Lets Pump the Brakes

Is constructivism, as portrayed and presented by Shotter, “idealistic” and “utopian”? Are the critics missing something, or are they essentially correct? Feel free to consider specific examples if that helps you make your argument.

The best way to approach this question is to present two different trains of thought. Using an example, the first train will explore why “rhetorical-responsive constructivism” is not inconceivable. The second will, however, take a different stance, divulging deeper into a micro-analysis of society and what drives any human.

To all the skeptics out there, constructivism is not as unrealizable as you may think. On a large scale, the idea of rhetorical-responsive constructivism is efficient. Allow me to use a watered-down analogy to explain why this idea may be practical. A farmer must trade with a rancher in the area. In exchange for some beef, the rancher will provide the farmer with access to a valuable water source. A realist would view this as the perfect opportunity for the rancher to leverage the farmer. By threatening not to come to a deal, the rancher could possibly jeopardize the farmer’s future meat and vegetable production. A liberalist would attempt to exercise comparative advantage, with an emphasis on reaching a deal regardless of the hurdles. Contrastingly from the two, a constructivist would look at this situation in a different way. He would view it as an opportunity for the rancher and farmer to set a future precedent and create a lasting relationship. The rippling effects of this relationship would create a “social order” between the two parties for generations to come. Building this infrastructure (a social order of sorts) would allow both parties to benefit.

Yeah…. Um right about now is where I begin to “Pump the Brakes.”

This all sounds great until you sit back and realize, it is rare that humans think long-term. Fueled by self-interest, the farmer and the rancher would be damned if they felt like they were giving up too much. Realistically, what would happen is that both would go separate ways and find a more favorable TEMPORARY deal. The critics are right, Shotter’s constructivism is far too “utopian.” No matter how great the idea of rhetorical-responsive constructivism may seem on a macro-level, it fails to consider human nature. People inherently do not value dialogue and discussion. They intrinsically value power and advancing self-interest. Sadly, it is quite apparent that these ingrained human desires are going nowhere.