The quest for sustainability remains one of the outstanding priorities of the modern world. Popularly defined as the ability for society to meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the capacity to fulfill future demands, the meaning of the concept is straightforward. However, the process of achieving it is not, as it is constrained by several issues, many of which are contentious. Examples of sensitive areas include environmental degradation, social inequalities, and racism. The practice is presented with a plethora of theories on how to respond to these issues. Nevertheless, these theories, especially realism and constructivism, offer competing positions that can further complicate the quest for sustainability. How can these theories be applied objectively? Which method provides a better approach to sustainability? In the appraisal of realism and constructivism, this paper argues that both theories are relevant but limited to specific contexts. In particular, constructivism merits as a suitable approach for addressing social inequalities and other engendered topics such as racism, while realism suits areas such as environmental sustainability issues.
Constructivism vs. Realism
Constructivism asserts that much about the sustainability issues are mediated by historically and socially constructed ideas, which cannot be otherwise attributed to the inevitable consequences of humans, nature, and other elements of the world order. Its solution is idealistic. To address the sustainability issues, this theory advocates for the deconstruction of problematic ideologies. For instance, it would want society to revise its thinking about particular problems. After all, some of them are more engendered than real.