While realists concern themselves with the balance of power system and liberals with the power of trade, interdependency and democracy, constructivists are most concerned with the power of ideas. For constructivists, political order arises from a shared understanding amongst individuals. In this, people’s understanding of their interests is shaped by the ideas that they adopt.
Constructivists argue that international reality is socially constructed. They are primarily concerned with the role of ideas in shaping the international system. Recognized from work of famous authors like Alexander Wendt and Katherine Sikkink, constructivists are interested in how ideas define international structures, and how international structures define the interests …show more content…
Feminists are especially critical of the masculine characteristics of the state and its perpetuation of the patriarchy. They highlights the role of gender in conflict, as a source of conflict, and generally assume that increasing the role of women in governance will lessen the frequency of war and enhance peace. For feminist IR theories, like Anne Tickner and Mary Kaldor, conflict is tied to senses of masculinity, and gendered concepts, as well as to the relative absence of women in the decision to go to war. For feminist theorists, male aggression is the central cause of conflict. Femininity is viewed in parallel with maternal instinct, which feminists often tie to a sense of pacifism that can lead to peace. Overall, feminist IR theorists see militarized masculinity to be inherent in the social construction of the state, which they believe perpetuates the construction of a gender dichotomy in which devalues feminine …show more content…
Triangulation here is an attempt to interpret and explain international behavior by studying it from more than one theoretical standpoint to generate a whole understanding of the conduct. To use a metaphor to illustrate the need for triangulation, I think conflicts are much similar to a Rubik’s cube. Using one theory to describe and settle a conflict is like using one method to describe and solve a Rubik’s cube – it is not possible. The cube has many different moving parts and combinations, and can only be solved by pre-empting actions and working with colors that do not seem to fit together. Conflicts are just as colorful. They have multiple drivers and actors, vary in how they unfold, and can only be solved by putting together individuals and entities that at a time do not seem to fit together. My point is that just as a Rubik’s cube can be described and solved in many different ways, conflicts can also range in their descriptions and resolutions. To use a single theory to describe and solve every conflict would be as pointless as using the same description and method to solve all Rubik’s cubes. The use of multiple theories through triangulation can provide us with a wider range of vocabulary and conceptual frameworks for understanding conflicts and responding to them appropriately - in the
Constructivists argue that international reality is socially constructed. They are primarily concerned with the role of ideas in shaping the international system. Recognized from work of famous authors like Alexander Wendt and Katherine Sikkink, constructivists are interested in how ideas define international structures, and how international structures define the interests …show more content…
Feminists are especially critical of the masculine characteristics of the state and its perpetuation of the patriarchy. They highlights the role of gender in conflict, as a source of conflict, and generally assume that increasing the role of women in governance will lessen the frequency of war and enhance peace. For feminist IR theories, like Anne Tickner and Mary Kaldor, conflict is tied to senses of masculinity, and gendered concepts, as well as to the relative absence of women in the decision to go to war. For feminist theorists, male aggression is the central cause of conflict. Femininity is viewed in parallel with maternal instinct, which feminists often tie to a sense of pacifism that can lead to peace. Overall, feminist IR theorists see militarized masculinity to be inherent in the social construction of the state, which they believe perpetuates the construction of a gender dichotomy in which devalues feminine …show more content…
Triangulation here is an attempt to interpret and explain international behavior by studying it from more than one theoretical standpoint to generate a whole understanding of the conduct. To use a metaphor to illustrate the need for triangulation, I think conflicts are much similar to a Rubik’s cube. Using one theory to describe and settle a conflict is like using one method to describe and solve a Rubik’s cube – it is not possible. The cube has many different moving parts and combinations, and can only be solved by pre-empting actions and working with colors that do not seem to fit together. Conflicts are just as colorful. They have multiple drivers and actors, vary in how they unfold, and can only be solved by putting together individuals and entities that at a time do not seem to fit together. My point is that just as a Rubik’s cube can be described and solved in many different ways, conflicts can also range in their descriptions and resolutions. To use a single theory to describe and solve every conflict would be as pointless as using the same description and method to solve all Rubik’s cubes. The use of multiple theories through triangulation can provide us with a wider range of vocabulary and conceptual frameworks for understanding conflicts and responding to them appropriately - in the