The statements that was definitely related to me was:
1. Holt (referring to Brigid): "Learning a new language will develop a new personality."
And yes, I can definitely relate this to myself. I have different personalities and identities when I am speaking English and Japanese. When I am in a English speaking environment, I tend to get shy and I cannot speak up a lot during class. However, when I am in a Japanese speaking environment, I am in a position to make people laugh, and I am definitely more social.
2. Eli: "The was people speak English is being modified and unified as time passes."
This was interesting to listen to, because I think it is the opposite in Japan. Since Japanese is only spoken in Japan, people still have dialects in certain places. However, we think dialects as one of the cultures and traditions, and we value them still today (I don't speak any dialects though, I wish. They are cute.) Therefore, I could conclude that the size and popularity of the language affects the variety of how people speak certain languages.
Is constructivism portrayed as idealistic & utopian? Constructivism is the thought that the world is structured socially. Therefore, it is often referred to as ontology and epistemology. Usually the definitions are not fixed, and it has possibilities to change their definitions according to the thoughts and beliefs people have the idea. This can relate to the article we read for the discussion on Monday. Social norms and relations can be changed as time passes according to a constructivist. Therefore, I can understand that people's identity can be changed too.
For an example, the United States and United Kingdom holding 500 nuclear weapons, and North Korea holding 5 nuclear weapons give different impacts to the International society today. This image is caused because of the difference in the social relationship between the US-UK relationship, and North Korea-United States relationship. Also, I can state that shared knowledge created within the nation will strictly affect building the founding image of a certain country.
Also, in constructivism, identity plays a large role. All the actions by the nation must come along with the country's identity. In small countries, their goal might be to "survive". On the other hand, in larger countries, their goal might to be to control other countries politically, economically, and military. This shows a great difference between Realism, because in Realism the balance of power between nation-state are the priority.
I want to use the example of Climate Strikes to show the difference between Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. First of all, constructivists would think climate strikes are effective because eventually part of the government will listen to the voice of the public and provoke actions. However, liberals will view climate strikes as ineffective because they view economic growth and scientific solutions as their priority. Lastly, realists will view climate strikes also ineffective because of the damage it gives to the national interest.
Overall, I think I will conclude that constructivism is portrayed as idealistic. (It was funny how on Monday many classmates were looking at me when talking about different languages. Yes, I should have talked (maybe), but I have my blog to talk to so ◡̈⃝)
I really your point that identity plays a part in constructivism and how a nation's action (rather than behavior) is also shaped by its constructed identity. However, you never explained why you concluded that constructivism is portrayed as idealistic...so why is it idealistic as compared to liberalism and realism?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you brought up a really good point, and it was actually something I had thought about in class (although in a slightly different context). Lots of people talked about homogenizing norms or behaviors- like CJ copying the polite mannerisms of the South, or English and German speakers forming one dialect. What we didn't consider enough in class is the divergence of norms, even through shared experiences and increased social interaction. I think that when we think about learning from other norms and cultures, we mostly think copying. However, we also need to consider the idea of negative learning- looking at a policy and learning what NOT to do. Either way, I think constructivism is more applicable to the modern world because of our communication capabilities.
ReplyDeleteDear ym,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how Holt tied constructivism to linguistics. The nexus of the two seems to have struck a chord with many individuals and inspired a lot of substantive, epistemic discussion and blog posts. I have enjoyed conversing with you in the past about Japan and Indo-Pacific affairs. That being said, to roll a ball into your court, I wonder how a constructivist would view the ongoing tensions between Japan and South Korea…