Social Construction of Reality - Term Paper Example

«Social Construction of Reality» Social construction theories serving as the basis for diplomacy and negotiations of international relations between countries the world today are those of realism and liberalism. The goals for modern international relations are stability and order, and it is the theories of international realism and liberalism which facilitate those goals (Patomaki, Heikki, 2002:3). This approach is a reflection of the direction that the world is moving towards a world community, and one that has an economic base at its core. Peace, however, is essential to the stability of a world community and building a world economy. Peace is accomplished by building liberal democratic states. Peace is the objective of international theories of liberal realism. Without peace, there can be no stabilization in the relationships between the countries of the world. In order to bring about the peace that lends itself to the stability that is necessary to successfully emerge as a world community, under a world economy, means that there must be a majority of liberal democratic states to support that world economy and to maintain the peace. It cannot be accomplished without eliminating or negotiating to a non-warring causality, those ideologies that separate us ethnically and as cultures. It is important, and is part of the realism of liberal philosophy, that those ethnic and cultural differences are not things which should separate us, but which should by nature of their differences cause us to be interested in one another. The diversity in culture and tradition that exists between people of the democratic states, are differences that can be used to bind us, through celebration and appreciation of these differences. This paper is a brief exploration of theories of realism and liberalism at an international level. It is intended to promote an understanding of the theories, and how and what conditions are necessary for those conditions to flourish. As we know, there remain vast differences, especially politically and religiously between the west and the Muslim nations, most notably, and Korea and China that continue to be problematic on a large scale. There remain enormous problems in areas of Africa, and even close to the seat of democratic realism, America, in South America. Evidence for a Liberal Realist Approach to International Relations The ontology of realism and liberalism are really the only philosophies which facilitates the international community coming together as a successful world community, in the interest of the world population. The critical realists (CR) draw upon the Aristotlean philosophy in international relations. “Better social ontology is thus the key to constructing more adequate sets of empirical evidence (Patomaki, 2002:99).” The empirical evidence for realism and liberalism in international relations is evidenced by many historic elements and changes that actually go in the direction of building a democratic state, and away from socialism, and especially away from communism. The first body of evidence is the fall of communism, beginning even before Boris Yeltsin suspended the Communist Party in Russia in 1991 (Busky, Donald, 2002:199). The deterioration actually began with the shortage of supplies in the communist countries (Hudelson, 1993). The black market in the communist countries arose much the same as did the bootlegging industry during the American prohibition. The black market created entities, mob-like in many instances, which created an underground system for purchasing and selling all kinds of goods that could not be found on the communist common market system (Hudelson, 1993). The system that had been founded Stalin, which was intended to bring about social equality, and prosperity without class lines, had succumbed to the first rule of free market enterprise: supply and demand. It did not matter that the supply was line was illegal, because there was a demand that fed the need to supply. It demonstrates that realism and liberal democracy are a natural progression in a society. In the Soviet Union, consumerism became a black market event, creating wealthy individuals in mafia like strongholds of power. The utopianism ideology that saw a socially owned economy as the equalizer for society had failed. It was a grand experiment, and one which left Russia and the former Soviet Bloc countries in a state of ruin, ostensibly reduced to a third world economy. The people of the Soviet Union, who once were motivated and excited by a new political ideology, became politically apathetic (Hudelson, 1993). Absenteeism from work, and alcoholism were on the rise in the Soviet Union (Hudelson, 1993). The Soviet political leadership knew that change, on a large scale, was necessary to turn things around in the Soviet Union (Hudelson, 1993). China, though it remains a communist political system, is quasi-capitalist in its economic philosophy. Again, supporting the contention that liberal realism is a natural direction for society, as China has realized a higher level of economic success and functioning than did the Soviet Union. There remains, however, strict government controls over speech, religion, and other areas of society that prevent the Chinese people from being able to lead unrestricted and free lives, or to hold political elections for choosing their government. What the Chinese have done is to blend the best of both worlds of communism and democracy, to find a, for now, some measure of economic success. Even if China remains quasi communist, that fact that they have abandoned total communist socialism as a failed experiment is demonstrative of its inability to sustain in reality the constructs of the theory. Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism in International Relationships There is perhaps no better time than the present to closely examine the realism of liberal democracy. Uskali Maki (2002) states that economics science is far from being an exact one, and that theories and models and methods are just that, but there are always unpredictable variables that impact the theories, models and methods to alter the outcome. This is an agreeably accurate statement, but it remains that in a realist liberal democratic society, there remains the opportunity to address the adverse impacts, because of the broad leeway that exists in the theory, model, and method. There is the freedom that enables the private sector to assess and redesign the model if it does not work. This freedom to redesign the model, or to reinterpret the theory, does not exist anywhere except in the realist liberal democratic state. Right now this proves to be true in the present economy, China, which remains politically socialized, does not have the freedom to redefine its economic failures in the same way that the United States does, because the industry, business, is socialized, owned by the state. Whereas in the United States, the government can offer “bailouts” to the private sector to stimulate the economy, and it is reinventing the model, adjusting it, to the failed theory, and reinterpreting the theory as the government becomes an investor, of sorts, in certain sectors of what was previously a solely private sector, like the banking industry. Is this a change in liberal democracy, or is this exemplifying liberal democracy by adjusting the economic theory that is proven insufficient? Since liberal realism on an international level is about world economics, it might perhaps be exemplifying liberal democratic realism. Maki says: “Other people, most notably many practicing economists, disagree on the pessimistic diagnosis of economics – or at least of their own favorite part of it – as “dismal. ” For them, economics is the queen of the social sciences, and this is so not only because of its superior mathematical rigor. They believe that the best of economics is driven by a keen interest in real-world issues and policy relevance, and that it is capable of delivering insights and important information about economic reality: or at any rate more relevant and reliable information about economic issues than any other intellectual endeavor. These people – if they were methodologically enlightened – might say that it just appears as if economics deals only with fictions: the fictitiousness of economics is itself a fiction. In fact, economics – or at any rate a sufficiently large part of it – is very much a respectable fact-oriented scientific discipline. This fact about economics is easy to overlook, for the simple reason that the relationships between economic theory and reality are quite convoluted and hard to monitor: by necessity, reality is indefinitely complex, while theory is simple. Carlyle missed this because he did not understand that “all science is 'dismal' to the artist” as Schumpeter once put it (1954, 410) (Maki, 2002:4).” What Maki also says, is that “realism” is the opportunity to realign the model, readjust the theory and method. The realism is essential to a successful economy, and as the economy moves away from a state by state one, to a world economy, the world will experience a reorientation of the model on the scale, which is now a world scale. The world scale was not originally calculated into the state model. Therefore, it should perhaps come as less of a surprise to most economists that when expanded beyond the state to a world trade zone, and world markets, that there would indeed be much need for change at the state level. Ted Hopf (2002) quotes Anthony Giddens from The Constitution of Society, saying, “A theory of society should provide conceptions of the nature of human social activity and of the human agent which can be placed in the service of empirical work (Hopf, 2002:1).” Hopf goes on to mention that every individual society has many identities, and those identities are associated with language, vocabulary, and discursive practices. It is perhaps for this reason that others turn to the United States as a model of diversity, realism, liberalism, and for political and economic leadership in the world. Realism is an important element in the liberal democratic economic state. It is the basis upon which might be differentiated between conspicuous consumption, and true market value. Over consumption must be designed out of the international model as production. Over consumption, when it is portrayed in terms of production goals, is a formula for economic disaster (Hackley, 2001). If the governments of the world are going about constructing a world economy, that economy must be modeled upon a reliable, realist, model of production and consumerism (Hackley, 2001). The desire amongst the world population to conspicuously consume should not be built into the model as production, because that is a building an inflated model, and one not on a foundation of realism. “Note, for example, the strains of materialism, realism, Hegelian transcendence, Utopianism, universalism, essentialism, progressivism, the unselfconscious use of complex devices of literary persuasion, the deadpan humourlessness and moral certainty in Hetrick and Lozada's (1994) critique of Murray and Ozanne's (1991) 'critical imagination' thesis for consumer research. Compare this with mainstream marketing's materialist outlook in its privileging of production over consumption as production (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995), its strains of essentialism in clinging to fossilised conceptual certainties like the Four Ps (Brownlie and Saren, 1992) and its inspirational, aspirational tone of something moving ever onwards towards a marketing manager's vision of social Utopia (Maclaran and Stevens, 1998). In these and in many other ways discussed later, Neo-Marxian interpretations of critical theory and mainstream representations of marketing have, I feel, a similarly ideological character which emerges when they are viewed as texts. As Hetrick and Lozada (1994) concede towards the end of their article, when critical theory is re-interpreted in the light of post-structuralist and postmodernist thought (as in Agger, 1991), an intellectually viable perspective emerges that is devoid of the normative imperative, moral myopia and intellectual essentialism of Marxist social critique (Hackley, 2001:14).” The liberalism allows for conspicuous consumption, which will manifest itself in market demand. The market, however, must research the consumer from a perspective of a realist philosophy in evaluating the consumer so that the consumer desires, which could be absent the ability to make the real investment to support production, do not become the basis of production (Hackley, 2001). As an economist, Hackley’s description of the world market, consumerism, and production takes on a much more detailed and complex explanation. One that is much too complex to adequately dissect in detail here, but his point on consumerism and production is simplistic in idea as to be sufficiently inferred and conveyed as has been done here. It goes without saying, however, that in terms of economic realism and liberalism, the discussion takes on a level of complexity necessitating the understanding of the language in a way that exceeds most consumer vocabularies. “Real (popular, everyday, current, vulgar, sweaty, shirt-sleeved, etc., etc.) life tends to be marginalised in the discourse of purer intellectual pursuits. In this sense mainstream marketing discourse can seem to have an appealing oppositional character, its anti-intellectualism appealing to jaded intellectuals and its blunt and forthright relation to daily practices acting as a call to come on down from the ivory tower. Or perhaps the neolithic, monolithic, aphoristic, apocryphal rhetoric of anti-rhetoric that is mainstream marketing is a metaphor for teenage rebellion for some who were more interested in reading than rebelling when their hormones were raging and their pustules postulating (Hackley, 2001:169).” The Language of International Relations The realism versus idealism philosophy of international construction is a relatively new vocabulary, and one which reflects an emerging lexicon in the process of being built simultaneously with a world economy. “In the 1980s, there was nearly a consensus on at least one point, namely that international relations (IR) contained three basic perspectives: (1) political realism; (2) liberalism (seen also with varying emphasis as idealism, or pluralism or economic liberalism); and (3) marxism (seen also, again with varying emphasis, as structuralism or as a socialist model). Each of these holds a characteristic view of international politics. In spite of a century of sustained effort, it is not unfair to say that these perspectives continue to exist only in a rather speculative outline. Also, as far as (1) and (2) are concerned, they mostly repeat the cognitive structure of international problematic that was articulated by Hume and Kant, and established in the nineteenth century (Patomaki, 2002:70).” These philosophies tend to be the vernacular of great men and political leaders. We are, today, however, in a territory that has never before been negotiated. International world affairs today are not state-independent, but state-to-state-dependent. These philosophies are a sound foundation for common philosophical exchange, and can serve to facilitate the discourse in a meaningful way between like-minds. There continues debate, but the goal must be to bring the debate to a productive construct that will support the dependent world states, and which will serve to bring about a democratic state building process that comes about naturally in the same way that we saw it happen in the former Soviet Union, and as we are seeing it happen in China, and even the Middle East. This is an emancipation of the world market system which has until recently be constricted by a limited market goal and vocabulary. A capitalist market is not just about commerce, but also about relationship building. There must be a spirit of cooperation, with a focus on the common interest if the process of building a world economy is going to be successful. “A capitalist market society consists not only of market transactions but also of social relations inside hierarchical organisations, such as multinational corporations, or between, say, privately owned organisations and state compartments. Organisations facilitate co-operation among actors. This facilitation of co-operation is to a varying extent due to the local degree of hierarchical surveillance and control, but also because organisations create enduring contexts for social action. In organisations there can develop a trustful atmosphere where the mode of action changes, to some extent, towards that of normatively regulated action, at least in the 'high trust positions' (Giddens 1987a:157-62). Also, communicative action in organisations has better prerequisites for success than in the context of markets (cf. Williamson 1975:37-9; also Perrow 1986). Furthermore, Galbraith (1967) has shown how the actions of the technocratic staff of large firms can also be interpreted in terms of the dramaturgical model (Patomaki, 2002:111).” While these ideas and concepts for a universal vocabulary, there is a move afoot to circumvent the efforts of a world community, and especially a world market. This is what has been dubbed the “anti-globalization,” movement (Eschle, Catherine, and Maiguascha, 2005). Here is a dynamic of the ongoing process which must be considered from the perspectives of realism and liberalism. The Anti-Globalization Movement Just as there is being constructed a global movement, there is the reverse in the anti-globalization movement. For obvious reasons, many critics have already cited the short-sightedness of the movement, and, because we are looking at the world from the position of an international market and economy, the expectation is that the anti-globalization movement will not be a successful one (Eschle and Maiguascha, 2005). Even though this is the prediction for anti-globalists, the movement nonetheless creates obstacles which must be overcome along the route of globalization. “Activist tactics, ideologies and organisations may be assessed (e.g. Halliday 2000a) but generally the focus is on non-governmental organisations or civil society; global power and governance; or the politics of resistance. This tendency to avoid the concept of 'movement' could stem from a tacit agreement with those who fear it imposes totalising and hierarchical assumptions about anti-globalisation identity and organisation (e.g. Esteva and Prakash 1998:13; Whitaker 2003). I will argue below that it is more accurate to think of movements as heterogeneous and continually reconstructed. More pertinently here, I think avoidance is more likely to derive from the general neglect in IR of 'social movements' and social movement theory. Movements have traditionally been seen as located not in the international but in the domestic, and not in the political but in the social (Walker 1994). They are, therefore, doubly invisible in IR and the proper subject matter of sociology. In addition, they disrupt the usual categories of state-centric, pluralist or structuralist IR and are difficult to assess through the dominant IR methodologies of empiricist quantification, analysis of historical continuities or Marxist materialism (Eschle and Stammers 2004) (Eschle and Maiguascha, 2005:18).” The anti-globalization movement is not rooted in realism, and has no real model upon which the movement is based with which to inject credibility into the argument against globalization. The vocabulary must be one that stems from realism and liberalism, and the anti-globalization argument does not sustain a realist liberal philosophy. Conclusion In this brief examination of the realism and liberalism in the international vocabulary, we have seen that there is a common philosophy that is anchored in the philosophy of past masters, but that it serves not as the criteria, but just as the guidance for building a new international vocabulary. This is necessary as this point in world history is economically, technologically, and socially unlike any other in history. There is a remarkable unity emerging that exceeds the economic need of the world, but also speaks to the psychological and social growth and well being of the world as a world community. Arguments against this outcome will ultimately fail. It is agreeably necessary to find a means by which to sustain the world economy that is not one with a false bottom that will lead to a disruption of the move toward peace and political stability around the world. Fortunately, as has been shown here, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. There is a wide body of knowledge and resources from which to draw and to be guided by as we move toward the world community. WORKS CITED Busky, Donald F. 2002. Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union. Westport, CT: Praeger. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107084004. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. Eschle, Catherine and Bice Maiguashca, eds. 2005. Critical Theories, International Relations, and "The Anti-Globalisation Movement": The Politics of Global Resistance. New York: Routledge. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109137035. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. Hackley, Chris. 2001. Marketing and Social Construction: Exploring the Rhetorics of Managed Consumption. London: Routledge. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108408781. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=114001764. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. Hudelson, Richard H. 1993. The Rise and Fall of Communism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91208727. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. MÄki, Uskali, ed. 2002. Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism and Social Construction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105059564. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. Patomäki, Heikki. 2002. After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics. London: Routledge. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108069703. Internet. Accessed 21 December 2008. Read More