Peaceful Power

The ideals of realism and constructivism are vastly different from one another, and as a result, there is only one side that I can identify with: Constructivism. Realism believes that states are static and that states’ only interests are power and security. While this ideology existed in the past, it does not exist today because countries have other goals, such as social and economic ones. Constructivism says that states change over time not because of power shifts but because of changes in states’ interests and identities. State identities can form relationships between states where states work together to achieve world prosperity and peace. Constructivism also gives the people a voice to determine the social construct. With many issues going on in the world today, more and more countries are working together to eliminate the issues and establish global prosperity, and citizens have a say in that.

Even though a state may seek an abundance of power, states do not focus on how their power compares to other states unless there is an extreme situation. If another state becomes powerful, and perhaps more powerful than the former, then so be it. The former will not plot an attack on the latter because it feels weaker. Conflict will only emerge if needs to; that is, if one country makes a “gesture,” then the former will respond accordingly. If Canada grows incredibly powerful for whatever reason, we (the U.S.) understand that we have diplomatic relations with them; thus, they won’t attack us. Therefore, we will not build up our national security simply because of Canada’s power. We will only act to react; acting out of fear that Canada is powerful does not correlate to our political beliefs and our goals. We have made self-help mistakes in the past, such as during the Rwandan Genocide, but we have learned from our mistakes and we understand our duty as the most powerful nation on earth. Our duty is to utilize our power in the most selfless way possible. Realism suggests that if we did become a global hegemon, we’d wipe out all of the other states and sit in our comfy throne. If realism still existed, we’d be at World War X (10) by now.

Constructivism also makes more sense from a theoretical point of view. In constructivism, the people determine the validity of things; they essentially determine what exists, what doesn’t exist, what’s right, what’s wrong, and more. People determine the social construct, not the government. If the government were making every decision in society today, then society would have the makings of a dictatorship or a totality. If the government makes a certain decision, people have the power and the voice to protest it (except in certain countries). Realism says that the only piece of the puzzle is the government and it denies the voice of the people. Let’s think of an example of constructivism in action. If people were to say the word “chair” doesn’t exist anymore, then according to constructivism, the word “chair” would no longer exist. While this example is incredibly microscopic, it is essentially in taking a stance on realism vs. constructivism. Realism states that the “chair” will always exist and the people do not have the power to change the meaning or the existence of it. In the world today, with the exception of a few states, the people govern the ideology and beliefs of the state. They determine the social construct and have a say in the states' actions.

It is with these reasons that I identify much more closely with constructivism than realism. While realism most certainly existed in the past, such as during World War II, its ideals have faded away. Instead, state identity has come into play. State identities have formed relationships, and those relationships have resulted in cooperation towards working to achieve world success and peace. While states can be selfish at times, they are for the most part interested in helping other countries achieve prosperity and are willing to listen to the people.