This week we had a first look at three
approaches to realism: liberalism, critical liberalism, and constructivism. The
Wendt article critiques social constructivism and the possibility of change is
addressed from the standpoint of institutional transformation. I wanted to use
this blog post to look into the question: does constructivism mean that all
things are constantly changing and unstable? Does change suggest unsteady role
identities? Wendt comments on the power politics behind constructivism being, “
socially constructed [boundaries] that do not guarantee malleability.” The reason
for its perceived inflexibility seems to be that systematic change ‘reinforces
certain behaviors and discourages others within self-help systems’ (Wendt 411).
That being said, I don’t see exactly how socially constituted preferences can
be seen as an unpredictable approach to the realist position because there is a
focus on relationships and role play when one eliminates a top-down approach to
international development. Agents reproduce identities based on association: socially
informed modes of personhood beget community involvement. To me, this could be
a position of atheism, Confucianism, or any front against dualistic worldviews.
Interesting Observation Greg. I guess the hope is that ideas bouncing off each other continuously add to a general knowledge. I can see how removing hierarchy from the roles could be confusing and slowing down progress. Inherently we are mean to categorize knowledge, single out ideas, examine them and test them in real life.
ReplyDelete