Compare And Contrast The Constructivist And Liberal Point Of View Of War

The labeling theory, an example of constructivist perspective is the theory put forth to define how deviance is experienced and why people continue to be deviant. The labeling theory was developed by a group of sociologists in the 1960’s. It is a version of symbolic interactionism defining deviance as a collective action involving the acts of more than one person, and the

War has been a inseparable part of the human experience. Well for most of our specie’s existence at least. It was always a way to secure your interests when diplomacy hits a brick wall. However throughout the 20th century all that began to change. In this essay I will aim to explain how the perspective of war changed for the individual, the state and globally in the 20th century through reasons such as the democratization, globalization and the rise of more advanced weapons. This research question links with the topic “changing communities” as war affects the smallest community which in my option is the family to the largest which is the global community. The main body paragraphs

There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.

According to Hedley Bull, war is “organized violence waged by sovereign states” which was the outcome of a “process of limitation or confinement of violence” via the ethical doctrine of just war theory. Clausewitz classified warfare as not just an act, but also a social institution for obtaining ulterior objectives (e.g. political) and strategic lines of command within and between states. He defined the social relationship between forces and the elements of war (rationality, chance and violence). Martin Shaw claims that contemporary warfare has completely evolved so that the “core of the new mode of warfare is a different general relationship between war fighting and the political, economic, and cultural-ideological domains.” (Nowaczynski, J. (2012, December). E-International Can

In “One World, Rival Theories,” Jack Snyder argues classic international relations theories cannot singlehandedly explain U.S. foreign policy decisions. Rather, modern academics and politicians understand foreign policy through an “adjust[ment] of existing theories to meet new realities.” George W. Bush is often labeled realist based on his aggressive response to 9/11 terrorist attacks through hard power while Barack Obama champions a liberal worldview and utilizes soft power through multilateral institutions to employ joint air strikes and economic sanctions. While Snyder’s dialogue conveys that Bush’s foreign policy decisions in Iraq combine realist and liberal viewpoints, I maintain the Bush Administration did not successfully combine IR

The macrosystem is describing the cultural world along with ethnicity and the economic status. (Hutchison, 2016) Considering how I had a very wide range of diverse friends it helped me to develop and grow within my macrosystem. In my opinion, I feel that my macrosystem really needed to have a diverse background seeing as how when in the social work field, I will be working with all types of people, from different religious views and cultural background. I also feel the social constructionist perspective can go along with this system as well. According to Hutchison, social constructionist perspective helps see human understanding as the product and the driving force of social interaction. (Hutchison, 2016) During my junior leading up to my graduation

Realists’ argue, “Relations amongst human groups revolve around conflict” (Sens & Stoett, 2014, p.14). In America’s stance, this has been true to a certain extent. For example, the Libyan revolution would not have been possible without U.S. intervention.

Theories are the way people view things, like realism, constructivism, and liberalism. In the United States government, using every theory is essential to problem solving and understanding. When people look at something the way something truly is, and find a way to deal with it, is realism. When people use their own experiences to better understand something is constructivism. When people view things in which things need to change to get progress, is liberalism.

At the age of eight, I started to become the parent of my household. I was responsible for cooking, packing lunches, taking care of my family, and cleaning the house. Growing up with these responsibilities influenced how I interacted with my peers and how I managed my relationships with others. The environmentally influence being a parent in my house has shaped me into the person I am today and has taught me many life lessons. I became the parental influence of the household because my mother got severely sick and could not handle the roles as a mother or wife.

When we are born our mind is a blank chalkboard. As we grow and interact with the world around us, that chalkboard gets filled with pictures, shapes, and words that construct our ideals in life. It is important that not only we, but our children be surrounded by open minded positivity. In the article that I will analyze we can clearly see where the picture for a better tomorrow goes rye.

Introduction - Analysis of U.S. grand strategy during the Vietnam War cannot be fully understood without placing it in the context of the Cold War and the foreign policy of “containment.” In this context, details indicate that realist, liberalist, and constructivist theories all contributed to U.S. grand strategy at the time. However, more detailed analysis reveals that, while defensive realism was guiding foreign policy during this period of the cold war, offensive realism was the predominant theory guiding U.S. grand strategy in Vietnam.

President Bush invaded Iraq (going against the wishes of many other countries) based off of the thought that they had nuclear weapons and were planning to give them to terrorists, but he was mistaken. Even though the war may have been fought eventually either way, the fact that they were wrong about the main reason for the strike is worrisome. Preemptive strikes should only be carried out when countries have undeniable, hard proof that an enemy is going to stage a powerful attack immediately. In this part in the fragile study of war ethics, no matter what the fight is about, the end must always justify the means. Because the preemptive strike was not just, I do not fully believe that the Iraq War was just, especially with the escalations in violence as it went on. As for the Afghanistan War, it is harder for me to decide whether or not it is just. We initially officially attacked because of the September 11, 2001 attack, but our actions during the war (such as the large number of civilian deaths, the abuse against Afghans, and the slow reconstruction efforts) were decidedly not just. It is more difficult to decide which of these conflicts are the most honorable. I do believe that both of these wars had a more just cause than the Vietnam War, because we actually had significant reasons to start thee conflicts, not just some need to contain and control another country. I do not, however, believe we had just authority. In fact, I believe that the “levels” of just authority are about the same when it comes to these three conflicts. The just intention is a bit harder to figure out as well, because even though the combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been formally ended, there are still thousands of troops in both countries. Although the United States has technically completed our original mission, we are

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.

Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.