PSIR - Strategy, resources & discussion
Hi peeps. Let’s do this!
1. Previous papers from 2009 (both papers are in the same PDF):here2. Topic-wise PYQs: here
3. Look for PDFs of books here: b-ok.cc, http://libgen.rs/, archive.org
4. Model answers from SR:here
5. OnlyIAS notes, if you need extra matter for a few topics:here
6. SR notes, typed:politicsforindia.com
Dionysus,
@whatonly @Villanelle @SergioRamos @AzadHindFauj and all PSIR optional folks,
Is there any micro topic listing or index or Syllabus decoded of PSIR... feels will be handy to revise.
If anyone has prepared please share. Thank you in advance
THE_MECHANIC,Sam_Khan
@whatonly @Villanelle @SergioRamos @AzadHindFauj and all PSIR optionals
Is there any micro topic listing or index or Syllabus decoded of PSIR... feels will be handy to revise.
If anyone has prepared please share. Thank you in advance
PSIR optional! XD
So now you guys are on a recruiting drive too? :P
PSIR Best Optional Notes Download from Here🎯🇮🇳👉👉👉Click Here
How is Social constructivist critic of realism different from post modernist's on the same?
Anyone?
I think Contructivism is positivist while PoMo is post-positivist. There is also a Post-modern constructivism- a variant of constructivism that claims that there is no neutral viewpoint from which to assess the validity of analytical and ethical knowledge claims. It is often contrasted with a more mainstream version of constructivism called modern constructivism.
How is Social constructivist critic of realism different from post modernist's on the same?
Anyone?
Realists argue that international system is anarchic where only seeking power can help. Hence, one should maximize power.
However, Social constructivists argue that 'Anarchy is what one makes of it'. Realists are interpreting anarchy in a specific way to suit their narrative. This narrative can be changed by changing belief system and values. The realists belief system of suspicion,misconception can be changed by having dialogues and discussions. In a way, they are 'prescribing' states to come to dialogue table and resolve differences. Ex- India-US after 1998 test
Post modernists, on the other hand, see things from a lens of knowledge-power connection. For them, realists are creating a discourse where power is everything. States will indulge in power struggle letting realists discourse(knowledge) gain prominence(power). Post modernists can use similar logic to criticize other theories also like marxist theory or US attempt to spread(impose) democracy. They try to 'describe' the situation.
This is my understanding. Hopefully, others will validate this discourse :p
@whatonly @Villanelle @SergioRamos @AzadHindFauj and all PSIR optionals
Is there any micro topic listing or index or Syllabus decoded of PSIR... feels will be handy to revise.
If anyone has prepared please share. Thank you in advance
Can anyone throw light on this?
thesleepyhead,Can anyone throw light on this?
Sorry, nothing that I know of :/ I just used the syllabus topics itself and put whatever I could find in different material into my notes.
ToBeDiplomat,Constructivism is NOT positivist. They say objective reality don’t exist it is socially constructed.
Doesn't this make them the same as postmodernist? For Postmodernist socially constructed can be replaced by dominant narrative ( as it is legitimized by the majority of society) and the definition becomes the same.
Realists argue that international system is anarchic where only seeking power can help. Hence, one should maximize power.
However, Social constructivists argue that 'Anarchy is what one makes of it'. Realists are interpreting anarchy in a specific way to suit their narrative. This narrative can be changed by changing belief system and values. The realists belief system of suspicion,misconception can be changed by having dialogues and discussions. In a way, they are 'prescribing' states to come to dialogue table and resolve differences. Ex- India-US after 1998 test
Post modernists, on the other hand, see things from a lens of knowledge-power connection. For them, realists are creating a discourse where power is everything. States will indulge in power struggle letting realists discourse(knowledge) gain prominence(power). Post modernists can use similar logic to criticize other theories also like marxist theory or US attempt to spread(impose) democracy. They try to 'describe' the situation.
This is my understanding. Hopefully, others will validate this discourse :p
Yeah valid point but how does that explain the difference? In the words of SR's notes Richard Ashley ( PM scholar ) says " Anarchy does not necessarily mean security dilemma, it is the interpretation of anarchy by realists in a specific way that creates the dilemma." >Now this language comes very close to the social constructivists.
Doesn't this make them the same as postmodernist? For Postmodernist socially constructed can be replaced by dominant narrative ( as it is legitimized by the majority of society) and the definition becomes the same.
Yes, I think they are similar in the sense that they both dismiss objectivity, and argue for relative interpretation. But while Postmodernists dismiss the very assumptions of Realists, like lets say anarchy, Social Constructivists argue while there may be anarchy, it doesn't have to lead a certain thing. What it (anarchy) would mean for the states is socially constructed - instead of self help as the realists argue, it can also lead to cooperation among states.
@HeNeArKr to my understanding, they are similar in that they challenge the hegemony of the realist interpretation, and say that the realist interpretation (which stresses rivalry, vigilance, constant competition, security dilemma) is not a natural, inevitable state of affairs, but rather a way of looking at the world.
Social constructivists focus on the principle that different “constructions” can exist based on different ideas, and it is important that these ideas are exchanged and pitted against one another to synthesise lasting constructions. Realism is just one construction, and new constructions can come up. Their goal is primarily to show that other constructions can exist.
Post-modernists focus on the connection between “knowledge” of the world and power. They hold that realism is a view that is hegemonic because its proponents have power, and it serves the purpose of keeping their power intact. Thus they seek to undermine its validity - it is an instrument of exerting and protecting power, and not a legitimate way of interpreting the world. They are more concerned with how certain discourses come to be dominant, and not so much with how the ideas behind the discourses are formed in the first place. This is the same approach they take to their critique of pretty much everything.
In short I think the difference is that social constructivists are concerned withhow interpretations of IR are formed, and post-modernists are concerned withwho forms them. As far as social constructivists are concerned, (in theory) new “constructions” can emerge and they don’t focus on power. In the social constructivists view, it might be possible for any construction other than realism, even from the global south, to one day become dominant, if the exchange of ideas happens effectively. However in the post-modernist view, there is an analysis of why it is hard for other interpretations to gain prominence, as well as how realism has come to attain the position it holds.
I’m not very confident about my understanding - please correct if I’m wrong.
@HeNeArKr to my understanding, they are similar in that they challenge the hegemony of the realist interpretation, and say that the realist interpretation (which stresses rivalry, vigilance, constant competition, security dilemma) is not a natural, inevitable state of affairs, but rather a way of looking at the world.
Social constructivists focus on the principle that different “constructions” can exist based on different ideas, and it is important that these ideas are exchanged and pitted against one another to synthesise lasting constructions. Realism is just one construction, and new constructions can come up. Their goal is primarily to show that other constructions can exist.
Post-modernists focus on the connection between “knowledge” of the world and power. They hold that realism is a view that is hegemonic because its proponents have power, and it serves the purpose of keeping their power intact. Thus they seek to undermine its validity - it is an instrument of exerting and protecting power, and not a legitimate way of interpreting the world. They are more concerned with how certain discourses come to be dominant, and not so much with how the ideas behind the discourses are formed in the first place. This is the same approach they take to their critique of pretty much everything.
In short I think the difference is that social constructivists are concerned withhow interpretations of IR are formed, and post-modernists are concerned withwho forms them. As far as social constructivists are concerned, (in theory) new “constructions” can emerge and they don’t focus on power. In the social constructivists view, it might be possible for any construction other than realism, even from the global south, to one day become dominant, if the exchange of ideas happens effectively. However in the post-modernist view, there is an analysis of why it is hard for other interpretations to gain prominence, as well as how realism has come to attain the position it holds.
I’m not very confident about my understanding - please correct if I’m wrong.
@whatonly really insightful points, Thanks !! Also I am not sure about the last part as I haven't read about it anywhere can you tell me the source from where you read it? maybe it can give more clarity.
Yeah valid point but how does that explain the difference? In the words of SR's notes Richard Ashley ( PM scholar ) says " Anarchy does not necessarily mean security dilemma, it is the interpretation of anarchy by realists in a specific way that creates the dilemma." >Now this language comes very close to the social constructivists.
Agree with what others said.
In my view, the difference lies what they do after criticism. Social constructivists 'prescribe' dialogues to change belief system. One can create new "constructions" with new belief.
On other hand, post modernists don't prescribe anything. Otherwise it may become another discourse. They 'describe' the Knowledge-Power connection.
Regarding Richard Ashley, he talks about anarchy being interpreted by realists. He does not suggest any new interpretation. On other hand, Nina Tannenwald (social constructivist) talks about nuclear weapons and its harmful effects. She gives a 'new' interpretation and 'prescribes' to see them as a taboo rather than weapon of strength. The difference is prescription v/s description.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
@HeNeArKr to my understanding, they are similar in that they challenge the hegemony of the realist interpretation, and say that the realist interpretation (which stresses rivalry, vigilance, constant competition, security dilemma) is not a natural, inevitable state of affairs, but rather a way of looking at the world.
Social constructivists focus on the principle that different “constructions” can exist based on different ideas, and it is important that these ideas are exchanged and pitted against one another to synthesise lasting constructions. Realism is just one construction, and new constructions can come up. Their goal is primarily to show that other constructions can exist.
Post-modernists focus on the connection between “knowledge” of the world and power. They hold that realism is a view that is hegemonic because its proponents have power, and it serves the purpose of keeping their power intact. Thus they seek to undermine its validity - it is an instrument of exerting and protecting power, and not a legitimate way of interpreting the world. They are more concerned with how certain discourses come to be dominant, and not so much with how the ideas behind the discourses are formed in the first place. This is the same approach they take to their critique of pretty much everything.
In short I think the difference is that social constructivists are concerned withhow interpretations of IR are formed, and post-modernists are concerned withwho forms them. As far as social constructivists are concerned, (in theory) new “constructions” can emerge and they don’t focus on power. In the social constructivists view, it might be possible for any construction other than realism, even from the global south, to one day become dominant, if the exchange of ideas happens effectively. However in the post-modernist view, there is an analysis of why it is hard for other interpretations to gain prominence, as well as how realism has come to attain the position it holds.
I’m not very confident about my understanding - please correct if I’m wrong.
@whatonly really insightful points, Thanks !! Also I am not sure about the last part as I haven't read about it anywhere can you tell me the source from where you read it? maybe it can give more clarity.
I don't remember reading it as such anywhere 😅 I was just extending what I understood to be the logic of both. I will get back to studying this stuff soon, and I'll update here if I can find anything solid to back it up.
HeNeArKr,
- Wendt's aim was to bridge the two traditions of realism and liberalism and usher in the constructivist argument (Wendt 1992: 394).
- The realist conception of anarchy is rendered “meaningless” as it constrains the ability of states to “socialize” in want of “intersubjective set of norms and practices” (Hopf 1998: 173).
- Wendt argues that “self-help and power politics” are not a logical or causal consequence of anarchy (Wendt 1992: 394).
- If one were to go by Wendt’s analysis, one can have states resorting to self-help and power politics, yet they will not be a “constitutive property of anarchy”.
- Waltz’s political structure ignored the significance of identities and interests found within the system (Wendt 1992: 396). This brings unpredictability to anarchy, both in its content as well as its dynamics (Wendt 1992: 396).
- Ted Hopf’s assertion: “states have more agency under constructivism” (Hopf 1998: 177).
- Post-Modernist scholars like RBJ Walker acknowledge its (Constructivism) significance for opening “potential alternatives to the current prevailing structures” (Walker 1987: 76-77).
- Using a genealogical approach, one can comprehend all kinds of history and recognize the underlying basis of the order, produced through a constant power tussle of multiple wills (Ashley 1987: 409).
- Ashley does a double reading of the discourse of anarchy problematique.
- The Waltzian notion of anarchy forms the basis of this discourse (first reading) - where similar multiple state-actors are present simultaneously in the absence of an effective center of global rule (Ashley 1988: 235).
- In the second reading, he illustrates the arbitrary characterization of anarchy by the mainstream theories.
- He problematizes the notion of a well-bounded sovereign identity- an encapsulation of the state and domestic society, which has seen stable representation in the discipline (Ashley 1988: 250-251).
- “Sovereignty is not a permanent principle of international order” (Walker 1991: 448).
Write your comment…
