First Response Paper: Baylie Rubin

The Modern World and Constructivism

In international relations class, we have discussed the different political theories that have come about throughout history. Specifically, the class has talked at length about political realism, liberalism, and constructivism. We have also engaged in discussion over feminism and the characteristics that made up the feudal state. One thing that stood out to me during class discussion was the noticeable differences between realism and constructivism. While they are both political theories, realism focuses much more on security of states, anarchy, power and war. Constructivism, in contrast, focuses on state identity, community, and societal cultures and norms. They both have good aspects and problematic aspects, however I believe that constructivism should primarily be used in foreign policy today because of its peaceful ideals, optimism, and because it has a broader appreciation of the role that a state’s culture has in foreign policy.

            Realism and constructivism are two differing political theories, and they both have different sets of central ideas. Realism’s central ideas are power, security, anarchy, and it can be seen as a more pessimistic view of foreign policy. On the other hand, constructivism’s central ideas are of social construction, history, and identity. Realism preaches the idea that the only goal of every state is to aquire power. Without the acquisition of power, states would collapse and crumble. For this reason, physical survival of states through the gains of power are the most important thing, and take priority over everything else. A state’s power comes through it’s relative power over every other state, and in a realists perspective, there is no such thing as a world where war does not exist. Realists believe that these principles are timeless and never changing. They believe this because in a realist perspective, states are never at ease. They are always competing to see who can have the most relative power over one another. States do this through the balance of power. If one state has too much power relative to other states (whether it’s economic or military power), the other states will try to balance it by waring with the state to keep order and make sure domination doesn’t happen.

            Constructivism, in contrast, doesn’t theorize that the only thing states want is power over one another. Instead, one theory that constructivism has is that the world in which we live in is socially constructed. Everything we know, every fact that is believed to be true, is fabricated and created. Nothing is ever simply “fact” because that fact has to have come from somewhere or someone. In other words, people and states can manipulate history and facts whichever way they please, so history is malleable and always changing and morphing into something different depending on where you are. To go along with this, constructivism believes that the future can be changed. They believe that states can learn from the past and be able to shape the future in a more peaceful way if they so choose to. Constructivists also see that individual identities are important in international politics. All of these constructivist values come together to create a political theory that embraces change and that believes in states having a sense of self.

            Realism and constructivism are different theories as I talked about above. While realism has some aspects that make sense, I think constructivism is a much better political theory to utilize in modern day society. It’s peaceful ideals are better for the modern world because I don’t believe that many states want to war with each other anymore. It might be true that war is never going to go away, as the realist perspective would tell us.  However, I don’t think states want to go to war. War is a very disrupting force that can destroy economies and ways of life. Since the world is so globalized and connected, a war in one country can have effects that reach across the globe in unexpected ways. Constructivism understands that war is always a possibility, but it allows the idea that war doesn’t have to take place. In this way, constructivism can be seen as a peaceful foreign policy theory.

            Constructivism also understands the role that states individual cultures can have on how states interact. They believe that identity is what really forms interests, whether it’s your race, demographic, religion, and so on. The identity of individuals in a state can influence who that state wants to be allies or enemies with. I really like thinking about states in this way, because when you think of a state as actual people, it creates more understanding and cooperation between the states. In the past, you were an American or British or Canadian before anything else. Now, you’re your own person. You just happen to live in America or England or Canada. The world is shifting towards understanding and communication and constructivism’s emphasis on the individual really compliments that newfound understanding that states want to have.

            Realism and constructivism both have aspects that are understandable and valid. However, international politics is so much more nowadays then trying to aquire power over other states. It's not about controlling and conquering, at least from the outside. I believe that international politics is much more about working together to help one another. Instead of imitating the past, it's about learning from the past and hopefully creating a better future for states. Constructivism makes this possible because it looks at situations peacefully and emphasizes the individual. This way, foreign policy can be productive and helpful.