Talking things out in the Sky Lounge....

Situation: I am getting tripped up when trying to explain constructivism to myself. 

Discussion and explanations at 1:44am with Annie V-Meek, Noel, Alexandra, and Jacob: 

(Citing Jacob +discussion outcomes from the group)  

There is a girl named Stacy who wants to be your friend 

A realist named Pete will not be friends with Stacey because there are students with richer and more connected parents who will be more of a benefit to be friends with. 

A liberal named Pete might be friends with Stacey if there are some benefits to the friendship and few disadvantages.  

A constructivist named Pete walks into a room full of Global Scholars with a precedent determining who they will be friends with. Either: 

•  A) They have been taught that bubbly people who like the Washington Nationals make good friends, so if Stacey fits that description, then Pete will be friends with Stacey and maybe Adam too 
• B) Years of Global Scholars are known to all be friends with each other, so Pete will be friends with Stacey and everyone else 

Question: If, in option A for a constructivist, the precedent/tradition for Pete is that only students with rich and connected students make good friends, and no one else matters, and he is taught early on in his life that you should be self-interested when making friends, then is Pete following realist theory which could be explained by constructivist theory?  Or is it mutually exclusive? Does this question even make sense? Help Me!

Following that train of thought, here is my answer to the blog question: 

Last Thursday during our weekly six mile trail, Annie and I briefly discussed the concept of manipulation. I concluded that every person is inherently manipulative. Annie pointed out that being manipulative isn’t necessarily bad. We both concluded that in order to function in society, you must be manipulative because every conversation is a persuasive conversation with a goal. We then move to a conversation in which, despite the chilled discussion style, we unconsciously tried to persuade each other on our opinions of the difference between a politician and a diplomat.   

If I understand it correctly, I believe that concept is one theme Shotter is describing. Shotter writes on page 167, “we are once again investigating the nature of persuasion, the different ways of achieving assent in different, particular audiences” he then goes on to write, “..an argument is settled...by the giving of good reasons, in that situation, assent to one’s claims...they touch on something in the ‘basic’ vocabulary of that audience.” Following his argument, it appears that in Shotter’s viewpoint on constructivism, he believes that society is formed out of the pull and push of manipulators trying to persuade their audiences on their ways of doing and thinking about things. I believe you can persuade with the intention of power and/or interest and/or rhetoric based on personal traditions. Your traditions influence your probability on making a realist or liberal-esc decision, and your traditions can even prep you to follow one those theories. So no, Shotter’s theory isn’t naive, it is on one plane above realist and liberal theory and has the potential to answer why in a scenario, a person might subscribe to other school’s of thought.