
because the spaces where they overlap suggest mechanisms for agents to
effect institutional change.
By the definition given here, many ways of characterizing actor
behaviour in IR theory leave little scope for agency. For example, neither
arguments based on consequentialist nor on appropriate behaviour allow for
agency; both have actors responding in scripted patterns to institutional
stimuli, whether those patterns involve analyzing interests based on a fixed
mode of calculation, or following scripts given by organizational norms
(Barkin 2010). Neorealisms intentionally abstract away from agency to isolate
systemic effects (Waltz 1979). All of these illustrations have in common a
static structure, with actors reacting to it in programmed rather than
purposeful ways. None of these examples provides fertile ground for a realist
constructivism. A constructivism that looks at ways in which the norms of
the international system constrain state power is not particularly realist. A
realism that argues that states will react the same way to systemic constraints
is not particularly constructivist.
The constructivisms and realism that speak to each other, however, both
leave room for states and statespeople to act purposefully in ways that are
meaningful to international politics, and allow for the possibility for
meaningful change in the practices, discourses, rules, norms, identities and so
on of international politics and the international system as a social
institution. They bring from realism the idea that uses of power, and the
purposes driving those uses, are agentive choices that affect outcomes. They
bring from constructivism the idea that the institutional context for agentive
choice is historically contingent, intersubjective and changeable. These
overlap in the idea that state behaviour and uses of relational power in
international politics affect not only position within the system, but the
constitution of the system itself.
An analogy to this discussion of agency can be found in some recent
discussions of realist time. Andrew Hom and Brent Steele argue that the
predominant view of time in IR theory is either linear or cyclical (Hom and
Steele 2010). Much liberal theory is linear, in the teleological sense, in seeing
in institutions a trend of secular improvement in international politics
specifically and in the human condition more broadly. Many realisms, in
contrast, see time as cyclical, with the same patterns of behaviour and
outcome recurring (such as predictions that power will necessarily balance).
Hom and Steel argue for a different, open view of time. This view was to be
found in classical realism but was lost in many realisms that took the ‘science’
side of the second great debate (Lapid 1989). When scholars do not assume
ex ante that history necessarily either progresses or repeats itself, they allow a
much greater scope for agency (Hom and Steele 2010). This way of
categorizing views of time is also relevant to constructivism, inasmuch as
many liberal constructivisms tend towards the teleological. Realisms and
constructivisms that share a common view of time as open share as well this
greater scope for agency.
Hom and Steele connect their open view of time with, among other
things, an ethic of prudence in realism (Hom and Steele 2010). Calls for
prudence in the conduct of foreign policy are a long-standing part of the
realist, and particularly the classical realist, tradition, although there is less
space for such calls in the more formalized models of IR that are found in
many neorealisms and some neoclassical realisms. These calls are closely
related to calls for an ethical prudence, in the sense that we should be
prudent in universalizing our own ethics to others, who may view them
variously as colonial or hypocritical, to be found in the work of such classical
realists as Morgenthau and Carr (Morgenthau 1948; Carr 1964).
Prudence on the part of statespeople in turn implies the necessity of
prudence on the part of realist scholars of IR, who are presumably prone to
the same universalizing tendencies and uncertainties about the complexities
of international politics. This need for prudence on the part of the researcher
and theorist resonates with what has been called an ethic of prudence in
constructivism (Hoffmann 2009). This ethic is cognizant of the fact that the
structures of international politics may be more delicate than we realize, and
scholars should therefore be prudent in both re-and de-constructing them.
Realist constructivisms are to be found in the significant common ground of
these understandings of ethical prudence.

Realisms and constructivisms

Having looked at the broad terrain of the relationship between realism and
constructivism, what of the relationships among specific realisms and specific
constructivisms? Each of the empirical cases in Chapters 4 to 8 of this
volume specifies its own realism and constructivism, and the relationship
between the two. None breaks radically new ground in the specific
constructivism or realism that it uses; the contributions lie in the specifics of
the relationship between the two, and the ways in which methodologies for
studying social construction have been brought to bear in the study of power
politics in IR.
Having said this, some realisms are more conducive to constructivist
methodologies than others. Waltzian neorealism, for example, offers infertile
ground for the study of the social construction of politics. But most realisms
offer more scope than this, even some neorealisms. Gilpin’s (1983)
neorealism, for example, has some affinities with Onuf ’s (1989) work on
rules and rule. The empirical chapters in the middle of this volume draw on
three relatively recent trends in realist IR theory: neoclassical realism,
rhetorical realism and reflexive realism.
Neoclassical realism begins with neorealist systemic theory and asks why
states do not always behave as neorealist theory would predict, finding
answers in domestic politics. More specifically, it often finds answers in the
social constructs of domestic politics, from political institutions to culture.
The third chapter in this book discusses neoclassical realism and its
relationship with constructivism in some detail. The upshot of that
discussion is that, to paraphrase Kratochwil and Ruggie (1986), the ontology
of its domestic variables does not match the soft positivist epistemology it
generally prefers. It is, in other words, a realist theory in need of
constructivist methods. Chapters 4 and 5, either explicitly or implicitly,
provide constructivist methods for neoclassical realist questions.
Rhetorical realism looks at the power of rhetoric in international affairs.
It is a departure from many contemporary realisms that see power as vested
in material resources. It draws on discussions in the works of many classical
realists of the power of persuasion (eg Beer and Harriman 1996) but goes
beyond that to look at the power to frame discourse and with it perceptions
and understandings of the realm of the politically and ethically viable.
Rhetorical realism, adopted explicitly in Chapter 6, is a natural fit with
many discourse-oriented constructivisms.
 Finally, reflexive realism is in a way an opposite theoretical move to
neoclassical realism. It looks to classical realism not for its focus on foreign
policy, but for the philosophical content that was to a significant extent lost
in IR’s second debate. In this sense it is a paleoclassical rather than
neoclassical realism. Brent Steele defines it as ‘the attempt to restore classical
realist principles of agency, prudence and the recognition of limitations as
part of an attempt to provide a practical-ethical view of international politics’
(Steele 2007a, p. 273). In its focus on agency and the ethical it has a natural
affinity with many constructivisms, and it has not internalized the
unreflective positivism that is to be found with many contemporary realisms.
Chapters 7 and 8 fit broadly into this approach to realism, although neither
explicitly identifies itself as such.
The categorization of realisms in this volume should not be taken to
suggest that these are the only three strands within realism that are good fits
for constructivist ontology and methods, or as an endorsement of these over
other contemporary strands of realism. Rather, the diversity of these strands,
ranging from neoclassical realism’s attempts to fit in with the realist
mainstream to rhetorical realism’s critique of that mainstream’s materialism,
to reflexive realism’s rejection of the contemporary mainstream in favour of
the philosophical richness of classical realism, is suggestive of the broad scope
for overlap between realisms and constructivisms.
The constructivisms used by the authors of Chapters 4 to 8 cannot be
quite so neatly classified, although they all fit solidly within the traditional
constructivist mainstream. They are less focused on some of the more recent
developments in constructivist ontology and methodology, such as practice
theory or network analysis, than on tradition constructivist concerns, such as
norms, identity and discourse. The contribution to constructivist theory in
these chapters lies in developing ideas of how norms, identities and discourse
both affect and are affected by the social construction of power politics.

Plan of the book

Chapters 2 and 3 address different aspects of the epistemological advantages
of combining constructivist methodologies and politically realist ontologies,
with respect to two different realist literatures. In Chapter 2 Germán Prieto
argues that a combination of classical realism and reflexive constructivism can
provide a better account of causality than either can on its own. He brings
together classical realism’s insights on interactionality (the idea that outcomes
result from the interactions of actor uncertainties) and constructivism’s
insights on the role of social context in causal emergence to create a realist
constructivist account of causality that is both philosophically and
methodologically richer than can be provided by a focus on interactionality
or social context alone. Meanwhile, I argue in Chapter 3 that constructivism
provides the set of methodologies that neoclassical realism needs to meet its
ontological goals. Neoclassical realists often rely on case studies embedded in
a ‘soft positivism’ that neither makes sense in its own terms nor meets the
epistemological needs of neoclassical realist research. Embedding neoclassical
ontology in constructivist methodologies, I argue, can meet those needs
much more effectively.
The middle part of the volume consists of five chapters that are
applications of various interpretations of realist constructivism to specific
research questions. While each chapter addresses a specific empirical
question in IR, the chapters collectively are structured to use the research
questions to illuminate the variety of relationships between realism and
constructivism.
Each of these five chapters proceeds in four sections, following a chapter
introduction that lays out the research question. The first provides a set of
definitions of the specific variant or understanding of both realism and
constructivism that the author is using. The second is devoted to
methodology, and specifically to a discussion of the ways in which realist and
constructivist concepts are being combined, what methods are being
deployed, and what data gathered, to relate these concepts to the research
question. The third part presents the chapter’s empirics, in a way that
highlights both the application of the research design and the realist and
constructivist elements of the analysis. The final and concluding part of each
chapter is a discussion of what is gained by the deployment of a realist
constructivism to answer the chapter’s research question; what does this
combination of concepts show us in this case that we would not see
otherwise?
These chapters cover a range of geographical and topical foci, as well as
varying methodological tools and ways of looking at the relationship
between realism and constructivism. In Chapter 4 Martin Boyle studies the
discursive construction of, and the discursive gaps in, the strategic ambiguity
underlying Taiwan’s policy towards China. He argues that this ambiguity
results from the confrontation of the power-political constraints of Chinese
claims to the island and the construction of a distinct Taiwanese identity
domestically. In Chapter 5 Saira Bano dissects the relationship between
norms and power in the India–US nuclear deal, arguing that while states can
use power to change norms, they can only do so in the context of existing
normative structures. Chi-hung Wei writes in Chapter 6 about the genesis of
the US policy of engagement towards China, showing that the change to
this policy is better explained by changing ideas about the politics of
engagement than by changes in the strategic situation. Justin Delacour looks
at the framing of democracy as a tool of foreign policy in the US relationship
with Latin American in Chapter 7. He argues that the ambiguousness of the
role that democracy plays in US policy results from the co-constitution of
strategic calculation and cultural identities in the creation of foreign policy.
Finally, in Chapter 8 Andreea Iancu examines the normative evolution of the
responsibility to protect principle in response to both human security norms
and political realities in Libya and Syria.
The final two chapters of this volume critically review the arguments
made in the first eight. In Chapter 9 Laura Sjoberg makes the case that
thinking of binary combinations is too limiting, and therefore that we should
be thinking beyond the combination of realism and constructivism. She
argues that combining realism and constructivism with post-structuralism,
liberalism, feminism or decolonial theory can yield even richer analyses than
those provided in the empirical chapters. Finally, in Chapter 10 Stefano
Guzzini returns to the idea of prudence in classical realism and argues that
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
quills on their upper surface. There are also a few slight lanceolate
dark spots on the sides of the body, and on the tibial feathers.
Length to end of tail 23 1/2 inches, to end of wings 21 1/2, to end of
claws 18 3/4, to carpal joint 5 1/2; extent of wings 51 1/4; breadth of
gape 1 1/8; wing from flexure 17; tail 9 3/4; bill along the ridge 1 5/12;
tarsus 2 4/12; hind toe 1 1/12, its claw 1 5/12; middle toe 2 1/12, its claw
(worn) 11/12. Weight 2 lb., it being much emaciated.

The tongue, a, is 10 1/2 twelfths long, fleshy, deeply emarginate at

the base, having on its upper surface numerous orifices of mucous
crypts, towards the end narrowed, deeply concave, horny, with the
extremity rounded and very slightly emarginate. The œsophagus, b c
d e, is 7 1/2 inches long, wide, dilated into a large crop, c d, lying on
the right side; the proventriculus, f, is 1/2 inch in diameter, with a belt
of oblong glandules, arranged into four very prominent longitudinal
ridges, with deep grooves between them. The stomach, f g h, is
round, compressed, 1 1/2 inch in length, 1 inch 5 twelfths in breadth;
its muscular coat thin, composed of large fasciculi, not arranged into
distinct muscles; its inner coat soft, without horny epithelium, but
irregularly rugous, especially towards the pylorus, which has three
knobs or valves. The intestine, h i j k, is 36 1/2 inches long, 5 twelfths
in diameter at its anterior part, gradually contracting to 4 twelfths.
The rectum is 3 1/2 inches long, 1/2 inch in diameter at the
commencement; the cœca 2 twelfths long, 1 1/2 twelfth in diameter;
the cloaca, l m, globular. The right lobe of the liver is 2 inches 4
twelfths long, the left 2 inches 1 twelfth; the gall-bladder large.
The crop or dilatation of the œsophagus was nearly filled by two
excrescences from its inner surface, of a soft spongy texture, but not
ulcerated, or in any part scirrhous. The inner surface of the stomach
was similarly affected, but in a much less degree, and the pyloric
region was indurated. The intestines quite sound.

The trachea, m n o, is 6 inches long, considerably flattened, 5 1/2

twelfths, in breadth at the upper part, gradually diminishing to 4
twelfths. Its rings, about 78 in number, are ossified, the last large,
divided, arched, and with a broad membrane, o, intervening between
them and the first bronchial ring. The lateral or contractor muscles, p,
are very strong, as are the sterno-tracheal, q r, and there is a single
pair of inferior laryngeal muscles, s, inserted into the membrane
between the last ring of the trachea and the first of the bronchi. The
bronchial half rings 15, slender and cartilaginous.
 BAND-TAILED PIGEON.

Columba fasciata, Say.

PLATE CCCLXVII. Male and Female.

In the course of Colonel Say’s expedition to the Rocky Mountains, a

single specimen of this large and handsome Pigeon was procured.
This individual was afterwards figured in the continuation of
Wilson’s American Ornithology. Many specimens however have
more recently been obtained by Dr Townsend, from whom I have
procured three pairs of adult and some young birds. Comparing
them with the figure above alluded to, I should consider it as having
been taken from a young male. In my plate are represented two
adult birds, placed on the branch of a superb species of Dogwood,
discovered by my learned friend, Thomas Nuttall, Esq., when on
his march toward the shores of the Pacific Ocean, and which I have
graced with his name! The beautiful drawing of this branch was
executed by Miss Martin, the amiable and accomplished sister of
my friend Dr Bachman. Seeds of this new species of Cornus were
sent by me to Lord Ravensworth, and have germinated, so that this
beautiful production of the rich valley of the Columbia River may now
be seen in the vicinity of London, and in the grounds of the
nobleman just mentioned, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Dr
Townsend’s notice respecting the bird here spoken of is as follows:
—
“The Band-tailed Pigeon is called by the Chinook Indians ‘akoigh
homin.’ It ranges from the eastern spurs of the Rocky Mountains
across to the Columbia River, where it is abundant. It arrived in 1836
in very great numbers, on the 17th of April, and continued in large
flocks while breeding. Their breeding places are on the banks of the
river. The eggs are placed on the ground, under small bushes,
without a nest, where numbers congregate together. The eggs are
two, of a yellowish-white colour, inclining to bluish-white, with minute
spots at the great end. These Pigeons feed upon the berries of the
black elder and the buds of the balsam poplar. When sitting in the
trees, they huddle very close together in the manner of the Carolina
Parrot, and many may be killed at a single discharge of the fowling-
piece. The flesh is tender and juicy, and therefore fine eating.”
Mr Nuttall has favoured me with an equally interesting notice. “This
large and fine Pigeon, always moving about in flocks, keeps in
Oregon only in the thick forests of the Columbia and the Wahlamet,
and during the summer is more particularly abundant in the alluvial
groves of the latter river, where throughout that season we
constantly heard their cooing, or witnessed the swarming flocks
feeding on the berries of the elder tree, those of the Great Cornel
(Cornus Nuttalli), or, before the ripening of berries, on the seed-
germs or the young pods of the Balsam poplar. The call of this
species is somewhat similar to that of the Carolina Dove, but is
readily distinguishable, sounding like a double suppressed syllable,
as h ’koo, h ’koo, h ’koo, h ’koo, uttered at the usual intervals, and
repeated an hour or two at a time, chiefly in the morning and
evening. They are said to breed on the ground, or in the low bushes,
but I did not find the nest, although I saw the birds feeding around
every day near Watpatoo Island. During the whole of this time they
keep in flocks, either in the poplars or elder bushes, and on being
started, sweep about like flocks of domestic pigeons, soon returning
to their fare, when they feed in silence, keeping a strict watch for
intruders. They remain on the lower part of the Columbia nearly the
whole year, late in the season (October and November) feeding
mostly on the berries of the Tree Cornel, but still they seem to
migrate some distance to the south, as the severity of the winter
approaches.”

Columba fasciata, Say, in Long’s Exped. to Rocky Mountains, vol. ii. p. 10.
Band-tailed Pigeon, Columba fasciata, Ch. Bonaparte, Amer. Ornith. pl.
viii, fig. 3, vol. i. p. 77.
Columba fasciata, Bonap. Synops. p. 119.
Band-tailed Pigeon, Nuttall, Manual, vol. i. p. 64.

Adult Male. Plate CCCLXVII. Fig. 1.

Bill straight, rather short, slender, compressed; upper mandible with
a tumid fleshy covering at the base, where it is straight in its dorsal
outline, convex towards the end, with a sharp-edged, declinate,
rather obtuse tip; lower mandible with the angle long and pointed,
the sides erect at the base, sloping outwards toward the end, the
edges sharp, the tip narrow but blunt. Nostrils medial, oblique, linear.
Head small, oblong, compressed; neck of moderate length; body full.
Feet short, strong; tarsus very short, rounded, with two anterior rows
of large hexagonal scales; the hind part fleshy with very small
scales; toes broad and flat beneath, marginate, with large scutella
above; the hind toe smallest, the lateral nearly equal, the middle toe
much longer. Claws of moderate size, arched, compressed, grooved
beneath, rather acute.
Plumage rather compact above, blended beneath, on the hind neck
strong, with metallic gloss. Wings long, the second quill longest, the
third only a twelfth of an inch shorter, the first six-twelfths shorter,
and a little longer than the fourth, the rest rather quickly graduated;
secondaries of moderate breadth and rounded. First quill with the
outer web narrower at the base than toward the end, the second and
third quills with their outer webs having a slight sinus and attenuated
toward the end. Tail of moderate length, rounded, of twelve broad
abruptly rounded feathers, of which the lateral is half an inch shorter
than the longest.
Bill yellow, with the tips black. Feet yellow, claws greyish-black. Bare
space around the eyes carmine. The head, fore neck, and breast are
of a light reddish-purple or wine-colour, which on the abdomen and
lower tail-coverts fades into whitish; a narrow half-ring of white on
the hind neck, the lower part of which is of a metallic brownish-green
tint. The upper parts are greyish-blue, darker, and tinged with brown
on the fore part of the back and scapulars; sides of the body and
rump greyish-blue. Alula, primary coverts, primary quills, and outer
secondaries brownish-black, very narrowly margined with brownish-
white. Tail greyish-blue at the base, much paler and tinged with
yellow toward the end, these colours being separated at the distance
of two inches from the tip by a band of black.
Length to end of tail 16 inches, to end of wings 13 3/4; wing from
flexure 9; tail 6 1/4; bill along the ridge 10/12, along the edge of lower
mandible 1 1/12; tarsus 1 1/12; hind toe 8/12, its claw 5 1/2/12; middle toe
1/2
14 /12, its claw 7/12.
Adult Female. Plate CCCLXVII. Fig. 2.
The female differs from the male only in having the tints a little duller,
and on the upper parts somewhat darker, with the black band on the
tail less decided, the middle feathers being but faintly marked with it.
Length to end of tail 15 1/2 inches.

It was omitted to mention that the minute spots on the eggs are
white.
 Nuttall’s Dog-wood.

Cornus Nuttalli, Audubon.

This very beautiful tree, which was discovered by Mr Nuttall, on
the Columbia River, attains a height of fifty feet or more, and is
characterized by its smooth reddish-brown bark; large, ovate,
acuminate leaves, and conspicuous flowers, with six obovate, acute,
involucral bracteas, which are rose-coloured at the base, white
towards the end, veined and reticulated with light purple. The berries
are oblong, and of a bright carmine.
 ROCK GROUS.

Tetrao rupestris, Gmel.

PLATE CCCLXVIII. Male and Female.

Whilst at Labrador, I was informed by Mr Jones, of whom I have

made mention on several occasions, that a smaller species of
Ptarmigan than that called the Willow Grous, Tetrao Saliceti, was
abundant on all the hills around Bras d’Or, during the winter, when
he and his son usually killed a great number, which they salted and
otherwise preserved; and that in the beginning of summer they
removed from the coast into the interior of the country, where they
bred in open grounds, never, like the Willow Grous, retreating to the
wooded parts. They seldom appear at Bras d’Or until the last of the
Wild Geese have passed over, or before the cold has become
intense, and the plains deeply covered with snow. While about his
house, they repair to the most elevated hilltops, from which the
violence of the winds has removed the snow. There they feed on the
mosses and lichens attached to the rocks, as well as on the twigs
and grasses scantily found in such places at that season. They keep
in great packs, and when disturbed are apt to fly to a considerable
distance, shifting from one hill to another often half a mile off.
Not having seen this species alive, and my drawing having been
taken from specimens kindly presented to me by my friend Captain
James Ross, R. N., I cannot do better than present you here with
the observations of Dr Richardson, as recorded in the Fauna
Boreali-Americana. “Hutchins reports that the Rock Grous is
numerous at the two extremities of Hudson’s Bay, but does not
appear at the middle settlements (York and Severn Factories),
except in very severe seasons, when the Willow Grous are scarce,
and Captain Sabine informs us that they abound on Melville
Peninsula, Lat. 74° to 75°, in the summer. It arrived there in its snow-
white dress, on the 12th of May 1820; at the end of that month the
females began to assume their coloured plumage, which was
complete by the first week in June, the change at the latter period
being only in its commencement with the males. Some of the males
were killed as late as the middle of June in their unaltered winter
plumage. In this respect the species differs from the Willow Grous
whose males first assume the summer colour. The Rock Grous is
found also on Melville Peninsula and the Barren Grounds, seldom
going farther south in winter than latitude 63° in the interior, but
descending along the coast of Hudson’s Bay to latitude 58°, and in
severe seasons still farther to the southward. It also occurs on the
Rocky Mountains as far south as latitude 55°. It exists in Greenland,
is common in Norway, is known in Sweden by the name of Sno
Rissa, and is the species most frequent in the Museums of France
and Italy under the name of Tetrao Lagopus. It is not a native of
Scotland. The Rock Grous in its manners and mode of living
resembles the Willow Grous, except that it does not retire so far into
the woody country in winter. Contrary, however, to what Hearne
says, it is frequent in open woods on the borders of lakes in that
season, particularly in the 65th parallel of latitude, though perhaps
the bulk of the species remains on the skirts of the Barren Grounds.
It hatches in June. The ground colour of the egg is, according to
Captain Sabine, a pale reddish-brown, and is irregularly spotted and
blotched with darker brown.” Specimens in my possession, coloured
as here described, average one inch and five-eighths in length, by
an inch and an eighth in breadth.
 Tetrao rupestris, Gmel. Syst. Nat. vol. i. p. 751.—Lath. Ind. Ornith. vol. ii.
p. 640.
Tetrao (Lagopus) rupestris, Richards. and Swains. Fauna Bor.-Amer. vol.
ii. p. 354.
Rock Grous, Nuttall, Manual, vol. ii. p. 610.

Adult Male in Winter. Plate CCCLXVIII. Fig. 1.

Bill short, robust; upper mandible with the dorsal outline curved, the
ridge and sides convex, the edges overlapping, the tip declinate, thin
edged, but rounded; lower mandible with the angle short and wide,
the dorsal line convex, the back broadly convex, the sides rounded,
the edges inflected, the tip blunt. Nostrils basal, roundish, concealed
by feathers.
Head small, ovate; neck of moderate length; body bulky. Feet of
ordinary length, robust; tarsus feathered, as are the toes, the first toe
very small, the middle toe much longer than the lateral, which are
nearly equal, the inner being a little longer. Claws slightly arched,
depressed, broad, with thin edges and rounded at the tip.
Plumage compact, the feathers generally ovate and rounded; those
on the tarsi, toes, and soles oblong, with loose stiffish barbs. Wings
rather short, concave; the primaries strong, narrow, tapering,
pointed; the first an inch and seven-twelfths shorter than the second,
which is four-twelfths shorter than the third, this being the longest,
but only exceeding the fourth by a twelfth and a half. Tail rather
short, nearly even, of sixteen broad feathers, of which two are
incumbent, less strong, and longer than the rest by two-twelfths of an
inch.
Bill black; superciliary membrane scarlet; claws dusky, towards the
end yellowish. The plumage is pure white, with the exception of a
broad band of black from the upper mandible to the eye, and for a
short space behind it; the shafts of the six outer quills, which are
brownish-black, and all the tail-feathers, the two middle excepted,
they being of a deep greyish-black colour, with a terminal narrow
band of white.
Length to end of tail 13 1/2 inches, to end of wings 12; wing from
flexure 8; tail 4 1/2; tarsus 1 2/12; hind toe 2/12, its claw 5/12; middle
toe 11/12, its claw 8/12.
Male in Summer. Plate CCCLXVIII. Fig. 2.
In summer, the plumage differs little in texture, with the exception of
that on the feet, which is short and thin on the tarsi, worn on the
base of the toes, of which the soles and half of the upper surface are
denuded. The bill and claws are of the same colour as in winter; but
the plumage is variegated with black, reddish-yellow, and white. The
upper parts may be described as black, transversely and irregularly
banded and spotted with yellowish-red, the feather terminally
margined with white, there being on each feather several bars of
yellowish-red running from the margin inwards, but leaving a black
space in the centre. The lower parts are lighter, more broadly and
regularly barred with brownish-black and light reddish-yellow. The
feathers along the edge of the wing, the alula, primary coverts,
nearly all the secondary coverts, primaries and outer secondaries,
white; as are the lower surface of the wing, the axillar feathers, and
some of the feathers on the abdomen, as well as those on the feet,
the latter being soiled or tinged with yellowish or grey. The shafts of
the primaries are brownish-black, and the tail is black as in winter,
tipped with white, and with the lateral feathers having part of their
outer web white; the two middle feathers barred like the back. The
dimensions of an individual are as follows:

Length to end of tail 13 1/2 inches, to end of wings 11 1/2; wing from
flexure 7 10/12; tail 4 1/2; bill along the ridge 7/12; tarsus 1 2/12; middle
toe 1 1/2/12, its claw 6/12.

Female in Summer. Plate CCCLXVIII. Fig. 3.

The female does not differ materially from the male, the yellow
bands being only broader and lighter.
Very great differences are observed in the length and form of the
claws, they being in some individuals very long, thin-edged, and
tapering, to a rounded point; in others very short, being worn down to
the stump. This species is considerably smaller than the Ptarmigan
of Scotland, which it precisely resembles in its winter plumage. In its
summer plumage, however, it differs in having the markings larger;
and as yet no specimens have been obtained marked with undulated
slender, ash-grey, and dusky lines, in any degree approaching those
characteristic of the British bird in its autumnal plumage. The bill of
the Rock Grous is shorter and thicker than that of the Ptarmigan,
although the reverse has been alleged.
 MOUNTAIN MOCKING BIRD.

Turdus montanus.
PLATE CCCLXIX. Male.

This interesting and hitherto unfigured species was procured on the

Rocky Mountains by Dr Townsend, who forwarded a single
specimen to Philadelphia, where I made a drawing of it. The
following notice by Mr Nuttall shews that it is nearly allied in its
habits to the Mocking Bird:—
“On the arid plains of the central table-land, betwixt the northern
sources of the Platte and the Colorado of the West, in the month of
June, we frequently heard the cheering song of this delightful
species, whose notes considerably resemble those of the Brown
Thrush, with some of the imitative powers of the Mocking Bird. For a
great part of the day, and especially early and late, its song resounds
through the desert plains, as it warbles to its mate from some tall
weed or bush of wormwood, and continues with little interruption
nearly for an hour at a time. We met with it in the plains exclusively,
till our arrival at Wallah Wallah, but we are not certain of having seen
it in any part of California, it being apparently entirely confined to the
cooler and open regions of the Rocky Mountains. Just before arriving
at Sandy Creek of the Colorado, while resting for refreshment at
noon, I had the good fortune to find the nest in a wormwood bush, on
the margin of a ravine, from whence the male was singing with its
unusual energy. It contained four almost emerald green eggs,
spotted with dark olive of two shades, more numerous towards the
greater end, the spots large and roundish. The nest itself was made
of small twigs and rough stalks, lined with stripes of bark and bison
wool. The female flew off to a little distance, and looked on her
unwelcome and unexpected visitor, without uttering either call or
complaint.”

Orpheus montanus, Mountain Mocking Bird, Townsend, Journal of Acad.

of Nat. Sciences of Philadelphia, vol. vii. p. 192.

Adult Male. Plate CCCLXIX. Fig. 1.

Bill of moderate length, rather slender, compressed, straightish,
pointed; upper mandible with the dorsal line slightly declinato-
arcuate, the sides convex toward the end, the edges sharp, with a
slight sinus close to the narrow declinate tip; lower mandible with the
angle short and narrow, the dorsal line straight, the edges sharp and
a little declinate at the end, the tip narrow; the gape-line very slightly
arched.
Head oblong, of ordinary size; neck rather short, but somewhat
slender. Feet longish, rather strong; tarsus compressed, anteriorly
covered with seven large scutella, sharp-edged behind; toes of
moderate length, slender, the hind toe stout, the lateral nearly equal,
the anterior united for a short space at the base. Claws slender,
arched, compressed, acute.
Plumage soft and blended. Wings of moderate length, rounded, the
first quill short, the third and fourth longest, the second and fifth
equal, and about a quarter of an inch shorter than the fourth. Tail
long, rounded, of twelve rather narrow rounded feathers.
Bill dark-brown, the base of the lower mandible paler. Feet yellowish-
brown, claws dusky. The general colour of the upper parts is greyish-
brown, the tips of the secondary coverts, the edges of the primary
quills, and a large spot at the end of the three lateral tail-feathers,
white; the lower parts whitish, marked with triangular dusky spots, of
which there is a distinct line from the base of the bill; the throat, the
middle of the breast, the abdomen, and lower tail-coverts unspotted.
Length to end of tail 8 inches, to end of wings 5 3/4; wing from flexure
1/2
3 9/12; tail 3 1/2; bill along the ridge 7 /12; tarsus 1 2/12; hind toe 4/12,
1/
its claw 4/12; middle toe 8/12, its claw 3 4 /12.
 VARIED THRUSH.

Turdus nævius, Gmel.

PLATE CCCLXIX. Adult Male.

Of this beautiful Thrush, of which a figure not having the black band
running quite across the breast, as is the case in the adult male, is
given by Mr Swainson, in the Fauna Boreali-Americana, Dr
Richardson speaks as follows:—“This species was discovered at
Nootka Sound, in Captain COOK’S third voyage, and male and
female specimens, in the possession of Sir Joseph Banks, were
described by Latham: Pennant has also described and figured the
same male. The specimen represented in this work was procured at
Fort Franklin, lat. 65 1/4°, in the spring of 1826. We did not hear its
song, nor acquire any information respecting its habits, except that it
built its nest in a bush, similar to that of the Merula migratoria. It was
not seen by us on the banks of the Saskatchewan; and, as it has not
appeared in the list of the Birds of the United States, it most probably
does not go far to the eastward of the Rocky Mountains in its
migrations north and south. It may perhaps be more common to the
westward of that ridge.”
Dr Richardson’s conjecture as to the line of march followed by it
has proved to be correct, Dr Townsend and Mr Nuttall having
found it abundant on the western sides of the Rocky Mountains. The
former of these zealous naturalists informs me that he “first found
this Thrush on the Columbia River in the month of October, and that
it becomes more numerous in winter, which it spends in that region,
though some remove farther south. It there associates with the
Common Robin, Turdus migratorius, but possesses a very different
note, it being louder, sharper, and quicker than those of the latter,
and in the spring, before it sets out for its yet unascertained
breeding-place, it warbles very sweetly. It is called Ammeskuk by the
Chinooks.”
Mr Nuttall’s notice respecting it is as follows:—“Of this bird, whose
manners so entirely resemble those of the Common Robin, we know
almost nothing. They probably breed as far north as Nootka, where
they were first seen by the naturalists of Cook’s expedition. On the
Columbia they are only winter birds of passage, arriving about
October, and continuing more or less frequently throughout the
winter. At this time they flit through the forest in small flocks,
frequenting usually low trees, on which they perch in perfect silence,
and are at times very timorous and difficult of approach, having all
the shy sagacity of the Robin, and appearing at all times in a very
desultory manner.”
The numerous specimens of this Thrush in my possession have
enabled me to compare it with Turdus migratorius, and another new
Thrush from Chili. On examining the tail, from the shape of which Mr
Swainson considers this species allied to our Mocking Bird, I found
its form, length, and extent beyond the wings, to correspond almost
exactly with those of the tail of our Robin; and, if it proves true that
the Varied Thrush forms a nest bedded with mud, it will strengthen
my opinion that both these and the Chilian species are as nearly
allied as possible, and therefore ought to be considered as true
Thrushes, of which, to assume the language of systematic writers,
Turdus migratorius is the type in America, whilst Turdus Merula is
that of Europe.
The two figures in my plate were taken from adult males shot in
spring. You will find a figure of the female in Plate CCCCXXXIII.
 Turdus nævius, Gmel. Syst. Nat. vol. i. p. 817.—Lath. Ind. Ornith. vol. i. p.
331.
Orpheus meruloides, Thrush-like Mock-bird, Richards. and Swains.
Fauna Bor.-Amer. vol. ii. p. 187.

Adult Male, Plate CCCLXIX. Figs. 2, 3.

Bill of moderate length, rather strong, compressed, acute; upper
mandible with its dorsal outline slightly arched, the ridge narrow, the
sides convex toward the end, the edges sharp, overlapping, destitute
of notch, there being in its place an extremely slight sinus, the tip a
little declinate; lower mandible with the angle rather long and narrow,
the dorsal line very slightly convex, the ridge narrow, the sides erect
and convex, the edges sharp and slightly decurved towards the
narrow, rather obtuse, tip. Nostrils basal, oblong, half closed by a
horny operculum. Head of moderate size, ovate, convex anteriorly;
neck rather short, body moderately full. Feet of ordinary length,
rather stout; tarsus compressed, anteriorly covered with a long plate
and four inferior scutella, posteriorly with two long plates meeting at
a very acute angle. Toes rather large, the first strongest, the lateral
nearly equal, the third and fourth united as far as the second joint of
the latter. Claws rather large, moderately arched, much compressed,
acute.
Plumage soft and rather blended. Wings of moderate length, broad,
rounded; the first primary extremely short, being about a fifth of the
length of the third, which is longest, but scarcely exceeds the fourth;
the second four-twelfths shorter than the third. Tail large, rather long,
nearly even, of twelve broad rounded feathers.
Bill black, with the basal half of the lower mandible yellow; iris hazel;
feet and claws flesh-coloured. The general colour of the upper parts
is a deep leaden-grey, darker on the head, the feathers very
narrowly margined with brown; the quills and tail-feathers dusky, the
outer webs of the latter tinged with grey, and their tips white; the lore
dusky; a band of reddish-orange passes from over the fore part of
the eye down the side of the neck, and almost meets its fellow on the
hind part; two conspicuous bands of the same cross, the wing
obliquely being formed of the tips of the first row of small coverts,
and those of the secondary coverts; the outer webs of the primary
coverts about the middle, a band on the primaries near the base,
part of the outer webs towards the end, and the tips of the
secondaries, also pale reddish-orange. The lower parts in general
are reddish-orange, paler behind; a band of greyish-black passes
down the side, and crosses the lower part of the neck, where it is
almost pure black; the feathers of the sides are tipped with light grey;
those of the middle of the abdomen are white; and the lower tail-
coverts are tipped with the latter colour. The axillary feathers are
white, tipped with grey; the smaller coverts grey, tipped with reddish-
white, the primary coverts grey, the secondary nearly white, of which
also there is a bar formed by part of the inner webs of the quills.
Length to end of tail 10 1/4 inches; wing from flexure 5 1/4; tail 3 10/12;
1/2
bill along the ridge 10/12, along the edge of lower mandible 1 1 /12;
tarsus 1 1/4; hind toe 5 1/2/12, its claw 5 1/2/12; middle toe 10 1/2/12, its
claw 4/12.
Adult Female. Plate CCCCXXXIII. Fig. 6.
The female, which is scarcely smaller than the male, is coloured in
the same manner; but the upper parts are strongly tinged with olive-
brown; the reddish-orange bands are much paler, the tail-feathers
are margined with dull reddish-brown; the band on the lore, down the
sides of the neck, and across it, is light greyish-brown; the orange
tint of the lower parts is much paler; the lower wing-coverts have no
tinge of red, and part of the breast and abdomen is nearly pure
white.
Length to end of tail 10 inches; wing from flexure 5 2/12; tail 3 8/12; bill
along the ridge 10/12; tarsus 1 1/4; middle toe and claw 1 3/12.

The plant represented on the plate is the American Mistletoe,

Viscum verticillatum, on the berries of which several of our Thrushes
occasionally feed, as the Mistle thrush, Turdus viscivorus, is said to
do on those of Viscum album. It is found in almost every part of the
United States, growing chiefly on oaks and apple-trees.