 |
Shotter v. Constructivism
|
I think that Shotter believes constructivism to be “idealistic,” however, in my opinion, it is neither “idealistic” nor “utopian.”
In general, I perceived constructivism to be how a person’s decision based on their belief or environment can create possibilities without concrete outcomes. For instance, when Shotter mentioned that people must act in a general way since society deemed specific standards (162), this insinuates that with these standards, the people are not restricted to a particular path. In other words, people are allowed to pursue numerous options if it aligns with the social norm. Hence, that is the uncertainty of predict how a person may act without considering their behavior (which does not apply to constructivism). An example of this is voting. Citizens have the right to vote for whom they consider being the best candidate, which usually tends to be those that align with the voter’s belief—or their area. For instance, you could gather the Global Scholar cohort and ask where they are from, and what do the political identify themselves. As I gather this information, I could speculate which candidate each GloScho would vote for. However, the flaw in this is that there are several flaws in this prediction. If a person states that they are a Republican from Montana, they will not necessarily vote for the Republican candidate because they may think a Democratic candidate offers better polices. Thus, predictions do not work in a constructivism system.
Furthermore, constructivism is also the social order of interactions and discussions. For instance, Shotter mentioned that the act of a parent to a child, a teacher to a student, etc. fosters a relationship since there seems to be a governor and a subject (163). In other words, what Shotter attempted to state here is that in a society, there are roles that everyone plays. Depending on the environment, a person’s roles may alter. For example, in PTJ’s class, I am a student, and I must respect his authority. However, once I step out of the room, that authority is not precedent, hence, I am allowed to covert my role to a college student, which signifies that there is not a person who presumes authority over me, instead of what society expects me to be a good citizen.
According to Google, it defines “utopian” as “modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect.” As mentioned above, I attempted to disprove that constructivism is not concrete as perhaps realistic or liberal views. Shotter has “standards” that he perceives to be essential in constructivism. However, these standards are believed to be rigid, as in, it is difficult for society to break from it and create new standards. It is not impossible; however, it takes time to do so. In other words, if a society decided that a particular standard does not apply anymore, it can convert from one to another new standard. Hence, this proves that there is no consistency in constructivism. Thus, constructivism is not “utopian” or “idealistic” since change is achievable.
All in all, constructivism is a different method than we were previously introduced. It is not the same as realism or liberalism. However, constructivism is more common than I expected. ☼
Hey Avq, you argue that conditions have to be constant in order to be utopian, so could a Machiavellian society be considered utopian even though it is a very power-hungry society with a rigid hierarchy?
ReplyDeleteHey Peanut Butter M Jelly, I feel that it also depends on the circumstance. For instance, in a Machiavellian society, the main objective of the country is to obtain as much power as possible. This can be seen as utopian since now days it does not seem possible to obtain as much land as a country desires. For instance, if France decided that they wanted to conquer all of Western Europe, they would have difficulties in doing so since there are sovereign nations with powerful armies ready to retaliate at any given moment. However, I also acknowledge that a situation similar to this occurred in the previous century with Germany. However, after World War II, the world learned that that cannot occur again. Furthermore, in our current day politics, there are not many countries that solely abide their policies in a Machiavellian's point of view. Now, countries usually consider the sovereignty of the nation. Hence, in a way it can seem utopian.
Delete