To me, there are pieces of Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism that are all pertinent in today’s political world. For this reason, I believe that Social Constructivism is the most correlated international relations theory within our current world state. Similarly, in the United States, our two-party voter system has shown to have many faults and downfall- as so many current issues are not simply black and white. Existing solely within strict party lines restricts forward movement and progression, as issues are continuously evolving.
I enjoy that the view of Social Constructivism believes human behavior to not be predictable. Within nearly all problems (personal, world, or in-between,) I believe it to be best to draw from multiple views and frames of reference to create a more well-rounded perspective and approach to a solution. The second portion of Social Constructivism that resonated with me is that ‘sovereignty, globalization, and security in the Arctic are subjective,’ and will be responded to differently by different actors. I imagine that Greenlandic folks, non-arctic actors, or big oil would all have different responses to a shared resource or to the definition of security.
The world is very much not black and white. I agree that social constructivism has the most shades of grey in terms of IR. The example that you tied in about the Arctic really made me think about the divide between indigenous and non-indigenous views on these ideas. A good example of cultural differences even in one single region such as the Arctic.
Hi Jensina,
While I don’t necessarily agree with your perspective completely, I do appreciate the fact that you highlighted the part of social constructivist theory mentioning the different interest groups in the Arctic. Non-Arctic actors, being geographically isolated from the Arctic circle, are de-incentivized to make policy changes that might result in economic sacrifices for the sake of the Arctic environment or its species. China has been known to import large chunks of ice from arctic states in order to create giant ice statues in their 5-star hotels, but I can only imagine the resources it takes to keep that ice frozen during its transportation to China. The oil and petroleum industries might define security as safeguarding the ability for oil drilling operations to be conducted in arctic regions like the North Slope of Alaska, whereas political adversaries like Russia and the United States would define security as freedom and jurisdiction over its land and natural resources in the region. Great job highlighting this part of social constructivism!
Jensina, I really like that explanation. I especially appreciated the parallel you drew to our current voting system, in which Alaska’s recent switch to ranked choice voting seems to align with the social constructivism theory. The issues that have and will arise surrounding the Arctic impact a wide variety of peoples and industries in complex ways, requiring a complex and wide-ranging approach to account for this. Very well said.