구성주의(construcivism)에 대한 비판(영어로 작성됨)

소개

구성주의의 한계점 4가지를 간략하게 정리했습니다.
영어로 작성되었고, 1장정도의 분량입니다.
국제정치 수업에 저널로 제출했던 페이퍼라 길이가 짧습니다.
한계점 4가지를 논리적으로 잘 정리하였고, 구성주의의 value를 강조하는 이상적인 측면이 현실정치의 외교정책 수립에 미치는 한계점이 논지입니다.

목차

없음

본문내용

Constructivism brings up an interesting point that “shared belief” determines state’s actions. It is true we have observed standardized norms and ideational discussion among countries especially within international organizations. However, constructivists’ arguments have some significant limitations.
First, a “shared value” is an obscure term. There are a lot of social and cultural values that determine state’s behaviors: democratic notions, capitalism, religions, and so on. Given the variety of those values, we hardly pick one value which encompasses a state’s national identity.
Second, constructivists argue international organizations help to disseminate shared norms and values. However, a value means many different things when it comes to a local level. For example, Fareed Zkaria insightfully pointed out in his essay, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, that a meaning of “democracy” and democratic practices can differ between Western European countries and newly democratized Asian countries. Since there is a certain level of “indigenization” of values when they are disseminated to other regions, a “shared” value no longer means the same thing.
Third, constructivism cannot explain the dynamism of creating norms and values. As critics to constructivism argued constructivism assume a static world without explanation of “change”(Robert Jackson and George Sorensen, 2007, p 174). How the international norms and values are formed? Who are main actors in creating those things? Constructivism leaves people don’t answer to those questions.

참고자료

· 없음