Socio-ontology at Odds With Self-driven Interest

At a Micro Level -- Individuals

At what point does an individual choose to act in accordance with a particular social norm despite their own self-interest? At what point does an individual break a particular social norm because of their own self-interest? I believe these questions pertain directly to the validity and criticism of Shotter's constructivism.

Self-interest and social normality seem to be placed on opposite sides of a balance scale. They aren't mutually exclusive factors in a persons environment or choices. Driving on the right side of the road (no pun intended) seems to be both an act of self-interest and a conformity to a social norm. Claiming that driving on the right side of the road is only a social norm because it is in everyone's self-interest (so they don't crash and die), or claiming that driving on the right side of the road is in everyone's self interest only because there is a heavy precedent set in it (since it could very well have been the case for us to drive on the left-side of the road... and if everyone did it, it would still serve individual self-interest). In a way, this might be a chicken-and-the-egg-esque argument.

On a more individual-specific level, I think this driving example pertains particularly well. If one buys the idea that driving on the right side of the road is motivated by self-interest, liberalism and realism would still approach this situation in two different ways. A realist would say that they drive on the right side of the road in order to survive while a liberal might because they would get fined or pulled over (or yea I guess injured) if they didn't obey the rule. In another regard, a realist might not obey traffic rules in order to get someplace faster while a liberal might speed a little bit because the benefit outweighs the substantially smaller risk.

Anyway, I think the overall idea is that as it pertains to individuals or specific situations, the question of constructivism isn't necessarily whether or not it is too idealistic, rather whether it is able to be separated definitively and entirely from power and interest, as dialogue and social experience revolves inherently around these values in these "micro" situations.

At a Macro Level -- Policy Scenarios

My opinion and analysis on constructivism changes slightly with some zooming-out. On a larger scale, the concept of constructivism seems to be on a higher plane of theory than liberalism or realism. Power and interest as basic drives that are useful for predicting behavioral patterns of entities are simpler and more limited concepts than constructivism, but also are obviously realistic. Constructivism as the idea that "blank slates" are filled with interaction and societal pressure than in its own regard has no intrinsic value is much more complex, but carries with it a more highfalutin air.

One still sees similar concepts to the driving example when thinking about the theories on a macro-level, but there's a capacity to separate the theories into different applications. What I mean by this is that parts of Shotter's claim revolve more so around the development of social roles and the assignment of value to intrinsically worthless things/institutions--these tenants of constructivism are justifiably relevant and seen in real life. However, the idea of the theory as a whole consistently holding true across varying settings and belief systems is quite naive.