I am pretty sure I am not the only one amongst us already
fed up with discussing Liberalism and Realism over and over again. Social
Constructivism is an attempt to explain the international structure by
Alexander Wendt by claiming that everything around is socially constructed
mainly through interaction. The author criticizes the theory of Liberalism and
Realism claiming that they are unable to alter to mould the system accordingly.
Of course that is the strength of Social Constructivism which claims that
structure in the international area can me moulded through the interaction of
states. For this the main agent has to
be the state. It is important to note that the author clarifies that unlike
Liberalism and Realism, the state has to be the main agent under Social
Constructivism.
However, it is important to find out the practicality of
this theory just like we for other two schools of thought. Talking about war, it is interesting to see
what is most likely to explain the occurrence of war. Does the anarchic
structure of the International relations explain fully the occurrence of war or
the interaction between states in certain scenarios is a better explanation?
Rationally thinking social constructivism does indeed make a lot of sense. At least the theory identifies particular
social interaction of states that could possibly lead to war. The theory does
not blame an unidentified identify as the reason why states go to war. Taking
the example of any war, like the cold war, the war was a result of two powerful
states interacting against each other, greedy for power, trying to establish
their authority on an international level.
Not only does Social Constructivism involve direct interaction
but also takes into account different values, beliefs and norms that are
involved in the decision making process. The fact that the theory claims that
structures can be moulded accordingly taking into account all the things
mentioned above, I think it a theory that explains best the scope of
International Relations.
i agree with you that the theory brings new options to the table of how politics in the world occurs. like you said that it identifies particular social interaction of states that possibly lead to war. Thus, it provides a solid base for the argument rather than vaguely putting the blame on unidentified factors, In fact, that is the beauty of the theory for it presents with an entirely new approach to study IR, which is both practical and unique.
ReplyDeleteHowever I would like to point out that Alexander Wendt does point out the valid points of other theories and does give them their due credit.
ReplyDeleteOkay post and I agree with Ali. Also, social constructivism cares less about structure and much more about ideational issues. I mean you sort of recognize that at the end of your piece, but I just want to make sure you're clear on this point.
ReplyDelete