The definition of "naive" (according to Google) is "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment." Constructivism, in the framework we discussed in class today, does not lack any of these qualities. The idea we covered the most today was social norms. These are pre-established conditions, roles, relationships, etc. that affect how we act. These affect and qualify how we experience reality and how we make judgments. As for wisdom, that requires knowledge, and I don't know if I would consider rhetoric, tradition, and community wisdom. These qualities are inherited, as mentioned in class, through a pre-determined environment. We gain wisdom and knowledge by interacting with and within other environments. Which brings me to my next point.
If rhetorical responsive constructivism believes that social order is derived from cultural discussions and interactions, I would argue that it is one of the most applicable to our world today. We have never been so connected. The Internet, modern transportation, and global trade have allowed for more interaction than ever before. Is it not worth considering how these interactions (and discussions, in essence) affect world politics? Our identities, even if they are rooted in historical precedent, are ever-changing as we become exposed to more ideas and perspectives.
While I'm still trying to flush out all of the schools of thought we have learned so far, I think what I understand about constructivism applies to the modern world; it makes sense that it is still pretty new. Consider the big issues that dominate our conversations on international relations/affairs/whatever: climate change, poverty, transnational crime, religious conflicts, etc. The way we approach these issues is determined by our identities. A small island nation will have a different take on the climate crisis than China. These issues are also not just matters of state. 26 of the wealthiest individuals own as much as the poorest 50% of the world. These individuals don't run states- they run companies. We must also consider that non-state actors are key players in the international arena.
Can this necessarily be solved through dialogue? One variable we consider in coming to college is diversity. Personally, I almost went to community college because of the high cost of attendance. But taking out federal loans instead of going to a cheap school was the right decision because I've been exposed to more perspectives and ideas. Also, haven't major issues been resolved through discussion and learning? Treaties and compromises are the product of engagement, discussion, and understanding. So doesn't it make sense that we wouldn't consider dialogue and interaction in international relations. Besides, how successful have wars been?
Is constructivism utopian? Maybe. Does that mean it's not worth pursuing?
If rhetorical responsive constructivism believes that social order is derived from cultural discussions and interactions, I would argue that it is one of the most applicable to our world today. We have never been so connected. The Internet, modern transportation, and global trade have allowed for more interaction than ever before. Is it not worth considering how these interactions (and discussions, in essence) affect world politics? Our identities, even if they are rooted in historical precedent, are ever-changing as we become exposed to more ideas and perspectives.
While I'm still trying to flush out all of the schools of thought we have learned so far, I think what I understand about constructivism applies to the modern world; it makes sense that it is still pretty new. Consider the big issues that dominate our conversations on international relations/affairs/whatever: climate change, poverty, transnational crime, religious conflicts, etc. The way we approach these issues is determined by our identities. A small island nation will have a different take on the climate crisis than China. These issues are also not just matters of state. 26 of the wealthiest individuals own as much as the poorest 50% of the world. These individuals don't run states- they run companies. We must also consider that non-state actors are key players in the international arena.
Can this necessarily be solved through dialogue? One variable we consider in coming to college is diversity. Personally, I almost went to community college because of the high cost of attendance. But taking out federal loans instead of going to a cheap school was the right decision because I've been exposed to more perspectives and ideas. Also, haven't major issues been resolved through discussion and learning? Treaties and compromises are the product of engagement, discussion, and understanding. So doesn't it make sense that we wouldn't consider dialogue and interaction in international relations. Besides, how successful have wars been?
Is constructivism utopian? Maybe. Does that mean it's not worth pursuing?
I really enjoyed your blog post this week Emilie! I think we can both agree that constructivism often leans towards utopian ideas. I definitely agree that although it is flawed, it is worth pursuing. Your section on interconnectedness due to social media today provides a great point towards the effectiveness of constructivism, however it also provides evidence towards the opposition. Social media, while effective in connecting us to one another, often is used as a weapon to divide. Social media is useful for extensive communication, but it often highlights our differences and gives rise to chaos. Historical precedence is essentially useless when discussing how to deal with newfound sense of connection. While constructivism is a new concept itself, it has yet to catch up with the technological innovations of today. While we might disagree on a few minor details I think we can both agree that there are some issues to be addressed regarding constructivism in international relations.
ReplyDelete