Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

This essay needs to explore the Constructivist school of thought in International Relations and should answer the question 'to what extent are world politics 'constructed'?

Please write a balanced and nuanced paper exploring the constructivist school of thought (and where its roots lie i.e the “constructivist” view on international actors’ behaviour has solid roots in sociological and philosophical inquiries, e.g. Berger & Luckman, Becker, or Bourdieu) and argue (coming to a balanced/nuanced conclusion) the extent to which world politics are 'constructed.)

The essay should explore the main theorists and the central ideas in this school of thought and present the arguments presented by constructivists. It should go in depth and be critical/examine the said arguments as opposed to summarising them. Key works/thinkers in the constructivist school of thought should be referenced.

Please only reference using the Chicago footnote system and please cite/use as many sources as you can (at least 5).  Please read through all of the sources attached and make sure to reference them (: They are mostly very straightforward.

At least one example/case study should be referred to to show how politics can be constructed, as well as an opposing example to show the flaws within the theory. 

Attached as a resource is an essay I wrote a couple of years ago roughly on this topic (it is titled 4.Old Essay) in case it is of some help to you. However, it isn't a good essay and only covers the topic superficially so only use it as a rough starting point if you would like to use it, and please go into more detail than it does (also, while similar, this essay question is different to the one I wrote). Please don't reference this essay but read through it as a starting point if you would like - there are many mistakes with it. 

Essentially, this essay should lay down the main arguments of the constructivist school of thought and explore them in depth and then go on to show how constructivists believe world politics are 'constructed'. Simultaneously, you should present the opposing views/arguments in International Relations theory, ultimately arguing the extent to which you believe world politics are 'constructed' by identity/norms. While writing, please present your arguments in a clear and logical way. 

Hope this all makes sense (: Please reach out to me if you are confused at any point or would like more sources/material.