This article argues that constructivism has not engaged with the concept of contingency sufficiently. While such noted constructivists as Onuf, Kratochwil, and Wendt often refer to ‘double contingency’, it is the concept of ‘norms’ rather than ‘contingency’ that is used to characterise constructivist theorising in International Relations (IR). In this article, I outline how moderate and radical constructivists differ in their take on norms and thereby establish how the problem of contingency is actually at the core of constructivist theorising. The discussion then shows how Kratochwil, Onuf, and Wendt have made use of double contingency while moderate constructivists have re-introduced the single actor to show how norms ‘cause’ action. The third part moves beyond the double contingency framework. By differentiating ‘the social’ from ‘society’, this section shows that a ‘third’ position can be identified. The concept of ‘triple contingency’ then could be a way ahead for the theoretical discussion on constructivism itself.