Throughout this class, we have focused on three different lenses through which political scientists view and interpret state actions: constructivism, realism and liberalism. But of course, this raises the question, does asserting one of these mean you do so to the exclusion of the other two? The answer, like so much in life, is a mix.
Once upon a time, I had an ethics teacher (if one can teach ethics) who posed a question to class: what is it always, under every circumstance can everyone agree is wrong to do? The answer is: nothing. There are almost no black and white issues in the world today, especially in the field of international affairs. For example, when handed the prompt in class on Tuesday I complained to PTJ about having to argue against an idea I agreed with. But after exploring and developing a counter-argument to the constructivist notion, I found myself actually supporting the liberal argument. But I still think the constructivist notion has substantial merit.
So, I would posit that all views have varying degrees of merit depending on the situation. Sometimes an issue can be as black and white as 99% realist but still 1% constructivist. So, an honest and unbiased observer would be able to see the various facets of the situation and how they apply to each theory. Some people will, of course, only see certain sides of an issue but taking a step back should reveal that all views have something to offer. That said, constructivism is just plain silly.
No comments:
Post a Comment