Session 18: Constructivism FTW

'What is' and 'what ought to be' is a dichotomy which has persisted in all my political science classes for some time. If I had a penny for every time one of my political science instructors said, 'Ah, but that's not how it transpires in the real world,' my pockets would be substantially heavier. This phrase often left me wondering whether there was any point of poring over all those theories, trying to deconstruct and understand them; if at the end of the day they would be dismissed with the statement: that's just in theory. In such times of confusion, nay abject hopelessness, I turned the page of my course pack to the reading titled: International Norm Dynamics and Political Change and *poof!* the confusion finally dissipated.  

Briefly, the reading makes three arguments. Firstly, it talks about how the increasing ideational influence in recent years is not a new phenomenon; rather, it is a return to a previously established practice. Behavioral revolution was the cause of the shift away from normative traditions due to its emphasis on measurement. This fixation with ‘quantification’ got further intensified due to the increasing amalgamation of economic methods with politics. This union furthered the separation between norms and politics. However, because of these influence the methodological aspect, specifically, the empirical research component of political science saw massive improvements.

The paper then goes on to expound on the life cycle of norms which involves three stages. Lastly, they make use of the concept of ‘strategic social construction’ to show that contrary to popular belief, rationality and norms are not binary opposites.

The reason why this reading was so intriguing is because of the ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ clash. This is not only true for political science, but for life in general. I have been at the end of many heated exchanges with my peers where my last statement usually is, ‘but that’s not how it’s supposed to be!’ and their sympathetic gaze and reply, which goes along the lines of, ‘yes, but that’s just how it is.’ This reading, in my opinion, goes beyond politics. Like Rida mentioned, it validates all the seemingly little battles which we all engage in order to uphold what we deem is right and should be, but what others don’t bother with because they deem it as part of the system.

Really liked the little that I read of this piece and as soon as I get over with my quiz filled week, I intend to devote time to the entire article.