Constructivism

Both Wendt and Jackson stand out from previous authors because they bring the issue of context into their theoretical approach. They focus on social relationships that are consistently redefined depending on their context. In doing so, the constructivist theory addresses the "grey matters" or exceptions that other theories cannot account for. Relationships and actor statuses are not static concepts, and so they can adapt to new situations based upon previous experiences or they can reformulate their concept of those past relationships based upon new information.

Jackson also addresses the concept of rationality. I mentioned in an earlier post that what is rational can really be subjective, since actions can be in line with certain values (and therefore rational in the eyes of those with similar values) but irrational for those that hold different values. Jackson uses the concept of legitimation to reiterate this. The same action can be explained in various ways, but one of those explanations will legitimate the action so that it is acceptable and "rational" in the eyes of another actor.

Jackson also refers to legitimation struggles as a "war of words," giving this process a very superficial sense. Simple words cannot be seen as concrete evidence of reason for action. This is similar to Morgenthau's dismissal of motive for lack of certainty; he claimed that there is no way to determine the truthfulness of a stated motive. Through a constructivist argument, however, this actually can be useful because what matters is the way actions are perceived. In reality, perception is the basis for the formation of identity and relationships.

Although this theory may prove prediction of action slightly more difficult, I find it more applicable to reality than the other theories we've studied.