Theory in Action: Constructivism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- As part of the "Theory In Action" video series, we interviewed top IR theorists and asked them to explain theory using terms we could understand. In this video, Professor Caleb Gallemore tells us about Constructivism and why it's like Neo in The Matrix.
Soomo Learning
soomolearning.com/
Shot in Columbus, OH & Chicago, IL in the spring of 2011
Directed & Edited by
Tim Alden Grant
Cinematography by
Adam Hobbs
adamhobbs.tv/
Ed David
www.kittyguerri...
Written by
Zara Elizabeth Crockett
Nina Kollars
This video taught me more in 5 minutes than spending 4 hours trying to read and decipher a text on constructivism.
I love the Intro and Ending
"So in the Matrix....
"....you kinda have to let your brain explode a little bit"
alriiiiight
This is the best educational video I've ever watched. Informative, yet short and simple. With loads of examples. Thank you very much!
This seriously helped me for my Constructivism essay in college, thank you!
+Holly Kenny Exactly why I am here too, this was very well explained.
+Holly Kenny yep ill join that train...a final essay due the day of the final exam....WTF.
+Aaron Saldana Oof sounds awful, best of luck!
I didn't think anyone would respond haha thank you very much!
+HollaBollas I love these quick little videos Soomo puts out. I've used them a ton to help guide my IR essays too.
So, I should point out that I'm not a professor, and I can't claim to be a "top IR theorist," but I hope you folks found this helpful. -- Caleb
I'm glad that I found this - I am a 2009 graduate of IR at Ohio State. I wholeheartedly subscribe to Wendt's simple explanation of IR in Constructivist. I'm currently reading Quantum Mind and Social Science - just through the 40 page primer and it's excellent. I hope others have found your video helpful!
Qty
This is very interesting.
You should do more stuff like this, bravo Caleb :)
You’re a professor now. :)
Awesome, I did not understand constructivism until I listened to your explanation. Thank you.
By far the most complex and difficult to understand of the main IR theories, also the one that is most quickly dismissed by many people.
What is interesting about social constructivism in IR, or in general epistemology for that matter, is that it decides that everything is "constructed" by the interactions between humans. However, one would, to preserve the general/explanatory power of the theory, have to accept that the theory of social constructivism has itself been constructed through the interactions of humans, and that it's validity is simply subject to human agreement alone, in other words, it refutes itself.
Constructivism is not perfect, but of the main schools of IR thought, I think it comes the closest to understanding the world and international relations. When you get down to it, international relations are a fight to maintain identities in a world where everyone else is trying to do the same. Survival for the sake of survival is the philosophy of animals, not humans. Everything in human interaction is underpinned by beliefs in abstract constructs and ideologies. Politics is simply a collective term for broad discourses in which people assert their worldview, and international relations is no different. Once you look beyond the military might, you realise that states are only using that might because they care about abstract, intangible things like sovereignty and identity. Without constructivist notions of motivation, studying international relations is superficial and pointless.
+Thomas Minot I'm in your court. I, too, subscribe to constructivism over most other forms of IR. However, we are highly irrational beings when faced with only questions of survival, even a state-behavior is irrational, which is my argument against realism's "rational actor". I think realism is the most important theory a state can use when its 'face is to the fire', but that is the only time I think it should be used. I disagree with you about humans and believe we are animals in the strictest sense.
+Kurtis Edwards
Playing devil's advocate: What is to be considered rational? One must define "rationality" before dismissing it. I think the fault of many realists in the past was that they simply assumed this definition according to their own cultural biases. Many contemporary IR theorists have taken a more nuanced approach. It is not a matter of actors being _rational_ or not. Instead, the various actors may all be seemingly rational through their own respective lens, which in turn can have very different outcomes in how they behave. This is what makes many realists consider themselves constructivists and vice versa. Conversely, many IR theorists simply refrain from being put under a banner altogether. I personally don't subscribe to any particular school of thought. However, I tend to think constructivism does a better job at answering many liberal questions than liberal theorists do themselves.
I think subscribing to one IR theory with any exclusivity is somewhat stupid, we have these 3 main theories, why not apply them all to each situation (where possible at least) with as much good faith and intellectual honesty that is possible and see what garners the best practical result on a case by case basis.
That said, out of the three I do agree that Constructivism is the most broadly applicable, that is to say it arguably explains more about the international system than Liberal and Realist theories of IR put together.
In some cases the most broadly applicable isn't the best though, when a more strict and narrow ideology does a better job explaining the problem, and we're back to my first point again. In others one theory may fall apart completely still in others two theories may fundamentally contradict eachother in their analysis etc..
Morphing Reality damn, first sentence is already calling things stupid. Cause that will command respect. However, I did notspeak in absolutes back when I commented
Kurtis Edwards Even Kenneth Waltz described realism as simplistic. All these theories are designed for various contexts. They're _simplified_ approaches to a reality that is much more nuanced and complex than the human mind could hope to understand. If you're too thin skinned by someone pointing that out, ease up. I'm just trying to be honest. I mean no disrespect.
As a future teacher I find this very insightful. Keep up the great work!
I love the way he explain the things, everything is so clear
This was so great. I’ve spent hours today on IR constructivist theory and nothing felt so accessible as this.
You guys are making my international security class manageable. God bless you abundantly.
This is Sam from Game of Thrones
My professor confused him with Kim Dotcom
You are one of those people who make other people's lives easier.
Many many blessings to you.
Where can I order an essay?
My essay lives in Miami. I wrote to him like you said, but I don't think he got the letter yet.
I relate to this very much
I'm sitting here with my mouth open because the speaker just expressed some of my own thoughts and musing on the world. I didn't know there was a theory that went so well with the stuff pinging about in my skull.
I wish there were more of these videos on theories such as Marxism, English School and Feminism
Thank you for explaining this theory in such a succinct manner.
imagine if Michael Scott held the exact same monologue… with the exact same words. It would fit perfectly!
if a constructivist starts out with "so in the matrix..." you know he's legit lmao
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.
And still majority of the people regret the dissolution of the USSR in the post-soviet countries. It is obvious in the recent polls.
the speaker spoke very vivdly and attractively, love this video and the constructivism
This is a great video! It really made me understand what's up with constructivism
Constructivism in regards to statecraft is like whipped cream on a sundae. It's nice to have a population that feels a bond with their government, but it's not completely necessary. If a government can keep control, it will keep control whether the people like it or not. But it's always nice for the sake of government sovereignty to have a population see their government as legitimate.
@BoredDictator
I have to agree with 86Legacy. He wasn't saying the USSR fell with the Wall but rather it started a domino effect of thought that caused the USSR to completely unravel.
pls take my IR midterm exam for me tomorrow i am begging u
Preparing 10 minutes before exam right now😅😅😅
@@avevelad8687 How did it go lol
@@GigatLP I was taking theories in IR, SO overall A) however, I had to withdraw fundamentals of IR 🤷♂️ thus this information is more useful for theories😂
This is great! Really gave me a better understanding of the theory.
In my opinion, Constructivism is by far the best theory to address international politics.
In sum 'You have to make your brains kind of explode' in order to be considered a 'Constructivist'. So references to 'The Matrix', the ending of USSR in 1989/1991 as articulated by Prof. Caleb Gallemore etc, are examples of how 'constructivism ' can be understood. I dare opine that this is quite an interesting way, to introduce students, to the mainstream IR theory of 'Constructivism'.
Such clarity of expression; thank you!
Sharing a belief system internationally is what keeps an egregore alive
I’m still confused 😭
It is a theory in IR and therefore it is applicable in many ways as many others. Or maybe my professor and all the writers I read so far are wrong and you are the only one who is right!
The best explanation online.
Excelent explanation, thanks for sharing! Much clearer than my textbook and I loved the matrix analogy.
My gosh, THANK YOU!!! I’ve had this explained to me so many times, but after watching this, I definitely grasp the concept of constructivism more than ever!!
Very clear explanation. Thank you...
Great video! Very simple and to the point
thank you so helpful!
Makes more sense, to me, than anything I've ever heard before! :)
How would a constructivist view conflicts? Are they constructed or "real"?
any thought or idea can refute itself. That's why humans never stop arguing about things. At least constructivists realize that their own believe system is nothing more than an artificial construct of a human mind.
Windy & Carl, knew I had heard it somewhere before!
What a way to finish. "You have to kind of make your brain explode a bit" lol
Thank you
This helped me a lot.
well explained
thank you so much!! This helped me alot! :)
Can u apply social constructivism to rise of China ..I need it for my exam
What is difference between constructivism and cultural relativism
anybody know any arguments against constructivism in international relations?
Thank you.
I disagree with the constructivist's view of the USSR's dissolution because people no longer felt they believed in the triumph of communism, or because they felt no more kinship with Moscow; they believed that better economic opportunities were in the West, and they pushed against the state in order to free themselves; they didn't just stop "being" Soviets. It sure helped that Gorbachev did nothing to stop them. Had he had enough power to stop them he would've.
Great video
the funny thing is that USSR still exists inside some people's minds who have a very strong/rigid believe system
>2011
man I feel kinda sad
thanks for explaining this though
Great explanation.
However, red is the color of blood-that is why it means stop. It's not completely arbitrary, there is a "natural foundation" to it.
What makes "being the color of blood" meaning to stop?
@nicoterradas
Of course the perception of the world depends from the perspective you look at it. It takes more than just saying YEAH RIGHT to disprove what this theory claims. You should think of it!
hey en español no esta?? no se ingles!! :(
As someone from a country that's been occupied by russia and forced to be in USSR I disagree with that example. People didn't just wake up and thoughts 'Maybe it's not that important to be in USSR anymore' people have been fighting for it to stop for years. Political prisoners, executions, starvation, deadly protests, killing of the culture this is what came into a fight to stop USSR
I need to start smoking weed because studying international relationships is like a bad marihuana trip
Is this the constructivism of 8 theory of globalization?
Point taken. Make my brain explode (a little bit).
brilliant....
How social constructivism can be applied to rise of China ..I have to write for test .please provide
No, I never said that you should reply but think of it. You should read more carefully what people tell you and write to you! Thank you for calling me dumb, I guess that shows how broad minded you are and smarter than any of the scholars who represent this and other theories and people who agree with them!
That guy is such a Caleb
Awesome
Yup. The constructivist theories are all prone to the reflectivity issue. This is well known amongst the contructuvist theorists though.
Sorry, I meant essentialism, not existentialism
That is why life is so bizarre
Taku Gang lets goooooooo
Nice beard dude.
It seems to me that constructivism is, to a certain extent, inspired by the philosophy of existentialism. There is recognition that choices are arbitrary and an appreciation that in subtle ways, human groups' existence precedes their essence.
+Ummer Khan Key difference; Existentialism is as retarded as the "relativist freshman."
fucking brilliant.
I wonder how Robespierre got his moral and ethical justification for the Reign of Terror.
*Hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm*
Social Learning Theory,
*ANYBODY HERE HEARD OF 1984*
Is heroine more important than food?
*The Mice experiment with the pleasure plates would sure say that if all humans tried heroine the majority would probably say yes.*
If you could rebuttal these three arguments I’m going to join this school of thought.
liked the video...gagged when your associated with OSU...nothing personal
But choosing that red means stop is basing it, to some degree, on physical/objective reality. Red pops out as a color, and the cooler colors (green, blue, etc.) tend to recede. It's the nature of how color theory works. That has a basis in why red for stop works. So, it's not purely constructivist, but rooted in the physical/objective world.
People apply this same logic to gender, saying it's socially constructed. At root, though, I can look at blood and say "male" or "female" about the originator of the blood. Not saying that trans people don't or shouldn't exist (they absolutely should). I'm just saying that at the base of all of these arguments is the objective/physical/biological/based-in-science world. It's inescapable.
How is red as a stop light arbitrary? Maybe just a poor example? Isn't it proven that we respond to red differently than other colours? Sure many things are constructions, but what does this guy think about gender? That's where I really disagree.
“You know”
Bit confusing but ok
Mm.. The example with the USSR is not historically quite illuminating (Not quite true) (In a realist sense).Is it because we agree upon it that the holocaust happened? (Nope.) Is it because we agree that the sun gives warmth that it does? (Apart from the signs use to signify these ideas. Such as the the word warmth: signifies temperature (i.e. vibrations in matter), but another word such as chaud (french) might do the same. The basic concept however is not constructed.
That the holocaust did happen is a material fact, but the fact that we regard it as an atrocity is due to our socially constructed moral code and beliefs. The social construction of the world is what turns the death of millions from a fact into a tragedy.
Or norms are what led to the Nazi genocide of Jews to be referred to using such a bleak term 'holocaust'. There are many tragedies throughout history which weren't given a specific emphasised category or jargon in popular language. The conceptualisation of the social phenomenon in a certain way is what constructivists study.
The background ambient music and the close-up on his face triggers slight aggressions. Despite that helpful content!
Distinctly dangerous. This could have ended well by denouncing social constructivism.
So if I convince myself (for selfish or self preserving or whatever reasons) and possibly others that this video or even you do not exist or that I even viewed it, then you and it really didn't occur? Even though really and physically and factually you and it do?
Are there no absolute truths? Things that are true whether I choose to believe in them or not? I can disbelieve that I can walk in front of a speeding car and not get hit but reality will disprove my disbelief.
so you have to understand the difference between the concrete and social facts.
it's all about the socially constructed beliefs and has nothing to do with absolute truths.
This is pretty much what the Buddha preached, "its all in your mind". Is this constructivism or no?
+celestialbuffalo Buddha said everything comes from mind. If we think something is then it is, if we think america is then it is, you could bend your mind towards whatever way possible.
"your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your character, your character becomes your destiny". -Buddha
I´m not sure if Buddha´s apothegm is related whit it. But if we try to joint it to constructivism then no, for constructivists all that someone believe or think have to be shared if their ideas are not then that is not part of reality or means something.
This is literally just minecraft notch
Umm..wut?
It sorts of feels like that the theory of constructivism was imposed and tailored on international relations by force. Other theories take some ideas for granted and base on them while constructivism questions those very fundamentals of thought. Not really practical but certainly amusing for the mind
His eyes are a product of a genetic mutation... Irrelevant? Yes. However, I noticed it.
Except the people of the USSR voted to continue the USSR. The USSR was only seen as not a thing anymore after it was overthrown, not before. This is a terrible explanation of constructivism. It's not arbitrary.
Толстяк ошибается по поводу СССР и людей, которые проснулись и подумали иначе. Люди на референдуме голосовали за сохранение. Вендт бредит в основном.
Maaaan, there were popular votes in every country and noone wanted USSR. Stop with your absolutely idiotic propaganda. Thankfully, at the time there were more liberties in the USSR due to Gorbachev than there are now in Russia, because it would've ended with referendums like in Crimea or Donetsk and people would've died by their thousands and I wouldn't have the possibility to live in a country that I feel proud of and that I love.
But even behind that, you so absolutely cannot grasp the concept of this video that it's sad.
I feel sad when he says the United States doesn't exist anymore :(
his dirty clothes distract
So if we all agreed that the sun didn't exist would we all die?
No, because the sun is tangible. The idea of a country is arbitrary.
No, Constructivism accepts that there area a world out of human mind, a material world. Then, society can create things out of that world and how we interpret material factors. We cannot ignore the sun but we can name differently, that’s constructivism.
+Jesus Arenas Pineda But naming the sun differently wouldn't change anything about the sun and the way it acts upon our world. Constructivism is only valid for social concepts like money, nationality, or authority but not for scientific facts about the material world.
last chance blueprint who are you to decide whether or not the sun is Arbitrary?
ilovemypiano Effectively, the sun is not going to change if we named it differently, that's why I said that constructivism accepts a material world out of human mind. Suddenly, as you said, constructivism is for social concepts, and sometimes material world is under human interpretation and that's a social issue, for example natural boundaries.
this dudes face is so uncomfortable to watch
SO IS YOUR COMMENT !!
Constructivism comes from social marxism and is wrong to it's very core. No matter what you do. Let's say suddenly the US opened it's borders (i know it's against pop. belief), mexicans will start flooding the US, and let's say all Americans move up north. Suddenly mexico invades the US and it is allowed since the US has now such a high mexican pop. The USA doesn't exist, but in the minds of the Americans up north it still does. It's a people that make a nation. You can say the the USSR was socially constructed because it was an empire consisting of many nations. Nations will always exist in the contentiousness of a people.
you obviously do not understand the video
Hans Schmidt What did I not understand that you did, mr. smart marxist.
Cristian T. Fuck me, this could quite possibly be the dumbest thing on RUclips
You are merely demonstrating a serious lack of knowledge about marxist/radical theory. There are vast contrasts within the basic assumptions about society between marxism and constructivism, especially regarding the significance of material circumstances.
Axel Tingman look up the Frankfurt school and social marxism. Also please explain what you write, just explain why, so that I can understand. Anyway. social marxism was about tearing down nationalism and culture. they wanted to infiltrate culture to make everything equal so it wouldn't matter what race, sex, or religion/ culture you belong to, all that would matter were to be marxism. Because the marxist claimed that after the WW1 the marxist revolutions didn't come about in many nations because of nationalism. Marxist hated nationalism. What this guy is talking about is that there is no us or them, it's all in our head.
imagine if Michael Scott held the exact same monologue… with the exact same words. It would fit perfectly!
Constructivism is a relevant theory in international relations because the idea of how we perceive our world influences decision making of leaders of states. Other theories focus on how states can co-operate or maximise their gain, but it is never really mentioned that traditions and beliefs could be equally important in understanding why a states made a certain choice. This is just for people who are confused by how this might link into international relations.
How can social constructivism can be used to do explain rise of China
first watched this years ago, still just as good
Really helpful! This cleared up a lot.