Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Constructivism and IR Theory
Based on what we've been discussing in class about social constructivism, how does this approach to International Relations weaken Realism and Liberalism? How far can it explain what is happening on the world stage? Is it a better approach to IR and international soceities than Realism and Liberalism? Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
Social constructivism weakens realism because it implies that anarchy, instead of being a constant Hobbesian state of the world, is just a structure created by agents who believe that the world is in anarchy, then act on this belief. Liberalism needs materials to fulfill its ideas, so social constructivism weakens it because it suggests that materials like institutions aren't good by themselves, but only so far as people make them or believe them to be beneficial. I think social constructivism can explain world events to a great extent, because it explains norms in terms of the agents that set them up, how the norms then change the agents, and how the agents change the norms again-- it explains the patterns of history (i.e. norms of social Darwinism that led to WWII, "agents" or people revolted and changed, and set up the new world structure which, in its differences, led to the Cold War, which changed the agents again). I think that since it takes intersubjective knowledge, common beliefs, and social actions into account in addition to political or economical conflicts and foreign policies, it is a better approach to international relations-- not only does it cover more, but it then mangages to explain more in how the world works and changes.
-Katie Head
Social constructivism does a great deal of damage to the validity of realism and liberalism. These two theories are explained by the natural behavior and nature of humans. Realism holds that humans are instinctually bad and liberals believe the opposite. Social constructivsm basically says that these two theories are only how the individual actors as well as states portray them to be. If a group of agents in one country wants to believe that all humans are out for themselves and they are constantly in danger, they will act accordingly. Constructivism also says that if liberals think institutions are necessary to enhance human life and cooperation, this is only a phenomenon built up in indivudual agents with these ideals. This is great on a world stage because have seen realism historically. World War II was all about balance of power and security dilemmas. If we are in fact taking a liberal approach in the more modern society towards Iraq and other countries, social constructivism is correct. It basically states that the switch in these two theories is plausible because of agents changing norms and norms changing agents (human nature is neither good nor bad, just what we make of it). Therefore, social constructivism will be able to explain international relations and the changes in society based off of norms and agents because it holds that the world and what we do is what we make of it.
--Mike Poznansky
I think that social constructivism weakens realism and liberalism because social constructivism attempts to explain realism and liberalism, and in doing so, attempts to explain everything the other two theories deal with. If one idea (social constructivism) can explain everything realism attempts to explain, as well as everything liberalism attempts to explain (even things on which realism and liberalism disagree), then each of those individual theories is weakened. Social constructivism is more all-encompassing than are either realism or liberalism. I do think that this is a better approach than either realism or liberalism, because it seems that social constructivism allows you to discuss and explain issues on a more case-by-case basis than do either realism or liberalism. I think that that is an important quality because there will always be situations that do not fit the very precise molds of realism or liberalism, and many of these situations are ones that can be explained by social constructivism.
C. Faith Woodworth
social constructivism can explain pretty far what is going on in the world stage because it is completely made up by knowledge and what we consider ... we create it.. people create it... so you can make the world stage be what ever you want it to be by rules and norms... i dont necessarilly think its a better approach than realism and liberalism i just think its a different way to look at things.. i like different aspects of all three ways we have looked at soo far in IR i believe the best approach is a mix of all three of them.. i believe money and material matters to most people as it does in realism... i believe humans have agency to escape anarchy as it says in liberalism .. and our world is very interested in norms which is a big factor in social constructivism.. not one approach is the best!!!
Kristin Iorii
I believe that realism and liberalism both have good points but as previously, stated social constructivism weakens these theories. Liberalism is all about how materials fulfill its ideas. Social constructivism suggests that materials like institutions need people to make them be beneficial. Realists believe that the world is always in anarchy. Social constructivism believes that the world is just a structure created by agents who believe that the world is in anarchy. The agents then act on this belief. I believe it is easier to explain world history with social constructivism. History leading up to WWII was leaning more toward realism with security dilemmas and balancing of power. However, after WWII the world began to be more liberal. The fact that there was a change in the leanings can best be explained by social constructivism. The agents changed the norms of the world and in return, the norms changed the agents.
Kaitlin Keelan
Social Constructivism weakens Liberalism on the crucial point concerning democracies being better than dictatorships. According to liberalism, democracies by their nature are not going to be aggressive towards other democracies. However, we do not necessarily see this in practice. For example, throughout the second half of the 20th century, The United States overthrew democracies in Chile and Guatemala. Moreover, we have seen recently Hamas' election victory in the Palestinian Authority. Hamas, a political party whether terrorist has not has vowed to engage Israel in a never ending war and to never recognize them as a nation. Liberalism would suggest that allowing democracy in that part of the world would help alleviate the struggle but it has done the opposite. In the opinion of the United States, it has legitimized a terrorist organization.
-Dan Greenbaum
Social Constructivism most certainly weakens both Realism and Liberalism, for it explains both theories and their existence in IR. In doing so, it allows much more leeway in defining a situation, and the said situation must not necessarily conform to solely one set of ideas.
In fact, I believe that Social Constructivism has the ability of explaining much if not all of the occurrences in IR. We, the agents, create our society, the structure, to be whatever it is that we define it to be. If the agents will a realist situation, then it will be so.
Furthermore, I do think that Social Constructivism is a better approach to IR. As has been illustrated throughout history, it does not seem that realist nor liberal notion has dominated. Rather, both have been in existence; whether it was during the late Middle Ages when warring Europe was obsessed with the balance of power and their security and power or the period following the World Wars when Wilsonian idealism prevailed. Social Constructivism provides an answer for why both of these theories have been demonstrated: the agents willed it.
--Ashley Mortimer
I would think that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of liberals and social constructivists. Social constructivists can go around saying that the world is what we make of it all they like. The realist will just respond that while you may be able to change some norms, you cannot get around basic necessities. The only response I can think of that an SC could come up with would be to say that some people should willingly sacrifice themselves in cases where these basic necessities are scarce. So if you have a society with insufficient water supplies, the realist would say that this will lead to a war of some kind. The SC will then say that it only leads to war because self-preservation is a norm. We have seen societies in which people have willingly sacrificed themselves for some perceived greater good. Japanese kamikazes, Muslim jihadists, and faithful Aztec pagans would all willingly sacrifice themselves for their respective causes. Perhaps, then, the SC is right. The history supports realist theory (though liberals might debate this to a point) only because realist norms dominate most of the societies throughout history.
It comes down, then, to a question of basic necessities and whether to adopt a utilitarian calculation. Should norms be changed so that some people are willing to give up their lives when basic necessities are scarce in order to avoid violence? Some type of lottery system, perhaps? Are these actual norms that can be changed, or are they "natural" to humans? If there is one thing that distinguishes humans from other species, it is the ability to go against nature.
The ideas of Liberalism and Realism are good explantions of world politics but only to a certain extent. Realists believe the world is in a constant state of anarchy. If i were to ask "what is anarchy in terms of world politics?" A realist would argue that "anarchy is a state of lawlessness and constant conflict." Then I would ask the question "if the world is in a constant state of anarchy, wouldn't that mean anarchy is the natural norm?
Social Constructivist argue that people create what is good and what is evil. If people believed that war and conflict were a good thing, then anarchy would be something we strived for. However the world views anarchy as a bad thing, and peace as something to strive for. Social constructivism best answers issues and world politics but at the same time it gives us the worst answer. It is the best answer because it can be used to explain almost any topic in the international arena. It is the worst answer because it is too vague and could be used to justify evil in the name of "social norms."
Tommy Luginbill
It seems to me that both realism and liberalism have certain weaknesses and flaws in their belief constructions that cannot be reconciled with some actual events that have occurred. And yet, constructivism seems not so much as an explanation as to why things happen, but as to how. As such, I'm not sure it can even truly be included under the label of "IR Theory", as it seems fundamentally different than the other two on this basis.
- Luke Kaczmarek
I would tend to agree with what has been said in that I do not think following one approach is the best way to studying International Relations. Social Constructivism weakens both Realism and Liberalism because social constructivism explains these ideas. While realists say that people are essentially bad an selfish, Liberals focus more on material ideas and ideational views. Liberals believe that people can escape anarchy through institution and with cooperation while realists essentially support Darwin with his views that people will either adapt or die. On the other hand, social constructivism weakens realism because a social constructivist would argue the material a realist believes in has meaning because a person or society gives it meaning. Also, if agents believe people are out for themselves, they will behave with this instilled in their mind. Social constructivists believe that norms are created because we create them.
On the world stage, we have seen these theories throughout history. When looking at the Cold War for instance, realism is seen because there was so much distrust between the US and the USSR. The material would be all the nuclear weapons that were built during this time. Liberalism was seen with the creation of international organizations such as NATO. Furthermore, liberal policies were seen effective when the Soviet Union finally began to engage in liberal policies such as allowing the self-determination of East Europe. A social constructivist would say that the norms during this time were created by the agents of the time. They would say that this distrust and international organizations were created because we decided to emplace them.
-Erin Donahue
Social Constructivism weakens realism and liberalism if we say it weakens them. If we say that social constructivism weakens realism in the sense that humans define what anarchy and security are, then it certainly does. And if we say that social constructivism weakens liberalism by explaning how humans attach value to materials, then it does. We could go another step forward and say that social constructivism is a system that is created by agents that define agents, and if we do then it is. Social constructivism is an interesting way of looking at political theory because it points out how much people depend on norms. Who knows if the world can be explained by realism or liberalism. We just assign them credibility because these theories seem the most easy to comprehend. There are a million variable and factors between every interaction and neither theory can encompass a complete explanation. Social constructivism is a way to pick apart these theories and to look at interaction in a different way.
John Dalo
Social constructivism is all about the norms that involve everyone around the world. It’s a more general, trying to explain why things happen rather than just try to change it they way realists and liberals do. It’s a better approach to International Relations because it’s not about helping a single country gain power with guns and money, like realists want. Constructivists try to understand what the media and specific people have to tell the public about a certain issue, like the Cold Way. This is the best way to understand what the people are thinking, but knowing what they are being told. Constructivism also involves the use of common sense, which pretty much everyone should have.
-Katie Dunn
Social Constructivism is almost appears as the "easy way out" to international relations. Social constructivists take upon the view that we live in the system that we believe is the system. Because we believe that they world is an anarchalical system it then shapes our how we act in it as agents. This discredits the theories of Realism and Liberalism because their theories are based on the fact that the states are rational actors in Anarchy. So social constructivism can be used to describe both of the theories despite the fact that they are very different theories in IR.
SC can expalin the theory so far in the fact that it says we act in a system that we have created and then act according to that system. They can logically explain the different systems and orginizations that we have created on the global level. I do not think that this system is better then realism or liberalism because not all states believe in the same ideological systems. Many nations refuse to accept many of the global orginizations. Whereas states with different ideologies can be describes by the Realist and Liberal IR theories.
~Kevin Wright
Social constructivism approach to international relations weakens realism and liberalism, because it incorporates both aspects of those theories; therefore, watering down both approaches. Realism and liberalism are opposites, both on either side of the spectrum. Realism deals with behavioral capabilities and liberalism deals with material capabilities of state behavior. While on the other hand, social constructivism approaches capabilities of state behavior with both sides of the spectrum, behavior and material. The world stage right now is in a state of crisis, because it has to choose a side on how to act, and it seems that no country can be acting in the correct way. Therefore, social constructivism is a best approach to international relations, because not all nations can work and run under the same restrictions. This approach allows for a better communication and networking of nations, because it’s flexible to both spectrums; therefore, creating a stronger, more powerful international society.
-Robert O'Reilly
Social Constructivism weakens realism because realism states that human nature and behavior is constant and anarchial. Social constructivism would say that human nature is not constant, but rather is influenced by norms and traditions that have been created before us. It weakens liberalism because liberalism says that structures and institutions can constitute IR, while SC would just say that these institutions only carry merit if people give them it. Therefore, I think SC can explain IR very well. Not only can it discredit the other two traditions, but it can explain why they seem to prevail at various times. In other words, when world politics seem to be dominated by realism/liberalism it's because society's norms promote realist/liberalist thinking and consequently states acting like such.
Brian Del Guercio
I think social constructivism is inevitable. Every nation and every individual for that matter have different norms and customs. But it does weaken liberalism and realism because social constructivism is about one strong power basing what they think is correct and others follow along with it. It changes though rapidly over time and not all people agree with the change. There forms a clash between one another and nations fighting to say that what they believe is correct and that everyone should believe what they do. Its a battle for superiority.
-Jessica Stecker
Of the three theories that we have studied thus far, I believe social constructivism to be the strongest, and that idea alone weakens the realist and liberal theories. As we discussed in class, constructivism actually can explain both realism and liberalism, making it a somewhat "all-knowing" theory. Social constructivism can explain the world stage better than liberlism and realism, because social constructivism focuses on ideas and understanding the social aspect of international relations, unlike realism (which focuses soley upon the material) and liberalism (which seems, to me, a tad wishy washy and unsure).
However, I don't like the social constructivists thought that the material world means nothing--if things are what we make of them, and we make the material world important, is it not then important?
--Megan Pettingill
I think that social Constructivism weakens Realism and Liberalism mainly because constructivism material means nothing except for the meaning and value we give to it which is sometimes more beneficial. In more detail, constructivism explains what realism and liberalism is and how they work because it looks further into something other than just looking at what was given. I don't think it is a better approach then Realism and Liberalism because Constructivism is just another way to look at things just like Realist and Liberals look at it in their own way. I also think it takes a bit of each approach to make a good one although Constructivism can be overpowering at times.
-Kelley Thompson
I agree with basically everyone else in saying that social constructivism weakens both realism and liberalism. There are numerous ways that all three theories can be used to attempt to educate on how the world works, but social contructivism goes as far as to say that some of the things that realism and liberalism try to explain are only human fabricated. The simple difference in the belief of what anarchy is. Social constructivists say that anarchy is whatever we make it out to be, while liberals belief that humans can escape anarchy. The fact that constructivism uses both opinions and facts in order to explain the world gives a much broader, and sometimes more effective explanation to why the world functions in the way it currently does.
-Ryan Pierce
Based on the lectures in class, I think that Social Constructivism is the best theory in explaining international relations and the international society. It is superior to realism in that it explains why guns and money are important to the nation. It explains that these things are important in the international scene because society has constructed them into an idea of power. It is better than reaslism because it states that institutions have power and do make a difference because of the agents that have implemented them and given them the authority and trust. Norms are very important to the constructivist because they act as what is acceptable to the international society as a whole. They build on these ideas of norms which the agents of society have created themselves. Constructivism explains why international issues occur, they do because we take occurances and decide what is important to take into account for the good of the international society.
Jordan Naftzinger
Social constructivism does weaken both realism and liberalism. Realism basically tells us that people are bad, and that anarchy is the constant state of the world. Liberalism tells us that people are essentially good and that we are run by institutions. Social constructivism is a completely different way of looking at things than realism and liberalism. Social construcitvism tells is that the world is what we make of it; that everything's value is only there because we made it so. Our government only has power because we created it to have power. It is because of social constructivism's belief that the world and the things in it do not mean anything without the social norms we have created that realism and liberalism are weakened. How can people be bad and the world be in a state of anarchy if what constitutes being bad and what makes some anarchical are just constructed social norms? How can we be run by institutions if the institutions don't really mean anything, we just gave them meaning? I like social constructivism because it looks at things in a broader spectrum than realism and liberalism does.
Social Constructivism is interested in intersubjective knowledge, or our shared conceptions. This leads in to how we come up with an international society, because it is completely made up by our intersubjective knowledge of norms, rules, and sovereignty. This is a completely different outlook than those of Liberals and Realists. Social Constructivism is all about explaining change, which is why it is widely used in sociological sciences. There are different examples of social institutions that are explained by Social Constructivism, one example being marriage. When it comes to explaining different events, like the Cold War, Constructivists are interested in figuring out where the antagonism came from. As opposed to Liberals who would say the cause is ideological, and Realists who would blame it on the bipolar system that we live in. I like then Constructivist theory because it involves figuring out why things happen and how international society plays a role.
Katy Johnson
Social Constructivism is the truth. No one can argue that norms change. Liberalism claims there is good in people and it can be harvested with the proper social tools. Who knows, maybe this is the case. According to SC, we get to find out over time. We say that we are imrpoving: no more slaves, women in government, sexual identity is being recognized. But maybe we are calling these things improvement because they are the new trends that we all like. I like them, you like them, but would we have 300 years ago? Would they have been called improvements then? The Nazis thought they were improving as well. With the proper social tools, the arien race would be where it belongs. We all know thats bull, but they didn't. As a philosophy, SC is true. As philosophies, Realism and Liberalism are also ture to some extent, but they kind of need each other to keep the peace. Its important to hope, to protect, and to evolve. Ethics are tough went it comes to IR.
The last post at 9:50pm on the 28th was by Stephane Stewart.
Social constructivism is defined as a concept of practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it and can also be explained by intersubjective knowledge. Intersubjective knowledge is shared subjective and agreed understandings in which the primary interest is knowledge and sense of reality. That being said, social constructivism most definitely weakens both IR concepts of Realism and Liberalism because it questions the grounds in which these concepts are constructed and allows for situations to be explained in a different way.
Realists believe that human nature is inherently bad and that the world is in a state of constant anarchy. Social constructivism believes that the world is simply a structure made up of agents who believe that the world is in a state of constant anarchy and therefore act that way. It basically says that these agents are the ones creating the idea that the world is in anarchy and then acting on those ideas. Liberalism is weakened by social constructivism for much of the same reasons realism is, saying that the agents within the structure create the idea of liberalism and therefore act on it.
Overall, I think that social constructivism is an easier way to explain the world; it is all encompassing and can explain almost anything that arises within international relations. It explains rules and norms that actors have created and therefore live by, ultimately explaining why people act the way they do.
Alison Burke
I tend to disagree with the earlier comment about social constructivism weakening the ideas embedded in both realism and liberalism to a certain degree, because I tend to draw a line between them on the basis of their respective pertinence to human nature. The human nature equation is not included in social constructivism, as it is at the forefront of the other two. Plus, if we remember from class, social constructivism is not a theory at all like the other two. Rather, it is a model for social progress. Plus, social constructivism is not limited to the realm of why we do what we do, and attempts to shed light on how what we do affects the bigger sociological picture.
Gordon Lippincott
In a sense social constructivism both weakens and strengthens the arguments made in liberalism and realism. Because constructivists basically say that some things will work for one group or society and not another, it weakens the concrete answers provided by liberals and realists. On the other hand, using this same point of view, it support both liberal and realist claims, allowing for both philosophies to be truths that can exist separate from each other. I would have to say that constructivism is the best theory to follow in almost everything. There really are no universal truths (although some may argue there are a few). For some societies, the only option for dealing with them is by taking a realist point of view. For others, however, liberalism may work the best.
-Meg Gallagher
Constructivism weakens the IR theories of Realism and Liberalism by breaking down the ideals of both theories into the actors that create them, and the social structures that form as a result and vice versa. Since the process to become a realist or a liberalist involves intersubjective thought, a constructivists can look at that and say that thoery of IR is simply a product of specific agents and structures. Constrctivism is therefore a theory that explains the processes by which other theories are formed based on the idea that those theories are made from the influence of specific agents and structures, thats why it can explain so many things on the world stage. I don't think it is necesarily a better way to approach IR, its more of a "zen" way. I think the fault of Constructivism is that is always looks for a result or an influence as the casue, but in the international soceity spontainious things occur. I would say it is a very broad way to approch IR compared realism focusing just on guns and money, and liberalism focusing on institutions and escaping anarchy, because contructivism searching for the meanings.
-Brendon Butler
Social constructivism most certainly weakens the Realism and Liberalism views of international relations. Social constructivists are interested in “intersubjective knowledge” which is mostly knowledge that is considered common sense or conventional wisdom. It is made up of norms, rules, is a cultural product and is focused on “norms”. On the other hand realism is focused on power and liberalism focused on cooperation. Social constructivism is very ideational. It says that guns and money only have power if we say it has power by giving it certain ideas and beliefs. They say that anarchy is what states make of it and that we create it and it can be anything we want it to be. Social constructivism tries to explain the workings of realism and liberalism. It is if realism and liberalism are pillars to the social constructivism theory.
Drew Majerick
Through my interpretation of the three political ideologies I have noticed that social constructivism stands apart from the rest. I believe this because it is the only ideology that seems to be applicable to any instance or time period in IR. In other words social constructivism is a lens that can be used to look at almost any issue on a global scale. The world is ever changing and social constructivism seems to keep pace. This threatens realism because it suggests that money and guns are not necessarily going to always equal power which is the fundamental basis. Part of liberalism is based on the same material nature of international policy and therefore threatens it as well. This does not however mean that I social constructivism is the best way to attack international politics. It is an ideational approach but if a country desired to take part in a more concrete system they would most likely choose to adopt Liberalism or Realism.
---Ryan Shaw
I feel that while social constructivism stands pretty separate from liberalism and realism, it does tend to support many ideas found in liberalism. Social constructivism says that people are what create norms, therefor they are changing. In that sense, it agrees with liberalism. Liberalism looks towards democracy and organizations to accomplish goals. Liberalism recognizes the need for a cooperation of people in order to set reasonable social norms.
Realism seems to overlook the means at achieving norms and regulations, but rather seeks to find advantages for each independent actor. This is why realism does not appear to intersect with social constructivism in terms of ideology.
-Gabe DiPietro
In my opinion Social Constructivists are the quintessential "I told you so....." types. They are the folks that sit back quietly as chaos occurs and then tells everyone what they did wrong, attempting to claim they foresaw the outcome. Hindsight, as they say, is always 20-20; it is always easier to look back and determine mistakes. It is the realists and liberals who get things done in this world; and the constructivists who sit about and complain about the outcome.
I don't think that constructivism really weakens the arguments of realism or liberalism. Social constuctivism is too abstract. Here's an example that illustrates the problem of constructivism.
A country has a neighbor that is strengthening militarily and doesn't know what to do. The government consults the IR theories of realism, liberalism and constuctivism to decide how to address the situation. Realism says that mankind is inherently bad and that threats must be balanced to prevent a country from becoming the hegemon. Liberalism tells you that man is inherently good, that the world is better if everyone works together and a neighboring countries' military strengthening does not mean your country will be taken over. Constuctivism tells you that the world is what you make of it and that norms are socially constructed; That's great, it sounds good, but it is too abstract and does not help you make a decision about the problem at hand.
Britt Chalmers
People's comments have been interesting and rather varying. In my opinion, I agree that social constructivism is inevitable within a society. Since people have learned to value different things in different regards (ie - accepting the act of monogamy but rejecting polygamy), social constructions are a result of the way we have chosen to live. I also agree that it is unfair to say that social constructivism necessarily weakens Realism or Liberalism because I think the concepts are entirely too separated. While Realism and Liberalism can be materialistic and concern human nature, Social Constructivism seems to be more concerned with what human instincts have created or, in other words, it is the unnatural stuff.
-Anna Post
Social Constructivisim suggests that anything with a meaning has such meaning because people or "agents" give it meaning. Different groups of agents have different values and norms that may often times vary greatly. I believe that this weakens Realism and Liberalism extremely. Social Constructivism basically says that identity itself is defined by the agents associated.
Liberalism and Realism are on both extremes which say that all humans have a certain behavior embedded in them. Realists say that all humans are self-driven and that war is inevitable. Social Constructivists would say that these are just the thoughts and ideas of this group of agents, or the Realists.
I think that Social Constructivism is a better approach to IR because it can explain international societies better than the other two IR theories. I think its a more balanced way of thinking.
-Ben Choi
Social constructivism seems to be the strongest approach to international relations that we have discussed so far. When the world is viewed through the lens of a social constructivist, everything begins to make sense. Realism and liberalism are social constructions. I do not personally believe that social constructivism weakens liberalism or realism. Instead, social constructivism is a means to explain how these two lenses work. Social constructivism can help explain what’s happening on the world stage because it forces you to realize that everything that happens in the world is a social construction. I personally believe that it is a better approach to IR then either realism or liberalism. Social constructivism explains why both realism and liberalism can be correct at the same time. If a person is viewing the world through the lens of either, they are creating a social construction, and they are correct.
-Ryan Davenport
I don't really think that social constructivism weakens realism or liberalism. Social constructivism simply analyzes why things are the way that they are and says that everything is the way it is for a reason. It does not say that the world cannot be viewed through liberal or realist ideas. Social constructivism definitely explains the current world stage because it explains why the world stage is the way it currently is. In analyzing the United States conflict in the Middle East, social constructivism says that this is because Islamists will always disagree with Western society and Western thought. It says that the United States will always try to aid in the creation of a free-thinking state. I believe that it is the best approach to IR because it doesn't just say that things should be done, it tells why they should be done. It is the best explanation for world society, culture, and beliefs.
--Jessica Jackman
I think hands down that social constructivism is a better approach to explaining what is happening on a world stage. Norms control our lives and social constructivism really explains how people come to these norms and it downplays realism and liberalism, saying that these two theories are just constructions of the mind and were pre meditated rather than natural. Social constructivism can explain almost every situation that is brought about. Realism and Liberalism are sort of hit or miss topics that do not have shades of gray. Social constructivists can explain why states are acting the way they are, and to explain realism they say that individual agents created anarchy within and it became a norm that realists followed. When it comes down to thinking how everything is created, it comes down to us. We are the ones who create the norms that evolve over years to form into categories which label states the way they are. Social Constructivism best describes states in a world that is very different from one hundred years ago or even further back because of the changing of norms.
-James Squillante
I think that Social constructivism approach is significant to international relations and it also weakens both realism and liberalism. Realism and liberalism are opposites. Realism is about peoples behavior; whereas liberalism is about valuing materials. But Social constructivism considers both behavior and material. All countries have their own culture and their own way to control their country. Some times realism works well and some time liberalism works well. Thinking of social constructivism, it has both benefits of realism and liberalism. There is no particular way for a country to rule their country. Therefore, social constructivism explains well to international relations. This approach is flexible to both approaches, which means it could make a better well managed international society.
- Kim, Hyo Suk -
I don't know about saying that one thing is "better" than another, but I personally prefer to think of the world in more social constructivist terms than in other ways, because it makes more sense to me. I wouldn't say that I don't understand and see the validity of theories such as realism and liberalism, but I prefer ideational things, like what constructivism provides. That being said, I think that constructivism weakens both realism and liberalism in much the same way - it will argue that the only reason "guns + money = power," or "institutions & cooperation" are the answer to why nations do what they do is because people believe in those ideas, and that gives the ideas power. It seems to me that, if you believe in what constructivism is saying, it provides an overarching view of the theories presented, perhaps because it is not a theory itself, but a model of how and why change happens. Also, even though I prefer to think in constructivist terms, I think that a theory which combined aspects of both realism and liberalism would be more ideal to explain world change - because you have to look at it from more than one aspect (ideational, material, etc).
Social constructivism definitely seems to be the strongest approach to international relations that we have talked about throughout this semester. When the world is viewed through the concept of social constructivism explains why things are the way they are for a reason. The problem with realism and liberalism is that they are hit and miss, as these two theories are just constructions of the mind and and were pre-meditated rather than natural. Social constructivism is the best way to describe states in a world that has changed over the past hundred or so years because the changing of norms.
-Eric Goodman
Social constructivism weakens liberalism and realism by explaining them. Both realism and liberalism are theories based on assumptions about human nature. Social constructivism says that society and how its rules control agents' behavior is what the agents make of it. A few agents, norm entrepreneurs, change the structure over time, which in turn changes the rest of the agents. Realism says that human nature is always going to be bad, so all the states are in an insecure state of anarchy, constantly following and balancing the guy with the power. Liberalism says that even in anarchy, with cooperation, states can get along because they assume that human nature is essentially good. Social constructivism simply denies that you can make assumptions about human nature, thus explaining any world anarchy situation to be because that is what we have made of it.
I feel that of the theories we've studied, social constructivism is the most legitimate explanation of the institutions and forces that make up the world stage. Realism states that we are driven by power and security (not by ideals or ethics). I believe that the other two theories are inconsistent and do not hold true on a number of levels when dealing with IR. For instance, couldn't it be argued that we use military force to help achieve what we view as idealistically correct? I think that social constructivism is pretty solid in its explanation of the things around us. The idea that the things around us are constructs of ourselves (agents) can be universally applied to pretty much anything. There are way too many exceptions to the "rules" of liberalism and realism for them to be viewed as superior approaches to IR.
-Mike Werch
Viewing International Relations with a social constructivist approach most definitely weakens both Realism and Liberalism. Realism is the belief that states are primarily motivated by their desire for economic and militaristic dominance. Social constructivism involves explaining how social phenomena are created by human tradition, basically saying that over time, PEOPLE, acting on their own interpretations change social reality. If the bottom line of Realism is “adapt of perish” then how is it possible to look at it through a social constructivist lens that sees things are a product of human tradition and interpretation. Liberalism focus primarily on material things, within this idea, you are “free from restraint in speech or action” but if viewed through social constructivism, how is it possible to be free from restraint in speech or action, when speech and action are writing the guidelines for which the world to follow?
-John Georges
I think constructivism is an important approach to International Relations because it explains how things occurring in the world come about. It identifies that agent interactions produce social structures that constrain the agents. This then explains social norms, change, and lifecycles. The idea that anarchy is what states make of it does not weaken liberalism or realism but helps establish how these approaches are constituted.
Francesca Carregal
It's becoming increasingly clear how much sense it makes to view international relations through social constructivism. Not only in functions such as government and armies but just in the way we as a society view another society, social constructivists way of thinking is sensible. Because it states that it is the "agents" which make things important, it is easy to contextualize it in terms of things happening on the world stage, for example in Israel. People are fighting over a land not because it is the most fertile or the prettiest or equipped with the most natural resources. They fight over the land because of what it means to them, to their history and their spirituality. Social constructivism shows how this way of thinking is truly what governs our interactions with one another on a multinational level.
-Anna Post
I too believe that Social Constructivism is an effective way to view the world we live in. It is true that agents that inhabit the world ultimately shape it, thus Social Constructivism cannot be overlooked. Each and every institution, organization,war, etc, etc... has been the outcome of the interactions of agents with other agents. Developing norms is a long process that is also the result of ideas stemming from Social Constructivism. Whether it be politics, culture, or religion, the diverse viewpoints of the world are a direct result of the people who live in it.
Kevin Moreno
I think that social constructivism weakens realism but not necessarily liberalism in that realism states that the world is anarchical and war is inevitable and cannot move away from that position. Social constructivism holds that the world is what you make of it. Liberalism seems to agree with this idea in that liberals believe through institutions and cooperation conflict can be avoided in other words they're working to make the world different. Liberalism's premise that things can be different than how the realists see it I think supports the social constructivist view that it is what you make of it.
As for whether one is a better approach than the other it is unclear. I find social constructivism to be very unspecific beyond agents created structures which is why events occurred as they did. For example the discussion in class of the explanations of the Cold War through the different lenses of the three theories. Realism explains it as a struggle over power and security, liberalism a struggle over ideological differences and social constructivism seeks to look how such an antagonistic system developed. Realism and liberalism seem to try to explain why, while constructivism just seems to say it occurred because this is the structure the agents created.
Charles (C.J.) Augustine
I believe that social constructivism is an important view of International Relations because not only does it challenge the other theories, but it weakens them. While realism and liberalism are just theories, social constructivism is a model for social process. Rather than aruging from different views of the world and human nature, it takes into account the norms and cultural ideas that we often take for granted. Since social constructivists claim that they can explain both realism and liberalism, I believe it is a better model that can be used to explain I.R.
-Heather Starner
Social Constructivism goes very far in weaking both realism and Liberalism. Realists belive that that anarchy is a distinguihing part of the international system. They think the world is always ina state of anarchy becasue states are in the endles pursuit of more and more power. Construcivist can argue that material power is all within the eye of the beholder. Something has power if it is acknoleged on a universal level subjectivly, this means societies all understand the power of a given thing and value it accordingly. Also social construcive theory would explain that the world is in anarchy becasue we have made it that way. A social constructivist would argue that the world was not created in anarchy but developments overtime have lead it to be this way.
Liberalism is weaked by social constructivism as well. Liberals think we can escape this anarchy if we essentially all get along and form powerful international organizations and societies. Social construcivism weakens this because it would argue that peace can only be achieved if we all recognize these international societies as best for our world. I think it can explain IR better than the other two approaches because it is the only one that allows for both theories to exist at different times. It is certain that pre WW1 and WW2 the world was based on realist theory. Modernly it is seems the world is more liberal with organizations liek the EU and NAFTA. Social constructivism is the best approach becasue it is the only one that can explain this shift by analyizing a change in global norms.
-Dan Shainker
I agree with many of the previous comments that Social Constructivism weakens both Realism and Liberalism and is the best way to explain International Relations today. I think that the idea that the material world means whatever value we give to it undermines Realism, which says that material objects such as guns and money equal power. They only equal power if we as agents decide that they do, in which case a security dilemma could simply be a social construction. Liberalism says that we need to build the right types of institutions in order to create order. This idea is weakened by constructivism because it says that we, as agents, decide what to give meaning and value to. Overall, I think that Social Constructivism can offer an explanation for both of these methods of thinking.
-Katharine Gray
In my opinion does not weaken Realism and Liberalism much at all. Instead I see it as an idea that can coexist and help to explain both Realism and Liberalism. Realism focuses on the great struggle for power which focuses on guns, money etc. But why are guns and money useful in power? Social Constructivism tells us that we, the actors, give them meaning as powerful. To give a recent example Iran was supposedly developing Nuclear Weapons until recently. Realists would explain this by saying they must do this to show force and keep others at arms length. Constructivists would wonder why Nuclear Devices have been made to hold so much political power. These ideas coexist well together. Constructivists seem to look back into the past to see why things change, while Liberalism and Realism apply their stances on human nature to predict future actions.
-Matt Swank
Social constructivism weakens both realism and liberalism. Realism and liberalism both explain how the world is the way it is because of our human nature. Realism believes that everyone is out for themselves, that each person will do what is in his/her best interest. Liberalism states that human nature is essentially good and that our actions are done with the consideration of what is best for everyone. Social constructivism weakens both because it states that a person actions are socially constructed, that agents and structures such as NGOs, IOs, and activists control our actions. I believe that social constructivism can explain a great deal about how the world is. These social agents have a great deal of control over how we act and what we do. Because it takes other things such as intersubjective knowledge and social actions into account. Social constructivism takes more into account when explaining world affairs and because of this I feel it is one of the better ways of looking at International Relations.
-Matt Atkinson
Social constructivism does do a lot of damage to the theories of liberalism as well as realism, but for different reasons. Social constructivism in a nut shell states that people are the ones that recognize whether something is real or not. Social constructivism means that everything is anarchaic, because there is no rhyme or reason to what people may or may not believe. The power is in the hands of the people to decide what reality is. Therefore this entire theory states that everything is only real in the sense of accepting it. Thus knowledge is anarchaic. Realism is based on the principles of power, on the ability of one nation to survive over another. If power is anarchaic and defined only by ones self, then realism cannot be backed. Liberalism works on the principles that humans have a desire to be good, for self betterment. However since social constructivism weakens the institutions through which one may better themselves. Making them all essentially up for debate as to whether or not they help the collective. Therefore social constuctivism weakens, due to a weakening of the agents and structures that it weakens in the process. It weakens agents which thusly weakens realsim. While also weakening structures or institutions, thusly weakening liberalsim. Social constructivism is good for visualizing ideas, it does not help to explain the ideas themselves, rather it weakens them.
- Christopher Fromme
I think social constructivism is the best approach to international society in that we create the society. The only way something has value is based solely on what we give it and agree upon. If we want a new society, we can create one as the rules shift. In the case of Realism, the rules are pretty concrete in nature. This limits the possibilities of the society and the norms expressed within it. For Liberalism, there are ideas and it is moving towards cooperation. This cooperation does not necessarily construct the society because the ideas have to change in order to create the society. For SC, you can change without cooperation to construct your thoughts on the society. Because of the shifting feasibility, I feel as though it is the best way to approach an international society.
Michael Molaski
I think it helps to explain both realism and liberalism. Though it does weaken them in the sense that it can explain that neither can be the the end all be all explanation of the actors in the world. It seems to explain the actions of the world better then realism and liberalism themselves.It seems rational that people will act upon how they feel others will act. So, if they feel that the world is in a realist mind sense then they will also become a realist entity and vice versa. The problem is it leaves out the possibility of an actor taking the chance of doing the opposite of how they perceive the world to be in hopes of the world converting to their choice. This may not be taking into account because the thought of this could be considered irrational. I am not a philosophy major, so, I may be wrong but it was an idea.
-Ryan Wallace
I feel that Social Constructivism explains the way the world is today the best way, Over liberalism and Realism. As we know realism is the idea that nations crave power, are insecure and the every other nation is out to get them. Liberalism is that humans are good and can work together to achieve one common goal which is peace. Construstivism explains how society makes the world the way that it is. Constructivism helps to explain norms in terms of agents and how over time those norms change. Also it is not a Theory. Constructivism helps to explain society and the way of life through norms.
-Andrew Unthank
It seems to me that the the fact that social constructivism is a description of the social process of today's world, with no assumptions involved, because it is not a theory, in of its self weakens the theories of liberalism and realism. Because both liberalism and realism are theories they depend on assumptions to make them work. Social constructivism claims that humans make the world function the way it does, by creating institutions that in turn alter the behavior of those included in the institutions. This would not work if the world was to tend towards anarchy, as is claimed by realists. It also weakens the theory of liberalism in that liberalists claim that we are capable of forming long cooperative relationships, but our institutions require us to follow through. So because of this the only reason that we can have institutions that have long cooperative relationships is because we have created institutions that require such behavior. Overall because both liberalism and realism are theories they will always have problems. Social constructivism will always be more correct because it is a description of what is seen.
--bethany kravitz
I think that viewing the world of international relations in the way of social constructivism weakens both realism and liberalism. I also think it is an effective way to view the world. The agents that “rule” the world do ultimately shape it. This is why I think you must look at social constructivism. Whether it is religion, culture or politics it is the different views of the world are a result of the people who live in the world. The outcome of these interactions sometimes ends in new institution, organization and even war. To put it simply, people who act on behalf of their own ideas and interpretations, ultimately change the social reality they are living in. I just think that social constructivism is a better approach to explaining what is happening on a world stage. Norms run the world we live in and the world around us, and I think the idea of social constructivism realizes that.
-Kimberly Renner
Social Constructivism makes a one size fits all interpretation of the way things work. The world is full of realists is that is what the world believes, and the world is full of Liberals if that is what the world believes. Obviously the actual constructions are a reality of society, i.e. we all believe that a $20 bill is worth $20, but does this thinking actually add anything? It seems more like something you hear to make people feel good - The world is only what you make of it.
-Geoff Andersen
I think social constructivism is a good way to describe the world. While an argument can be made for the world being realist, an equal argument can be made that the world in Liberal. Constructivism includes both theories. The best argument is that the world has been realist at times, such as during the cold war, and has been Liberal at times, such as after WWII, with the forming of the UN. Constructivism shows that the state of the world was determined by the leaders of the world at that time.
~Josh Shannon
Social Constructivism weakens both Liberalism and Realism, it allows a lot of leeway in defining a situation. Constructivism explains what realism and liberalism is, and how they work because it looks further into something other than just looking at what was prearranged. Also social constructive theory would explain that the world is in anarchy because that is the way we have made it. A social constructivist would argue that the world was not created in anarchy but developments overtime, which has lead, it to be this way.
-Brittany Monteiro
I do think that social constuctivism does weakens realism and liberalism. Realism and liberalism follow-thorugh with that idea but are much more concrete than social constructivism. If you look at IR with these two lenses instead of social construct. then the world is much more predictable for better or worse depending on these two lenses. However history has continued to show how unpredictable the world stage is. Does it engage solely on realists where every one is insecure because of anarchy or have there been instances where nations interact without any self interest such as in some world organiztions. Social const. explains the exceptions that occur within these two theories and does weaken them. The world is not predictable and does change which is why you cannot depend solely on these two theories. If there is something you can depend on with IR it is change, which is what social const. explains.
-Michelle Rana
I believe all three theories serve their own purpose to offer explanation for the interaction of sovereign states. I'm not sure I understand why social constructivism is placed in somewhat a different category then realism and liberalism. Realism are really the same thing but just different sides of the spectrum in regards to the assumptions on the essence of human nature. Social Constructivism merely takes these assumptions, or theories and offers ways around them. In that way it weakens the two theories by showing ways to elevate states above the basic ideas of human nature. Disregarding how we act and instead saying whether we are good or bad we can avoid simple problems with social constructed institutions.
Eric Mortensen-Nemore
Social constructivism does not particular weaken the theories of liberalism or realism. It just gives another approach or perspective. Realism and liberalism is very definitive and it leaves no room for question. Social constructivism, on the other hand, allows everyone to interpert actions and patterns in our past in their own way. No one point of view is better or stronger than the other. Realism consists of assumptions that are valid and true. People are selfish and nations should be acting to achieve balance of power. Liberalism also allows for the creation of international organization. Social constructivism is another perspective that is just taking hold and becoming popular in this point of time
-Roopa Sabesan
Constructivism weakens realism and liberalism because it points out that they are just assumptions about human nature. Realists say that people are naturally anarchic whereas Liberalists say that the world is really not that bad. Constructivists say that people make the world anarchic. Constructivists believe that the other two theories are just beliefs and people act on those beliefs and people determine what kind of world they live in by doing so.
-Eric Boruta
Social Constructivism weakens the theories of realism and liberalism. It states that all social structures and states,NGO's, and IO's, activists, and others are actors, and these actors are agents that create the structure. It weakens the belief that everything is anarchy, because in Social Contstructivism it is created for a purpose, and these actors have control over the structures that they create. There is no chaos. And Liberalism states that all people are basically good, and operates under the believe that people create these institutions for the benefit of the public good. Where as in constructivism these structures are not necessarily good or evil. They are created by these agents for a purpose, and whether it is inherently good or bad, is up to the people who make these structures.
The theory of social constructivism also, is about explaining change. Actors who are agents create structures and while agents can change the structures, the structures that they change can also change them as well. Therefore it can explain how things change within our political systems throughout the world, and how certain events in history can change the structures that we have set up. Also, I believe that Social Contstructivism is a better approach to international societies than realism or liberalism because it explains norms and how norms and beliefs created by agents can change and how they can change the agents themselves rather than have everything be so set in stone, or black and white like in realism or liberalism.
-Amanda McDonnell
Many would argue that constructivism indeeds weakens the arguments laid out by supporters of liberal and realist theory...but I personally feel consturctivism in a way feeds these two theories.
If we look at our world, especially in the past century, it is obvious many foreign policies (including our own) were based strongly around realist theory. We believed that the world was very anarchic, and that we needed to be careful in a world constantly locked in a power struggle.
Yet later in the century more liberalism became evident, especially as institutions like the UN became more significant in the international scene. And yet, there is still that ever present realist fear existing in our world. If social constructivism is true, then it is likely we have "created" or invented these ideas of human nature that are so deeply rooted in these two IR theories. But I don't believe that means we can just change. If we have a history, if we are raised and socialized to fear one another in the international scene...we cannot simply "realize" one day that, hey, we are only afraid of each other because we think so. It is not so easily manipulated, and as a result I don't think constructivism weakens either realism or liberalism, because we as humans have created a world where we believe things that go along with these theories. More or less, realism and liberalism explain where we stand in a world where we can set our own norms...if we believe and our taught certain things, simply realizing this will not change it. It would take years to alter such thought, while realism and liberalism are used to explain the past and likely near present quite well.
-Nick Sarlo
social constructivism is exactly what the word states; it explains how society is constructed based on norms and beliefs within the society. this is the best way to understand the world today compared to the theories of realism and liberalism because it explains the relations of each society based on their policies and morals. realist believe that every country should take any measures necessary to gain power. liberls believe that humans are good and there should never be war.
ddepina
Social Constructivism, In my opinion, is a more adequate way to explain the world and society. Constructivism says that people dictate the way society will run and the norms of the people, making the people in control. Liberlisim feels that people need materials and institutions to fillfull society. Realism feels that fear is power. Constructivism is more conducive to understanding any society, because it can be related to how any group of people think. Liberalism applies to liberalist, and Realism applies to Realists. All in all constructivism appears to be broader theory.
---Elizabeth Lodge
Post a Comment