Initially I found the idea of constructivism a bit daunting,
especially when presented in the context of symbolic technologies from Laffey
and Weldes. The more it comes into play,
the more intriguing I find it. It makes sense to me in the way it kind of wraps
these ideas that make up the various theories and starts to dig for their formulation.
The way constructivism emphasizes the
intersubjectivity of interests and ideas also makes sense to me. We touched on
this a little with Laffey and Weldes when they address interests as the result
of rationality and interests themselves based on ideas. Now we begin to get
into how I ideas are formed by social interactions, which are guided by rules.
Onuf emphasizes the intersubjectivity of constructivism
between institutions and structures. He sets up structure as what observers see
and institutions as what agents act within. In the meantime, the agents within
these structures are all restricted by rules of varying levels. Onuf approaches
rules in three different categories: instruction, directive, and commitment, and
explains rules and their related practices as these malleable concepts that can
be shaped when actors respond to them. Rules form these chains of reactions and
when you act on one rule you’re also effecting, maybe altering, the rules
related to it.
My initial reaction
to these rules is to try to match them to the types of IO’s that operate under
them. When I think about the “instruction-rules” in their application, I think
of agents that aim to establish international law or governance such as the EU.
When I think of “directive-rules,” I think of private companies with a
hierarchy of officers such as CEO’s, VPs, associates, etc. and when I think of “commitment
rules” I think of co-operations such as those seen in international development
when organizations will partner on a program to address different aspects of
the same problem.
Sources:
Onuf G. Nicholas, “Constructivism in social theory and
international relations.” Making Sense,
Making Worlds.(2013).15-20.
The differentiation that I appreciated with regards to constructivism is that it seeks a more integrated approach.
ReplyDeleteMany mathematical methods for modeling behavior are discreet. Lets take slope for example. It is the difference between two points in space. this would be a very good method for projecting the future course of a straight line that never changes. I equate this approach with the rationalist model. It isn't a bad model or method it just fits for a very simple system.
next you can use a function like Sin(x) or Cos(x). These functions describe mathematically a wave function. Obviously a wave is a much more complicated result than a straight line. the slope changes constantly and the mathematics to compute information regarding a wave function is much more difficult and involved. This approach though more difficult takes into effect the ever changing nature of the environment and a moving object or particle. I see this as more like a constructivist approach. I'd argue that international relations is a much more complicated environment as well.
I think that the best method of analyzing a system depends on the complexity. Additionally I think that analysis of variables and adjusting approached based on those variables and their actual behavior is something that is similar across all approaches to creating models.