ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- As part of the "Theory In Action" video series, we interviewed top IR theorists and asked them to explain theory using terms we could understand. In this video, Professor Caleb Gallemore tells us about Constructivism and why it's like Neo in The Matrix.
Soomo Learning
soomolearning.com/
Shot in Columbus, OH & Chicago, IL in the spring of 2011
Directed & Edited by
Tim Alden Grant
Cinematography by
Adam Hobbs
adamhobbs.tv/
Ed David
www.kittyguerri...
Written by
Zara Elizabeth Crockett
Nina Kollars
This is the best educational video I've ever watched. Informative, yet short and simple. With loads of examples. Thank you very much!
This video taught me more in 5 minutes than spending 4 hours trying to read and decipher a text on constructivism.
This seriously helped me for my Constructivism essay in college, thank you!
+Holly Kenny Exactly why I am here too, this was very well explained.
+Holly Kenny yep ill join that train...a final essay due the day of the final exam....WTF.
+Aaron Saldana Oof sounds awful, best of luck!
I didn't think anyone would respond haha thank you very much!
+HollaBollas I love these quick little videos Soomo puts out. I've used them a ton to help guide my IR essays too.
Constructivism is a relevant theory in international relations because the idea of how we perceive our world influences decision making of leaders of states. Other theories focus on how states can co-operate or maximise their gain, but it is never really mentioned that traditions and beliefs could be equally important in understanding why a states made a certain choice. This is just for people who are confused by how this might link into international relations.
How can social constructivism can be used to do explain rise of China
So, I should point out that I'm not a professor, and I can't claim to be a "top IR theorist," but I hope you folks found this helpful. -- Caleb
I'm glad that I found this - I am a 2009 graduate of IR at Ohio State. I wholeheartedly subscribe to Wendt's simple explanation of IR in Constructivist. I'm currently reading Quantum Mind and Social Science - just through the 40 page primer and it's excellent. I hope others have found your video helpful!
Qty
This is very interesting.
You should do more stuff like this, bravo Caleb :)
You’re a professor now. :)
I love the Intro and Ending
"So in the Matrix....
"....you kinda have to let your brain explode a little bit"
alriiiiight
Awesome, I did not understand constructivism until I listened to your explanation. Thank you.
You guys are making my international security class manageable. God bless you abundantly.
I love the way he explain the things, everything is so clear
This was so great. I’ve spent hours today on IR constructivist theory and nothing felt so accessible as this.
As a future teacher I find this very insightful. Keep up the great work!
Thank you Professor Gallemore. You totally saved me from a very confused research class this entire semester. :)
12 years later still helping so much.
You are one of those people who make other people's lives easier.
Many many blessings to you.
Exactly! I'm so happy I stumbled upon constructivist theory late last night and read about it on Wikipedia earlier today. It's harmoniously in tune with where I'm at right now on the journey of personal growth or development. Contructivist philosophy to me is all about taking back control, contrary to our minds or habits of thought controlling us; which of course has apparently devastating consequences that--one need not look far.
By far the most complex and difficult to understand of the main IR theories, also the one that is most quickly dismissed by many people.
Constructivism is not perfect, but of the main schools of IR thought, I think it comes the closest to understanding the world and international relations. When you get down to it, international relations are a fight to maintain identities in a world where everyone else is trying to do the same. Survival for the sake of survival is the philosophy of animals, not humans. Everything in human interaction is underpinned by beliefs in abstract constructs and ideologies. Politics is simply a collective term for broad discourses in which people assert their worldview, and international relations is no different. Once you look beyond the military might, you realise that states are only using that might because they care about abstract, intangible things like sovereignty and identity. Without constructivist notions of motivation, studying international relations is superficial and pointless.
+Thomas Minot I'm in your court. I, too, subscribe to constructivism over most other forms of IR. However, we are highly irrational beings when faced with only questions of survival, even a state-behavior is irrational, which is my argument against realism's "rational actor". I think realism is the most important theory a state can use when its 'face is to the fire', but that is the only time I think it should be used. I disagree with you about humans and believe we are animals in the strictest sense.
+Kurtis Edwards
Playing devil's advocate: What is to be considered rational? One must define "rationality" before dismissing it. I think the fault of many realists in the past was that they simply assumed this definition according to their own cultural biases. Many contemporary IR theorists have taken a more nuanced approach. It is not a matter of actors being _rational_ or not. Instead, the various actors may all be seemingly rational through their own respective lens, which in turn can have very different outcomes in how they behave. This is what makes many realists consider themselves constructivists and vice versa. Conversely, many IR theorists simply refrain from being put under a banner altogether. I personally don't subscribe to any particular school of thought. However, I tend to think constructivism does a better job at answering many liberal questions than liberal theorists do themselves.
I think subscribing to one IR theory with any exclusivity is somewhat stupid, we have these 3 main theories, why not apply them all to each situation (where possible at least) with as much good faith and intellectual honesty that is possible and see what garners the best practical result on a case by case basis.
That said, out of the three I do agree that Constructivism is the most broadly applicable, that is to say it arguably explains more about the international system than Liberal and Realist theories of IR put together.
In some cases the most broadly applicable isn't the best though, when a more strict and narrow ideology does a better job explaining the problem, and we're back to my first point again. In others one theory may fall apart completely still in others two theories may fundamentally contradict eachother in their analysis etc..
Morphing Reality damn, first sentence is already calling things stupid. Cause that will command respect. However, I did notspeak in absolutes back when I commented
Kurtis Edwards Even Kenneth Waltz described realism as simplistic. All these theories are designed for various contexts. They're _simplified_ approaches to a reality that is much more nuanced and complex than the human mind could hope to understand. If you're too thin skinned by someone pointing that out, ease up. I'm just trying to be honest. I mean no disrespect.
This explains CT in IR so perfectly
Thank you
giving a short summary presentation on constructivism for a world politics class. mighty sure the students will appreciate this! cheers.
first watched this years ago, still just as good
This is Sam from Game of Thrones
My professor confused him with Kim Dotcom
the speaker spoke very vivdly and attractively, love this video and the constructivism
Thank you for explaining this theory in such a succinct manner.
This is a great video! It really made me understand what's up with constructivism
I'm sitting here with my mouth open because the speaker just expressed some of my own thoughts and musing on the world. I didn't know there was a theory that went so well with the stuff pinging about in my skull.
I love you! Okay, okay, I'm being a little dramatic but I appreciate this video so much. I was having a hard time trying to wrap my head around this theory and now I have a better sense of it.
Very simple and beautiful explanation 👌. One of the best educational videos I have seen.
What is interesting about social constructivism in IR, or in general epistemology for that matter, is that it decides that everything is "constructed" by the interactions between humans. However, one would, to preserve the general/explanatory power of the theory, have to accept that the theory of social constructivism has itself been constructed through the interactions of humans, and that it's validity is simply subject to human agreement alone, in other words, it refutes itself.
Really helpful! This cleared up a lot.
You are a great teacher, the way you explain this theory is excellent! Great job. Thank you so much
This is great! Really gave me a better understanding of the theory.
the USSR example it is more complicated I think. Even though, the
overwhelming majority of the Soviet peoples voted for the "preservation
of the USSR" during the referendum of 1991, the anti-communist leaders
disbanded it undemocratically. Therefore, the thesis that "the USSR
dissolved just because of its' citizens' didn't believe its' existence"
is groundless. It doesn't match with the statistics.
And still majority of the people regret the dissolution of the USSR in the post-soviet countries. It is obvious in the recent polls.
@BoredDictator
I have to agree with 86Legacy. He wasn't saying the USSR fell with the Wall but rather it started a domino effect of thought that caused the USSR to completely unravel.
pls take my IR midterm exam for me tomorrow i am begging u
Preparing 10 minutes before exam right now😅😅😅
@@avevelad8687 How did it go lol
@@GigatLP I was taking theories in IR, SO overall A) however, I had to withdraw fundamentals of IR 🤷♂️ thus this information is more useful for theories😂
The best explanation online.
It is a theory in IR and therefore it is applicable in many ways as many others. Or maybe my professor and all the writers I read so far are wrong and you are the only one who is right!
Excelent explanation, thanks for sharing! Much clearer than my textbook and I loved the matrix analogy.
Very well explained and easy to understand. Thank you.
Such clarity of expression; thank you!
imagine if Michael Scott held the exact same monologue… with the exact same words. It would fit perfectly!
My gosh, THANK YOU!!! I’ve had this explained to me so many times, but after watching this, I definitely grasp the concept of constructivism more than ever!!
Sharing a belief system internationally is what keeps an egregore alive
I wish there were more of these videos on theories such as Marxism, English School and Feminism
English school is a subset of constructivism
if a constructivist starts out with "so in the matrix..." you know he's legit lmao
In my opinion, Constructivism is by far the best theory to address international politics.
Where can I order an essay?
My essay lives in Miami. I wrote to him like you said, but I don't think he got the letter yet.
I relate to this very much
Very clear explanation. Thank you...
This video helped me so much! Amazing explanations! Thanks xx
Thank you!! You just made studying so much easier for me!
Great video! Very simple and to the point
Constructivism in regards to statecraft is like whipped cream on a sundae. It's nice to have a population that feels a bond with their government, but it's not completely necessary. If a government can keep control, it will keep control whether the people like it or not. But it's always nice for the sake of government sovereignty to have a population see their government as legitimate.
In sum 'You have to make your brains kind of explode' in order to be considered a 'Constructivist'. So references to 'The Matrix', the ending of USSR in 1989/1991 as articulated by Prof. Caleb Gallemore etc, are examples of how 'constructivism ' can be understood. I dare opine that this is quite an interesting way, to introduce students, to the mainstream IR theory of 'Constructivism'.
yeah but why did they decide that it was time to stop? The economic downfall? So the structure still influences the agent
Yeah, of course. Out actions and beliefs influence the rules we play by, but those social rules also influence our actions. That's the circular process he describes at the beginning.
this man speaks my language
Makes more sense, to me, than anything I've ever heard before! :)
any thought or idea can refute itself. That's why humans never stop arguing about things. At least constructivists realize that their own believe system is nothing more than an artificial construct of a human mind.
thank you so helpful!
I disagree when he said "red meaning stop to be a random choice". Psychologists have studied that human brains have evolved to perceive red as an alert color to equate with either blood, injury, concern, inflammation, etc. It's a color that catches more attention than others.
Can you prove it with scientific explanation why red as an alert colour ? Psychologist just give meaning to the red colour; which is highly normative and that’s what constructivist school of thought based on.
Thank you
This helped me a lot.
thank you so much!! This helped me alot! :)
Can u apply social constructivism to rise of China ..I need it for my exam
hello, can someone please help to understand, why we should agree with the theory of constructivism? and what the positive influences of constructivism might be?
How would a constructivist view conflicts? Are they constructed or "real"?
Thank you openstax!
very helpful thank you so much
Perfectly elaborated.
crystal clear, thx a lot!
what I've honestly never understood about this being a theory to describe the international realm, I feel like it's because my mind is corrupted simultaneously being a philosophy student, is that this theory describes the world around us itself. It can so easily describe our reality in general, whereas realism and liberalism can't, and more specifically describe the international realm. This is what's always tripped me up about this being an international relations theory, it's too broad.
I disagree with the constructivist's view of the USSR's dissolution because people no longer felt they believed in the triumph of communism, or because they felt no more kinship with Moscow; they believed that better economic opportunities were in the West, and they pushed against the state in order to free themselves; they didn't just stop "being" Soviets. It sure helped that Gorbachev did nothing to stop them. Had he had enough power to stop them he would've.
I think things aren't as random as he alludes to. For example, I think there is a good reason stop lights/signs are red as opposed to some other color despite what he said.
Well, from my basic knowledge of Psychology, it was chosen because the color red incited fear or danger on a physiological sense.
Then, it just became the "normal" color for a stoplight or stop sign.
I’m still confused 😭
Great video
What is difference between constructivism and cultural relativism
that was awesome. Thank You.
Thank you.
this is the best possible reductionist explanation of social constructivism
well explained
Can someone point me to a video or resource that explains the difference between constructionism and constructivism...
As someone from a country that's been occupied by russia and forced to be in USSR I disagree with that example. People didn't just wake up and thoughts 'Maybe it's not that important to be in USSR anymore' people have been fighting for it to stop for years. Political prisoners, executions, starvation, deadly protests, killing of the culture this is what came into a fight to stop USSR
Windy & Carl, knew I had heard it somewhere before!
Best explained!
I need to start smoking weed because studying international relationships is like a bad marihuana trip
I don't disagree with or challenge any of Gallemore's claims here but "top IR theorists"? That's a mighty stretch considering his areas of research/interests and publications are predominantly based around Global Land Use and Land Cover Change. Nice try Soomo, but I'm not quite convinced on that one.
And FYI if you're looking for "top IR theorists" I'd recommend names like Mearsheimer, Katzenstein, Wendt, Keohane and Deudney & Ikenberry to name a few.
On ya mark, get set.... google!
It's not just a claim, it's an axiom. And of course all axioms are constructed by definition. This is why from a (radical) constructivist point of view there is no absolute truth. Keep in mind that the existence of an absolute truth can only be resolved by belief (faith). Constructivists believe (hypothesize) there is none, realists hypothesize there is one.
This theory is highly normative. Not empirical
there is one reason we believe we exist...perspective is nothing other than the realization we are in fact..here and self aware...this being said my perspective is mine alone. This self awareness allows us to criticize one another and hold each other to a higher standard..and still show forgiveness and relative understanding of another's perspective.I have great hopes that humanity will figure out that perspective is relative not the theory of relativity.Social science is no science at all.Best wishes
No, I never said that you should reply but think of it. You should read more carefully what people tell you and write to you! Thank you for calling me dumb, I guess that shows how broad minded you are and smarter than any of the scholars who represent this and other theories and people who agree with them!
@nicoterradas
Of course the perception of the world depends from the perspective you look at it. It takes more than just saying YEAH RIGHT to disprove what this theory claims. You should think of it!
So how is this different from Relativism?
I love it man!
anybody know any arguments against constructivism in international relations?
What if we all woke up tomorrow and decided the theory of constructivism is wrong? The theory is self contradicting insomuch as the possibility exists that the very set of truths that it purports describe reality can be turned against themselves, given the people all decide they should.
It's like if the majority all decided that "falsity" is "truth" and that "truth" is falsity." It doesn't change the existence of truth, obviously, so their "choice" is irrelevant and deceptive.
I would say constructivism is a supplement to other theories.
What a way to finish. "You have to kind of make your brain explode a bit" lol
the funny thing is that USSR still exists inside some people's minds who have a very strong/rigid believe system
thank you.
Great explanation.
However, red is the color of blood-that is why it means stop. It's not completely arbitrary, there is a "natural foundation" to it.
What makes "being the color of blood" meaning to stop?
Then, the theory of constructivism would vanish. There is nothing self-contradictory about it and it's not really an issue of majority. The theory says that reality is constructed from the fusion of individuals' perceptions and they interact in society. It doesn't say that the reality constructed by the majority becomes absolute.
Is this the constructivism of 8 theory of globalization?
If I ever have brain surgery, I'll make sure he's not a constructivist. I don't want him thinking I have to let my brain explode a bit.
"Make your brain Explode"- Scanners reference
>2011
man I feel kinda sad
thanks for explaining this though