- Martin Varhnis
- Richmond, VA
- United States
Consultant, Special Olympics
Could the term 'Reactivism' define a State's Foreign/International Relations Policies?
Neoliberalism and Neorealism argue back and forth in regards to method's of a State's actions in the International Community..
But Neorealism and Constructivism both touch on the same ideas, yet Constructivism is much more 'bulky' or 'complicated' in defining a State's activity in the International Community, compared to Neorealism's 'survival is all that matters, no matter what' ideology.
Could Neorealism and Constructivism be placed under a larger and more prominent theory that policymakers could use, coined as 'Reactivism'?
The two theories are based on reactions as defined by why a certain State reacts in a certain way; so why not use 'Reactivism' to entail both Constructivism and Neorealism so as to not be constrained to just one theory of FP/IR?
What do you think? Could this turn into an idea for policymakers to actually use (and move forward and out of the rut that is older theorization)?