Thursday, September 30, 2010

I Like Realism, I Like Liberalism...

As we pitted realism against liberalism, liberalism against constructivism, and constructivism against realism, Professor Jackson likened the excercise to learning vocabulary: 

At the time, it seemed as if the theories contradicted one another.  However, they may not contradict each other as much as complement each other.  In essence, a theory is "necessarily partial . . . it highlights some things, while leaving others out" (PTJ podcast reference, Realism).  Thus, all three perspectives should be considered because they analyze different parts of a whole.

However, if all three schools of thought were interconnected, why is there this debate as to which is right?  Possibly, not all the theories can be applied at once or as strongly at a time.  "Accuracy" is dependent on every type of context (i.e. social, economic, historical, cultural), especially the state's/people's goals. 

However, in general, a state may find it advantageous to do the following:  take a constructivist mentality and assume that history changes --> to exchange in its best interests (liberalism) --> in order to sustain power and influence world order (realism).  Yet, as stated, this scenario always is dependent on context.  A state (and its people) must be comfortable with applying the different theories for them to be effective, and the worldly scenario must be in accordance with theory.

In the Brenton Woods example, as discussed, all the theories aligned to form a fairly successful sytem . . .

So, like in the video posted above, it is possible to say, "I like broccoli" and "I like potatoes."  In fact, both become part of a well-balanced diet.

No comments:

Post a Comment