Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink were the authors for the reading of session 18. Finnemore and Sikkink structure their argument around the idea and power of norms. Norms, it is argued, are the steering factor in human history. Previously we studied constructivism and its role in shaping the human discourse over centuries of history, and the crux of that argument was the power of ideas in shaping the narrative. Finnemore and Sikkink build on the same premise, implying that norms are built out of that same constructivist view point.
Norms are explained from a three tier view point, the three tiers including norm emergence, norm cascade and the internalization state. Norm emergence is the stage where norms rise into fore, while the cascade stage consolidates the norm into prominence, and finally, the internalization stage is the one where norms and normalized into society by being transformed into the widely held and accepted beliefs.
This body of work presents an interesting turn in our study of international relations thus far. While we have studied a vast body of work that advocates viewing the international realm through realism, which insists on the innateness of human nature and how that is the source of all conflict. Constructivism, for me, presents a very plausible argument in this regard. However, norms and their acceptance can be seen as more complex than just a product of a three stage process. While Finnemore and Sikkink realize the limitations of their school of thought, their argument of the interlinked nature of the domestic and international norms, and how this mix shapes human society is indeed interesting and one that holds great value in the study of international relations.
Norms are explained from a three tier view point, the three tiers including norm emergence, norm cascade and the internalization state. Norm emergence is the stage where norms rise into fore, while the cascade stage consolidates the norm into prominence, and finally, the internalization stage is the one where norms and normalized into society by being transformed into the widely held and accepted beliefs.
This body of work presents an interesting turn in our study of international relations thus far. While we have studied a vast body of work that advocates viewing the international realm through realism, which insists on the innateness of human nature and how that is the source of all conflict. Constructivism, for me, presents a very plausible argument in this regard. However, norms and their acceptance can be seen as more complex than just a product of a three stage process. While Finnemore and Sikkink realize the limitations of their school of thought, their argument of the interlinked nature of the domestic and international norms, and how this mix shapes human society is indeed interesting and one that holds great value in the study of international relations.
I'm glad you liked this piece and constructivism is a useful framework for understanding IR.
ReplyDelete