Realism in international relation perspective is an approach that views that global politics are guided by competitive individual interest. It involves determination of facts and coming up with a conclusion using reason. For instance, international policy can be evaluated using political acts and anticipated result of the act. On the other hand, constructivism theory is an assumption that global relations are historically and socially built instead of anticipation of the consequences of an act.
Constructivism theory challenges realism in the fact that realists are just but mere structuralists since majority of their global politics is based on the arrangement of international system. Realists believe that global system is anarchic. Based on this assumption, the world is therefore made up of units that equal and they lack overarching powers. These units have power over their own country. Due to the existence of these anarchies, Realist assumption is that they act in a particular manner. This means that they have their own self defense machinery.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Constructivism vs Realism".
On the other hand constructivism is completely against realist argument regarding obtaining power as a result of structure and that structure is build by social activities. Taking into consideration realist argument, the interest of the parties within the system and the reasoning that social system, such as anarchy, has such parties depicts very little on argument of the constructivism. For instance, it does not anticipate if the two states will be friends or enemies or acknowledge the sovereignty of the each other. Therefore, according to constructivism realists are out of point since realists do not depict any behavior traits in anarchy and that their argument requires reasoning and an outcome. Constructivism scholars further disqualifies Anarchy from having its own defense machinery. The argument behind this is that the pressure that Anarchy puts on the other depends on the way that anarchy conceives it. While constructivists view identities and interest of Anarchy not material driven, realists believe that Anarchy attacks the other for material gain.
Realist tends to focus much on capabilities instead of the goal. According to realist, power is the major issue of concern. This is clearly brought out by the major parties in the cold war superpowers, the USSR and the United States. The realist believes it is, therefore, easy to understand States capabilities than their intentions. For instance, Tony Blair could not imagine that Chirac had promised veto second resolution that was just France intention. Additionally liberals believe that, capabilities are only ultimate if it has an impact on the preference and goal of the nation. However, often states are not always aware of their abilities. Good example is when Tony Blair was seeking UN support in the Iraq war.
Realist put many efforts on how important relative gains are in the nation interest. For instance, two states with their economic growth are 2% and the other 2%. One nation would struggle and remain in its economic level at 2% instead of cooperating and that of one nation rising to 4% and its own rising to 3%. Based on this argument, neo-realist thinking, means that countries only wish to take comparative benefit irrespective what interest it is first before cooperating with the other nations.
Liberals believe that countries are much comfortable with any gain they achieve especially if it is more than that of the other actors. For example, in the G7 ‘100% debt relief summit’ United States was in a position to support the program to assist aid for underdeveloped countries. It did not help since US would not gain anything in return. From this, it is evident that America had the view that the plan was not a good deal for other nations who benefit more than they do in the program. This is, therefore the actual argument of neo-realist assumptions in the significance of relative gains.
