Alexander Wendt in his book suggests to broaden the scope of the way the field of IR is studied by suggesting an alternative theory for studying the international realm. The author argues for the use of the social constructivist in viewing states as being created and influenced by ideas. Unlike materialism which gives the inherent structure as given Wendt favors the idealistic approach, which states that human interactions and organizations are shaped by common ideas or ideals. The author also stresses on the point that the personality and identity of the actors in the system are constructed due to the structure or by the common ideals that they share. This 'idealism' combined with 'structuralism' is what Wendt regards as the two basic tenets of constructivism.
The author in his book then talks about four different sociologies of international politics and how different epistemological and ontological premises can affect the course and view of things. The author agrees that to a certain extent materialism may provide certain necessities. However, after a certain extent the author regards the structure or reality created as being the products of social construction and subject to change also through ideological fluxes. Emphasis is then put on using this concept and a kind of improvement for the field of international relations is suggested through the use of it. The process or study though based on an ideological basis is to be accompanied by the use of scientific inquiry and process in order for its development. The author then discusses the dynamics of the constructionist model and presents arguments against its tenets as well. Furthermore, the agents responsible for changing the social structure are discussed alongside with a view of culture that resembles a sort of 'self-fulfilling prophecy', but nonetheless allows room for change. The author also talks about corporate agency and the way structures influence and bestow certain personalities. Overall, the author aims at changing the way students of the field perceive events and institutions around them and providing a coherent framework for achieving the task that the author has set upon achieving.
I personally loved the piece, because it provides a view of affairs that corresponds to what I've studied so far and also complements what I've studied in other courses. The social construction of nature and ideals can be best shown through what I learned about the materialist and socially constructed nature of Pakistan in Umair Javed's lectures on Pakistan studies. The case of Pakistan can be compared to this theory in an interesting manner. The sudden 1940 "National/Muslim" hype can form the basis as a structural idea which the people then viewed as a given or reality carrying in till date in the form of the identity of a Pakistani. Also, the liberation or regional movements can be viewed as the use of the ideological will by the people to change the given structure. This goes on to show both the dual relationship that the structure and will have in creating a sort of reality.
The author in his book then talks about four different sociologies of international politics and how different epistemological and ontological premises can affect the course and view of things. The author agrees that to a certain extent materialism may provide certain necessities. However, after a certain extent the author regards the structure or reality created as being the products of social construction and subject to change also through ideological fluxes. Emphasis is then put on using this concept and a kind of improvement for the field of international relations is suggested through the use of it. The process or study though based on an ideological basis is to be accompanied by the use of scientific inquiry and process in order for its development. The author then discusses the dynamics of the constructionist model and presents arguments against its tenets as well. Furthermore, the agents responsible for changing the social structure are discussed alongside with a view of culture that resembles a sort of 'self-fulfilling prophecy', but nonetheless allows room for change. The author also talks about corporate agency and the way structures influence and bestow certain personalities. Overall, the author aims at changing the way students of the field perceive events and institutions around them and providing a coherent framework for achieving the task that the author has set upon achieving.
I personally loved the piece, because it provides a view of affairs that corresponds to what I've studied so far and also complements what I've studied in other courses. The social construction of nature and ideals can be best shown through what I learned about the materialist and socially constructed nature of Pakistan in Umair Javed's lectures on Pakistan studies. The case of Pakistan can be compared to this theory in an interesting manner. The sudden 1940 "National/Muslim" hype can form the basis as a structural idea which the people then viewed as a given or reality carrying in till date in the form of the identity of a Pakistani. Also, the liberation or regional movements can be viewed as the use of the ideological will by the people to change the given structure. This goes on to show both the dual relationship that the structure and will have in creating a sort of reality.
Good post and I particularly liked the Pakistan bit. It's interesting that your brought the idea of Pakistan up, especially since this issue was also brought up in class. Pakistan was merely an idea and now people are willing to die for it. It just goes to show how powerful ideas truly are.
ReplyDelete