The Best Case For Constructivism

Evidently, constructivism provides a more optimistic outlook towards international politics. The static view taken by the realist theory places balance of power as an inevitable consequence of the international system wherein chaos is unavoidable, resulting in war and conflict. On the other hand, constructivists believe that conflict is not inevitable, rather threats of conflict can be extinguished through the analysis and restructuring of identities. In brief, whilst constructivists accept the presence of anarchy in the international system, they argue that its effects are dependent on the subjective meanings we place on it.

The English School (ES) of international studies is a modern and unique spectrum to the study of international relations (IR), because it is prominent, relevant and inclusive of the main elements in the other IR theories such as classical Realism, Neorealism, Marxism, Liberalism (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009), Globalization (Buzan, 2004), Humanitarianism and Positivism IR theories (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, p.2-3). The ES of IR is built on the notion of “international society”, in which the states are the primary actors, engaging, co-operating and conversing to produce joint strategies, interventions and arrangements which help to maintain their inter-relations and shared interests to resolve matters (Cornelia Navari, p. 1). The ES embraces the social aspect through dialogue between players on the international politics arena with recognition of sovereignty, solidarity, level of power and leverage, self-interests and competitiveness each state holds in the international realm. It is therefore not a system like most other IR theories but the methodology for contemporary international conversation (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009 p. 3) between two or more states when necessary within the global framework of laws, international institutions and customary aspects (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, pp.3-4). In the 1984 publication ‘The Expansion of International Society’, the classic ES definition is

Rationality, in International Relations, refers to how states implement foreign policies to reach its certain goals. In the film, McNamara explains his conversation he had with Communist Cuban leader Fidel Castro regarding Castro’s acknowledgement that Cuba would have been destroyed by the United States if Soviet Union had not retracted their nuclear weapons. To McNamara’s surprise, rational leader Castro expressed his full acknowledgement and confessed that he was willing to let his country destroyed. Based on that conversation, McNamara concludes that rationality sometimes leads to unnecessary deaths of citizens, and that is not okay because human lives and their rights matter. In the article, One World, Rival Theory, John Snyder asserts, “Constructivism often echoes the theme human rights and international justice activist sound.” McNamara’s conclusion matches with Constructivism, and his lesson is useful because it warns people to think twice about their foreign policies and consider the

Constructivism is the learning theory that focuses on observation by acquiring data and thereafter reexamining, altering, and updating information to be useful in the present time. Humans process experiences, knowledge, and conception of life based on their impressions of their past. As individuals experience an unfamiliar event, they will attempt to integrate it with their knowledge and past, therefore replacing old outdated or incorrect data with new more pertinent information (Kerka, 1997). This learning theory states that learning is an ongoing process and not about merely comprehending available data without questioning, processing, and updating previously learned information (Allen, 2005).

The discipline of international relations (IR) is one that has witnessed a multitude of variations and shifts. It has produced a fair amount of debate between academics within the international relations scholarship. Due to a plethora of circumstances scholars have subjected the traditional rationalist theories of neorealism and neoliberalism to critical re-evaluations. As a result, constructivism is a concept that has emerged as an alternative approach to dominant IR theories. It focuses on the importance of state identities in defining and gaining knowledge of state interests, actions and goals. There are theorists who purport that the rise of constructivism allows for a further understanding of another international theory, feminism.

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

At what point does a student, in all intents and purposes, experience something mathematical? Does it symbolise a student that can remember a formula, write down symbols, see a pattern or solve a problem? I believe in enriching and empowering students’ mathematical experiences that fundamentally stems from a Piagetian genetic epistemological constructivist model that allow students to scaffold their learning through cognitive processes that are facilitated by teaching in a resource rich and collaborative environment (Thompson, 1994, p.69).

Instead, constructivists argue that the most important aspect in deciphering international relations is ideas and how they are interpreted. The Great War can thus be view from a number of perspectives. Under a Marxist view it can be seen as a conflict perpetuated by capitalistic tendencies of competition among the bourgeois among Europe and fought by the oppressed proletariat. (Marx 13). It can be just as likely to interpreted its outbreak as a family feud among the grand children of Queen Victoria. For Constructivist Theory, ideas and norms dictate how states behave and are only important when states deem it as important. Constructivism as a result is based on much more abstract ideals than the other theories. Such can include economics, as is the case for Marxism; it could also be based socially, such as the claim that the European powers chose to go to war with each other in order to quell unrest among their own populations, which at that time is becoming more and more politically fragmented. As Alexander Wendt states in his article “Anarchy is what States Make of It”, “All theories of international relations are based on social theories of the relationship between agency, process, and social structure. Social theories do not determine the content of our international theorizing, but they do structure the questions we ask about world politics and our approaches to answering those questions.” (Wendt 1992) This approach in short focuses on social constructs humans project and how they relate to the way interactions take place. Because of the interpretive flexibilities inherent in Constructivist Theory, WWI could be interpreted a number of ways through Constructivist

This paper presents a theoretical model of online instruction and learning to mirror a constructivist approach to education. Constructivism is a common approach to learning and more and more districts are employing online learning environments in its schools. Course content and delivery elements are explored as they apply specifically to online learning in a K-12 environment. Other components of the construction of a web-based learning environment includes student motivation, student assessment, and the role the teacher plays in the online environment. The findings of this research paper depicted that whether learning takes place completely in an online course, or as part of a blended approach to learning, there still needs to be a strong structural foundation for the online learning environment to be effective. Overall, interaction between the teacher and learners, as well as peer interaction, is critical to the success of any online learning.

An example of constructivist thinking would be that ISIS is both a product of terrorists deciding that ISIS exists, and also a product of governments around the globe deciding that it exists.

Anne Applebaum makes use of a Constructivist argument in her article “Erdogan, Putin, and the Strongmen ties that bind.” Postmodernism, Critical theory and Constructivism overlap and Applebaum tends to use both a postmodernist and critical theorist approach, but she predominately questions like a constructivist: what does abstract terms and definitions mean, why do human beings behave in certain ways, how do these constructed definitions contribute to why certain social phenomena occur, and do constructivists have a certain ethical standpoint or are they prone to be in conflict of the definition of ethics because it is a constructed term?

Closely related to constructivists’ core ontological claim is a second claim: the social setting – that which they construct – provides social agents with “understanding of their interests;” the social setting “constitutes” those interests (Checkel, 1998: 326). Social agents, thus, “bear identities, rights[,] and obligations (to name a few) in their own consciousness (Adler, 1997: 325).” As such, ideas have “structural characteristics;” they are the “medium and propellant of social action; they define the limits of what is cognitively possible and impossible for individuals (Adler, 1997: 325; emphasis added).” And, more than simply delimiting that which is “cognitively possible and impossible,” intersubjectively shared ideas also delimit

Many theories and explanations explaining the actions and existence of ISIS, and how it might be overcome in order to ensure the safety and security of countries worldwide. Two competing theories – realism and constructivism – give us much to consider about how we understand and react current events and future ones: “How a state manages those opportunities and obligations depends on its definition of the threat, its understanding of the players involved, and its assumptions about capabilities and responses both at home and abroad. In other words, a state must make a decision to balance the hard facts of realism with the potential of a more liberal foreign policy.” (Buros, 2011). Another thing to consider is the rest of the community: “How a state responds to that threat relies on basic assumptions made regarding the threat, capabilities of themselves and their allies, and the willingness of the international community to acquiesce to perceived aggression.” (ibid). Generally put, the proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) flourished with instability and a weak government in Iraq. With previous ties to Al Qaeda, its involvement in fighting against Bashar al-Assad and capture of land in Iraq and Syria, coupled with extreme violent methods and rhetoric gave the region enough to be concerned about. How this occurred can be explained a few ways.

Social constructivism emerged in the mid-1990s, after the end of Cold War. Although it has been seen as a 'young ' theory in International Relations, it has challenged the two dominant theories – realism and liberalism. It also provided new theoretical openings to understand the International Relations. Social constructivists tried to establish a “middle ground” between rationalism and poststructuralism. Unlike realism, social constructivism claims that material capabilities of states, such as military power, is not the only essential factor in International Relations. It also concentrates on other non-material factors, including identity, culture, ideas, norms, institutions and interests. Moreover, it believes that the interaction of structures and agency is a key in explaining the international politics. However, not every social constructivists agree with the same themes of the theory. There is contestation. According to Ted Hopf (1998), social constructivism can be divided into two categories. The first type is the conventional constructivism, in other words, the 'weak ' constructivism. The second type is the critical constructivism, which is also called poststructuralism. In this essay, I am going to discuss the limitations of the weak form of social constructivism from the perspectives of other approaches, such as the critical constructivism and rationalism. The other approaches can indicate the deficiency of the weak form of social constructivism.

Teachers who have a constructivist basis for their philosophy of teaching and learning are seldom satisfied to use textbooks alone. Constructivists know that students must have motivation to search for meaning and create their own understanding of the world of ideas. When students want to know more about an idea, a topic, or an entire discipline, they put more cognitive energy into classroom investigations and discussions and study more on their own.