Thanks for this informative lecture. But for the USSR example it is more complicated I think. Even though, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet peoples voted for the "preservation of the USSR" during the referendum of 1991, the anti-communist leaders disbanded it undemocratically. Therefore, the thesis that "the USSR dissolved just because of its' citizens' didn't believe its' existence" is groundless. It doesn't match with the statistics.
I think you somewhat missed the point of what was being said. Of course, the legal entity of the Soviet Union did not stop existing because the citizens stopped believing in it. Rather, the Soviet Union, this concept of the state these people live in collectively as opposed to living in Russia or Ukraine, or perhaps even as opposed to living in no country or society, stopped existing because people accepted that it no longer existed. As a result of the legal dismantling of the union, people no longer believed that it existed, while a "legal status" only really matters if people believe in it. It's the core principle of a social construct, just like money. Without people believing in the concept of money, a paper bill has no value. Similarly, if people no longer believe a state exists, it stops existing.
Look at Post positivism for former Soviet Union worldview. There are four main philosophies in scientific research, this type is more qualitative and subjective. The fall of Soviet Union was due to nuanced qualitative beliefs that persist despite a very rigid insistence on no religion, hard science and math at the expense of religion, culture, arts etc.
well from the perspective of the other 2 main schools. realism is out the window. if the main purpose of states is to survive, the ussr would have had a civil war. from a liberal perspective, i guess they saw the ussr collapsing as sign that their theory is correct, and that liberalism is dominant. but it's been disproven by later historical events. so that leaves constructivism, which actually cares to look at the details of the situatino rather than rely on grand narratives and trying to fit the data to their premade conclusion
Again, another great presentation. What are your thoughts on nationalism and its influence on international relations? how would you describe Russia's current political system?
The question of nationalism is one that I've been thinking about creating a video on. I've got a few short videos that touch on the concept, but I think I need a longer exploration. I'll see what I can do. As for Russia's current political system, it looks to me as thought its shifting towards an increasing level of authoritarianism (given increasing governmental controls over social media, the press, the economy, etc.).
I suppose a constructivist viewpoint of the factors that drove the Russian invasion of Ukrainian would be: an individual (Putin) with beliefs (security, cultural / political identity) is worried about individuals (Russians) being influenced by other counteracting individuals (Ukrainians) and their beliefs (liberalism, free markets)?
Perhaps, but think also about the way in which Ukraine was constructed to be a threat to Russia, and how Russia was constructed as a threat to the West. Thanks for watching!
If Russia and Ucrania decide to use the constructivism approach, focussing on what they have in common (similar history, identity, language), they both win.
Only we don't have a similar history, identity and have two completely different languages. The fraternal nations concept is archaic and doesn't show the truth
![VENEZUELA vs. ARGENTINA [1-1] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SJfoPdeOPCQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I study global politics MSc and these videos are much easier to understand than my lectures, and they have an hour to explain theories. Thanks
@@NoahZerbe I passed my studies, so thanks again for the videos which helped during covid :)
@@gabbagabbahey4928 great job!!!!
this is in ur masters?? this is in my bachleor :O
You're getting me through my degree, thank you!
Thanks for this informative lecture. But for the USSR example it is more complicated I think. Even though, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet peoples voted for the "preservation of the USSR" during the referendum of 1991, the anti-communist leaders disbanded it undemocratically. Therefore, the thesis that "the USSR dissolved just because of its' citizens' didn't believe its' existence" is groundless. It doesn't match with the statistics.
There are some people with brains here I see. Its correct👍
I think you somewhat missed the point of what was being said. Of course, the legal entity of the Soviet Union did not stop existing because the citizens stopped believing in it. Rather, the Soviet Union, this concept of the state these people live in collectively as opposed to living in Russia or Ukraine, or perhaps even as opposed to living in no country or society, stopped existing because people accepted that it no longer existed. As a result of the legal dismantling of the union, people no longer believed that it existed, while a "legal status" only really matters if people believe in it.
It's the core principle of a social construct, just like money. Without people believing in the concept of money, a paper bill has no value. Similarly, if people no longer believe a state exists, it stops existing.
Look at Post positivism for former Soviet Union worldview. There are four main philosophies in scientific research, this type is more qualitative and subjective. The fall of Soviet Union was due to nuanced qualitative beliefs that persist despite a very rigid insistence on no religion, hard science and math at the expense of religion, culture, arts etc.
well from the perspective of the other 2 main schools. realism is out the window. if the main purpose of states is to survive, the ussr would have had a civil war. from a liberal perspective, i guess they saw the ussr collapsing as sign that their theory is correct, and that liberalism is dominant. but it's been disproven by later historical events. so that leaves constructivism, which actually cares to look at the details of the situatino rather than rely on grand narratives and trying to fit the data to their premade conclusion
Again, another great presentation. What are your thoughts on nationalism and its influence on international relations? how would you describe Russia's current political system?
The question of nationalism is one that I've been thinking about creating a video on. I've got a few short videos that touch on the concept, but I think I need a longer exploration. I'll see what I can do.
As for Russia's current political system, it looks to me as thought its shifting towards an increasing level of authoritarianism (given increasing governmental controls over social media, the press, the economy, etc.).
Finally a well explained video -- thanks 👍
You're welcome! Thanks for watching!
I suppose a constructivist viewpoint of the factors that drove the Russian invasion of Ukrainian would be: an individual (Putin) with beliefs (security, cultural / political identity) is worried about individuals (Russians) being influenced by other counteracting individuals (Ukrainians) and their beliefs (liberalism, free markets)?
Perhaps, but think also about the way in which Ukraine was constructed to be a threat to Russia, and how Russia was constructed as a threat to the West. Thanks for watching!
@@NoahZerbe I concur
Can you share some criticisms on constructivism?
Loving your work Sir 🔥
Well done sir🙂
Its great, thankyou 🙏
More than useful
Thank you
Thanks for watching!
got it. thanks. do on more
great content
Thanks for watching!
If Russia and Ucrania decide to use the constructivism approach, focussing on what they have in common (similar history, identity, language), they both win.
Only we don't have a similar history, identity and have two completely different languages. The fraternal nations concept is archaic and doesn't show the truth
❤️
10:41 solution
10:29
Thank you