Constructivist

Constructivism seems much more complete that the other theories. It takes into account historical background, and the idea that as circumstances and relationships change, actions and systems will also change. It explains why not all states are agressive, and not all states are looking to destroy the world. Constructivism is the first theory so far that adjusts for the unique relationships that certain countries have with one another. There are some points in Constructivism, however, that don't fully explain why states act the way they do in every circumstance. For instance, on pg. 25 of the Alexander article, he states that states can affor to rely on outside recognition for security and less on nationalist ways, such as military power. Though the author addresses Hitler and Napoleon as exceptions, he doesn't explain the extreme individuals who are in power. State relationships in the past may not be relavent in the situation where a new leader takes power who disagreed with the practices in the past. When extremists take power, do states assume the worst as realists argues or treat the state the same as they always have, as constructivists argue?

For some reason last week the blog wouldn't let me log in (talked to Professor Pervez earlier) so this post is for last week, as well as the next post.