Realism and Liberalism, two political schools of thought contend two radically different behaviours towards a state's neighbors. Most of the behaviours acted upon, are best defined by liberalist and realist ideological principles. But history has shown that liberalist and realist nation states behaviour differently to other states. How can an anarchic international society allow such behaviour? According to Alexander Wendt, argues that anarchy is a political concept that states manipulates to their political perspective. Therefore, it is the purpose of this essay to discuss and demonstrate how anarchy is perceived, the effects it has on realist and liberalist states behaviour.
In order to understand Wendt's position, the political theory of Social Constructivism (SC) will be used to give supporting evidence to Wendt's argument. SC questions the materialism of liberalism, realism and marxism. It focuses on the role of ideas in international relations. It attempts to answers why two states who share a politic;a situation reaction in different ways; liberalist principles versus realist principles. Second, it asks why two political approaches that start at the same position develop into different reactions and answers to a problem. Ultimately, SC concludes that there is no …show more content…
He argued that choices can be rational depending on how an actor (state) perceives a threat and its neighbour. The problem with rational choices is that it forces political theories to base their decision on misguided principles. SC argues that international society is a organism that is not objectively fixed, rather it is a product of social construction of reality. For example sovereignty and the security dilemma are reactions of human actions and
In order to understand Wendt's position, the political theory of Social Constructivism (SC) will be used to give supporting evidence to Wendt's argument. SC questions the materialism of liberalism, realism and marxism. It focuses on the role of ideas in international relations. It attempts to answers why two states who share a politic;a situation reaction in different ways; liberalist principles versus realist principles. Second, it asks why two political approaches that start at the same position develop into different reactions and answers to a problem. Ultimately, SC concludes that there is no …show more content…
He argued that choices can be rational depending on how an actor (state) perceives a threat and its neighbour. The problem with rational choices is that it forces political theories to base their decision on misguided principles. SC argues that international society is a organism that is not objectively fixed, rather it is a product of social construction of reality. For example sovereignty and the security dilemma are reactions of human actions and