2.2.1 Constructivism Social Constructivism is one of international relations approach. This approach challenged the rationalism and positivism of neorealism and neoliberalism. One of constructivism character is its emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material structures, the role of identity in shaping political action and on the mutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures (Burchill et al. 2005: 188). The term “constructivism” was first introduced by Nicholas Onuf in his book World in Our Making.
Methodologically, neoliberalism, like neorealism, relies on positivist inquiries built on rational-actor models to construct theory. Neoliberalism’s reliance on scientific rigor and theory-building beyond trade and war further separates it from classical liberalism. Epistemologically, neoliberalism, like neorealism, is a rationalist theory constructed upon assumptions of microeconomic theory. Neoliberals subscribe to the neorealist state-centric perspective which considers states as rational unitary actors who form social relations to maximize their pre-defined interests in a strategic domain. Both theories treat state interests as exogenous to inter-state interactions, thus seeing no need for a theory of interest
The Kant’s caution is that the possession of power inevitably corrupts the free judgment of reason, stands as a classic example of this view. It is important to grasp the notion of genealogy, as it has become crucial to many postmodern perspectives in International Relations. Genealogy is a style of historical thought which exposes and registers the significance of power–knowledge relations. Genealogy affirms a perspective which denies the capacity to identify origins and meanings in history objectively. A genealogical approach is anti-essentialist in orientation, affirming the idea that all knowledge is situated in a particular time and place and issues from a particular perspective.
Both Tocqueville and Marx operate within the stadial notion of history, viewing society as progressing through a series of distinctive stages of civilization. However, while Tocqueville outlines his theory of history based on an inexorable march towards equality of conditions guided by the force of Providence, Marx builds his stages of history corresponding to modes of production, increasing complexity of division of labour and different forms of ownership. Tocqueville saw equality of conditions as having an "immense influence ... on the whole course of society" (Toc: 9). He argued that the general state of equality of condition was "the prime cause of most of the laws, customs, and ideas" (Toc : 50); such that it influenced the formation of social norms, laws and mores besides shaping
According to Indergraard (2007), industrialization is “the process by which an economy shifts from an agricultural to a manufacturing base during a period of sustained change and growth, eventually creating a higher standard of living”. Within sociology, the three founding fathers, particularly Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim, were interested in studying what the causes of industrialization and the consequences of it on the development of society. This essay will compare the ways in which Marx and Durkheim shared similar ideas about industrialisation within society as well as contrast the aspects of their theories which have different ideological roots and conclusions. The essay with then go on to conclude that whilst there were some key differences
Marx is known as a conflict theorist and has a macro approach to how society is shaped, and that society shapes the individual. Marxist ideology believes that social control in the capitalist society is formed by the ruling class. This ruling class sets the values and norms of the
Thus, the ideological spectacles of the historical investigator shape the presentation of ‘facts’. Weber’s idea of the progressive mechanization and demystification of society is in fact directly opposed to Marx’s view in which there is a progressive obfuscation and mystification of social relations which makes the continuance of the system possible in
Introduction I argue that Marxism is best explains the contemporary phenomenon of economic globalization. “Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation” . “Marxist methodology uses economic and sociopolitical inquiry and applies that to the critique and analysis of the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change. In Marxism, the concept of contradiction between economic and political relations was enacted into historical law. The Marxist position is that the mode of production does in fact determine the superstructure of political relations.
By contrast, Slemon (1995:101) argues that colonialism comes into existence within the concept of imperialism, “a concept that is itself predicated within large theories of global politics and which changes radically according to the specifics of those larger theories.” Imperialism, according to Young (2001:26-27), operates as a policy of State, driven by the pretentious projects of power within and beyond national boundaries. On the one hand, imperialism is disposed to analysis as a concept grounded in exploitation, partnership and assimilation (Nkrumah 1973:1). On the other hand, colonialism is analyzed primarily as a practice by which colonial rule binds her colonies to herself, with a “primary object of promoting her economic advantages” (Nkrumah 1973:2). It is characterized by mechanisms involving power through direct conquest or through political and economic influence that effectively create a form of domination by one nation over another. According to Moore (2001:182), many critics prefer the term “postcolonial” without a hyphen because it is less “suggestive of (imagined) chronological or ideological supersession”.
Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is interpreted as new form of liberalism. Neoliberalism is a theory that holds that states should try to achieve absolute gains rather than trying to achieve gains relative to other countries. Neoliberalism argues that in an interdependent world, states will seek efficiency in managing collective problems presented by international anarchy. Neoliberalism is a direct response to neorealism, which emphasizes that states have no reason to cooperate with one another. They exist in an anarchic world where states must all compete with one another.