This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't know why you think it is untestable. A variable like "identity" is difficult to measure, but that does not make the claim untestable.
But is not obvious why it is obvious. IR schools of thought such as realism predict that the US would respond the same way to the development of nukes by the UK as to the development of nukes by North Korea. Constructivism provides an answer. As it says, "nuclear weapons by themselves do not have any meaning unless we understand the social context."
In addition, as the article notes, constructivists argue that "the social relation of enmity between the United States and North Korea represents the intersubjective structure (that is, the shared ideas and beliefs among both states), whereas the United States and North Korea are the actors who have the capacity (that is, agency) to change or reinforce the existing structure or social relationship of enmity. This change or reinforcement ultimately depends on the beliefs and ideas held by both states. If these beliefs and ideas change, the social relationship can change to one of friendship. This stance differs considerably from that of realists, who argue that the anarchic structure of the international system determines the behaviour of states."
Then there is the discussion in the article about social norms and how they affect state behavior. After all, all else being equal, which country would you predict would be more likely to intervene to stop a genocide: Sweden, or Nazi Germany? Realists, et al, would say that they are equally likely, but constructivists would disagree. Why do countries tend to support countries whose majorities are ethnically similar? And what the heck is all this stuff about the "special relationship" between the US and the UK? Would the UK have backed the US in Iraq so strongly in its absence? Surely the UK's interest were served no more by the Iraq war than were French or German interests.
I'm not educated on these terms and this whole school of thought, and right now the gap between my understanding of how the world works and what you've linked/described about Constructivism is too great for me to understand your points. I do not see a reason why I'm not allowed to conclude that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea should elicit a different international response than nuclear weapons in the hands of Great Britain without the constructivist need to claim that the nature of the nuclear weapons is different between the two. Like, I can change my opinions, reactions, and decisions between a good adult friend and the 14-year-old across the street when each asks to borrow my car. I'm allowed to do that without needing to believe that my car has changed. And there are inherent truths about nuclear weapons and cars that would be true regardless of social context: nuclear weapons make a big explosion when successfully activated, and cars have 4 wheels. A society that believes the will of a supernatural entity is the only cause of fire is unable to modify a nuclear detonation through prayer no matter how important the supernatural entity is in their society. A society that believes the number 4 to be bad luck and that refuses to allow anything to have that number of wheels is allowed to collectively say a car has 3 wheels, but that doesn't make it true.
Where are you getting your definition of "realists"? In the colloquial meaning of "realist", I don't see why they would conclude that a country whose government has committed genocide would be less likely to intervene to stop another genocide. The obvious conclusion seems like it could be reached by observing the real world, with real, testable things that really exist, regardless of social constructs. Measure: has each country committed genocide, and have they intervened to stop another genocide. Calculate: historically, what's the chance a country that has committed genocide will intervene to stop another genocide versus one that hasn't. Predict: given two countries, one that has committed genocide and one that hasn't, which is more likely to intervene to stop this particular genocide. The answer is independent of social context.
Again, I'm ignorant here. I want to understand why there is any benefit for believing that social context changes the reality of objects, or that we're not allowed to consider any actor as different than any other actor without constructivism. Because the downstream effects of constructivism I see are awful: college professors claiming that aboriginal interpretations of the world are just as valid as the scientific method, and the superweapon of unfalsifiable "lived experiences" that trump rational debate. I want to stop those things, and from my perspective shunning constructivism - making it costly and embarrassing to believe and support - seems to be a good solution. I don't see any loss, because what you're saying constructivism adds all seem like common sense that we could figure out without that structure.
I don’t mean to sound impatient, but why not spend two minutes googling realist school of IR before asking that? That is, after all, what I explicitly referred to. Not to the colloquial meaning. As for "I don't see why they would conclude that a country whose government has committed genocide would be less likely to intervene to stop another genocide," first, the difference I meant to highlight was not that Nazi Germany committed genocide but Sweden did not, but rather that they have different norms. See the topic sentence of the paragraph in question. Second, realists don’t make that prediction. Rather, they would think they are exactly equally likely, because realists don't consider norms at all when discussing state behavior.
Two points. First, previous IR schools like realism were unable to predict that the responses would be different. In contrast, constructism can. That’s what I meant when I said it had some useful insights. Second, constructivists do not say that the nature of the weapons is different, but rather that the meaning of the weapons is different (eg, one is a threat), and it is the meaning assigned thereto, not the inherent nature thereof, which determines how a state will respond.
Those are both strawmen. As I mentioned, in its non-extreme form, constructivists do not talk about the reality of objects, but the meaning attached to objects, and also to concepts. After all, important concepts in IR like "threat" and "ally" are not objects at all. As for whether we are not allowed to consider some actors as different from others without constructivism, no one said otherwise. There are other schools of IR which treat states as nonunitary actors whose behavior is a function of internal factors. Constructivism's contribution is re the role of norms, identity, and other ideas.
For anyone following along, some handy Wikipedia links:
I do not believe that Googling Constructivism, IR, or realist would have got me there within 2 minutes, but mea culpa. I should have tried harder to figure it out from context.
I don't care about the philosophy of international relations, so I can't claim an educated opinion on whether "previous IR schools like realism were unable to predict that the responses would be different." That sounds stupid to me as a layman. Other times I have heard that an entire field has failed to notice something obvious, the error has been with the person making the claim and not with the field itself. Gdanning, I appreciate your attempts to explain it to me, but I remain unconvinced that "The mainstream of constructvism has important insights in many fields". If I need to understand the history of the philosophy of international relations in order to see the important insights of Constructivism, then I'm comfortable dismissing its insights as "not actually important in the grand scheme of things", which I will file in the Constructivism folder in my mind next to "that stupid philosophy that people are referring to when they say 'reality is a social construct'".
Thanks, but I confess I don’t understand why you think a better understanding of international relations, of all things, is "not actually important in the grand scheme of things." I have a hard time thinking of something that is clearly more important in the grand scheme of things. Equally important, perhaps, but not clearly more important.
I have lost all faith that the soft sciences, including the philosophy of international relations, actually lead to a better understanding of the world. "Not actually important in the grand scheme of things" because I do not believe that learning the philosophy of international relations would enable anyone (including people actively involved in international relations) to make better decisions or better predict the future. For what it's worth, I do have some ground-level experience with international relations: I was assigned to a US military base in a foreign country. I was fairly senior, and the OIC of my particular area. I dealt plenty with the US State Department, the host national government, and the large government-owned corporation that provided us some services. What mattered was people skills and common sense. Having read the above wikipedia pages, I can say that nobody ever talked about any aspects of those theories, or behaved in any way differently than could be predicted by people skills and common sense.
When there's a claim from academics (which you have relayed to me in this conversation; please don't misinterpret this as an attack on you!) that we would be unable to distinguish our response between British and North Korean nuclear weapons without Constructivism, I think the appropriate response is "Fuck you".
Again, you are misinterpreting the point. The point is not that "we would be unable to distinguish our response between British and North Korean nuclear weapons without Constructivism." It is that pre-Constructivist theories were not able to explain why the responses are different. More importantly, this is a very simply example; the broader point is that a theory that can explain that could have potential to explain other, less obvious phenomena.
BTW, look at foreign relations between Israel and various majority Muslim countries. For most of them, Iran poses a far greater threat than does Israel. Yet, few have alliances with Israel, despite it being in their security interests to do so. Why not? Well, Constructivists would probably argue that, for many of those countries (or really, the elites therein), part of their identity as good Muslims requires them to stand up for the Palestinians. That focus on how norms and identities shape state interests is one of the ways that Constructivism is valuable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link