The theory of constructivism, as presented to us by Shotter, is inherently naive and idealistic. Constructivism, as a whole, relies on set precedence and believes in established social norms. Constructivism relies on the belief that actors in the international community will adhere to rules set by the international community. Although based on social theory, constructivism within Shotter's argument has numerous blind spots when it comes to human nature. This idea is shown in"an essential part of them being free individuals in modern society, is them being able to justify their actions to others when required to do so- they need a capacity to be able to articulate 'good reasons' for their conduct" (Shotter 162). I hate to keep bringing it up, but while reading this section of the reading, I couldn't stop thinking about The Athenian Thesis. Both texts discuss the motivations behind human nature and how they can be influenced. As presented in The Athenian Thesis, there is no divine power waiting in the afterlife to reward those who act morally correct.
Going along with this idea, members of society have nothing but social norms holding them in place. While we have to consider the impact of laws and the consequences of breaking these laws, societal standards hold significant influence over individual behavior. Anarchy often results from this lack of authority over their respective actions. The constructivist view of anarchy as a blank slate offers itself up to this contradictory cycle of human interaction. Members of society will always act in their self-interest and disregard the repercussions of their actions. This idea directly opposes that which Shotter proposed in his reading, and challenges the firm belief in social theory regarding participants in international discussions. Precedence alone can not be a sufficient justification for human conduct. States can not be held to the standards of yesterday when so much has changed within world politics. Treaties can not be ratified just because they have yielded positive results in the past. Alliances are not static, but ever-changing. The international community is continually evolving, and to hold it to a set structure of beliefs is inherently naive. I would, again, like to repeat that I am just forming my initial thoughts on constructivism, and I could be entirely wrong in my argument here. My introduction to constructivism through the Shotter reading led me to believe that it can lean towards a utopian mindset due to its reliance on convenience.
I find it super intriguing that you related the Athenian thesis to Shotter's article. I agree that constructivism relies on social norms and the Athenian thesis (justice is just a side effect of power) is based off the idea that people are selfish and will do anything for power. I wish you explained this idea more. I believe that the two are sort of hard to compare because constructivism is more of a social theory that can be applied to realism and liberalism while the Athenian thesis, which is a realist perspective, is more based on political theory. However, both concepts are based off human emotions of wanting power or of being good. Could you explain this more?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about people keeping within their society's social norms, and while at this moment I do not have anything to say about the anarchy, it is a thought I hadn't thought of before. But it is true that people act in their own interests. Your blog has made me think more upon the subject of constructivism, thank you.
ReplyDelete- Eli