Constructivism vs. Neoconstructivism

Attribute	Constructivism	Neoconstructivism
Founders	Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky	Ernst von Glasersfeld, Heinz von Foerster
Focus	Learning as a social process	Emphasis on individual's construction of knowledge
Epistemology	Subjective interpretation of reality	Radical constructivism
Reality	Constructed by individuals	Multiple realities
Learning process	Active participation and social interaction	Self-regulated learning and reflection

Introduction

Constructivism and Neoconstructivism are two important theories in the field of international relations. While both theories share some similarities, they also have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will compare the key attributes of Constructivism and Neoconstructivism to provide a better understanding of their differences and similarities.

Core Principles

Constructivism is a theory that emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping international relations. According to Constructivists, the behavior of states is influenced by social constructs rather than material factors. This means that states' actions are not solely determined by power or interests, but also by shared beliefs and values. On the other hand, Neoconstructivism builds upon Constructivism by incorporating elements of rational choice theory. Neoconstructivists argue that while ideas and norms are important, states still act in their self-interest and seek to maximize their utility.

Focus on Identity

One of the key differences between Constructivism and Neoconstructivism is their focus on identity. Constructivism places a strong emphasis on the role of identity in shaping state behavior. According to Constructivists, states' identities are constructed through interactions with other states and international institutions. These identities influence states' preferences and actions in the international system. In contrast, Neoconstructivism downplays the importance of identity and focuses more on states' strategic calculations and rational decision-making.

Norms and Institutions

Both Constructivism and Neoconstructivism recognize the importance of norms and institutions in shaping international relations. Constructivists argue that norms and institutions play a crucial role in shaping states' behavior and promoting cooperation. They believe that norms are socially constructed and can change over time through interactions between states. Neoconstructivists, on the other hand, view norms and institutions as tools that states use to advance their interests. They argue that states can strategically manipulate norms and institutions to achieve their goals.

Power and Influence

Another key difference between Constructivism and Neoconstructivism is their views on power and influence. Constructivists argue that power is not just about military capabilities or economic resources, but also about the ability to shape ideas and norms. They believe that states can exert influence through soft power, which is based on attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. Neoconstructivists, on the other hand, place a greater emphasis on hard power and material capabilities. They argue that states' behavior is primarily driven by their power and interests, rather than by ideas and norms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Constructivism and Neoconstructivism are two important theories in the field of international relations that offer different perspectives on the nature of state behavior. While Constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping international relations, Neoconstructivism incorporates elements of rational choice theory and focuses more on states' self-interest and strategic calculations. By comparing the core principles, focus on identity, views on norms and institutions, and perspectives on power and influence of Constructivism and Neoconstructivism, we can gain a better understanding of their differences and similarities.