Constructivism & International Relations In Asia

As a theory of international relations, constructivism arose as a critique of existing  approaches. Scholars began working in this new vein in the 1980s and 1990s, taking aim  at the rationalist arguments of liberals and realists who have long argued that patterns  of international relations could best be explained by examining actors’ material interests. These rationalist perspectives differ as to the sources of these interests—usually  the structure of the international system, frameworks of domestic politics, or international institutions affecting market activity—but largely view actors as having stable  identities and interests that are independent of other actors, even if their strategies for  pursuing them involve expectations of others’ likely behavior. In contrast, constructivism posits that social reality is constructed out of the meanings that people give to  things. For a number of important issues it may not be enough to know how strong or  weak some states are, or how they will economically benefit or lose from certain sets of agreements and international arrangements. We may need to understand how people come to believe what they believe, and how they think about things like justice, rights, accountability, progress, fairness, and responsibility. These beliefs may be influenced by sources as different as religious texts, educational curricula, the work of activists and officials, television programs, museums, and, of course, the news media. That is, the social world is one that humans themselves make, and what we believe about the goodness of our own nations, the clarity of our own histories, or the validity of religions can affect people’s behavior, and that of states, just as surely as might the demand for power or for wealth.

[maxbutton id=”1″ url=”https://hostnezt.com/cssfiles/internationalrelations/Constructivism%20&%20International%20Relations%20In%20Asia.pdf” ]