Lesson Report:
# Title
**From Variables to Mechanisms: Explaining China’s Pressure on Taiwan through Constructivism and Realism**
This class focused on helping students strengthen their midterm papers by moving beyond descriptive independent variables and toward analytical, theory-driven explanations. Using China’s increasing military presence around Taiwan as the main working example, the instructor modeled how to connect claims to mechanisms through constructivist and realist logic, then had groups test their own arguments and begin building causal chains for their topics.
# Attendance
– **Absent students mentioned:** 0
– **Names of absent students mentioned:** None
– No formal roll call appears in the transcript.
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening, midterm reminder, and setup for continued group work
– The instructor opened class by reminding students that the **midterm assignment is due in one week**.
– He explained that the goal of the session was to “iron out the last wrinkles” likely to appear in students’ papers and to continue directly from Tuesday’s work.
– Students were asked to **sit with their existing groups** again, since the class would continue building from the earlier collaborative work.
– The instructor directed students to **e-course**, specifically the **Week 10 section**, where he had uploaded **whiteboard photos from Tuesday’s class**. These photos contained the groups’ earlier visual maps of their **dependent variables** and **independent variables**.
– This established that the session was not introducing a new unit, but rather deepening and refining the analytical structure already begun for the midterm.
## 2. Transition from description to analysis: introducing mechanisms and theory
– The instructor framed the session around a common challenge in international relations writing: the transition from **digesting information** to performing **actual analysis**.
– He identified the main methodological issue students needed to address as the use of **mechanisms** and **theory**.
– He explained that students often make claims that sound plausible on the surface, but remain incomplete because they do not explain **why** an independent variable produces the outcome.
– He emphasized that international relations theory is not just abstract philosophy; rather, it can provide the **“load-bearing foundations”** for the kinds of big explanatory questions students are trying to answer in their papers.
– The instructor contrasted a simplistic claim such as “China wants to expand” with the more rigorous analytical task: explaining **why China would accept high risks**—war, economic collapse, wider conflict—in pursuit of expansion.
## 3. Working example introduced: China’s increasing military presence around Taiwan
– To model the process, the instructor used one group’s topic as a full-class example.
– The **dependent variable** was defined as: **China’s increasing military presence around Taiwan**.
– The central research question was framed as: **Why is China doing this?**
– The instructor then revisited two previously proposed independent variables:
– **China wants to expand its influence and borders in the region**
– **China has a strong desire to reunify the country**
– For each of these, he showed that simply naming the factor was not enough; students needed to explain the deeper mechanism that makes the variable persuasive and analytically strong.
## 4. Testing the first independent variable: expansion and the problem of risk
– The instructor began with the claim that China wants to expand its influence and borders, especially around Taiwan and the East/Southeast Asian region.
– He challenged the class to ask the missing question: **Why does China care so much about expansion?**
– He emphasized that expansion is **not low-cost behavior**:
– it is risky,
– it can trigger military escalation,
– it can damage the economy,
– and, in an extreme scenario, it could contribute to major war.
– He reminded students that Taiwan is not isolated and has powerful allies, especially the **United States**, making aggression or expansion especially costly.
– This segment modeled how to interrogate an independent variable rather than accept it at face value.
## 5. Testing the second independent variable: reunification as an idea requiring explanation
– The instructor then shifted to the claim that China strongly desires national reunification.
– He argued that “reunification” is not self-explanatory; it is fundamentally an **idea**, and students need to explain what makes that idea powerful enough to justify significant military and economic risks.
– He pointed out that, if considered only in narrow military-strategic terms, the push to reclaim control over Taiwan does not automatically explain itself.
– The class was then led toward the conclusion that this kind of argument becomes much stronger when tied to **international relations theory**, especially theory that explains how identity and meaning affect state behavior.
## 6. Constructivist explanation: identity, legitimacy, and the “Century of Humiliation”
– The instructor introduced **constructivism** as a useful lens for the reunification argument.
– An **uncertain student name rendered in the transcript as “Udus”** made a substantive contribution here by explaining that Chinese policy is shaped by a socially constructed historical narrative: the government presents itself as restoring lands lost during the **Century of Humiliation**, and Taiwan remains one of the major unresolved pieces of that story.
– The instructor used this contribution to move the class into a longer constructivist discussion focused on:
– identity,
– historical narrative,
– legitimacy,
– and the political meaning of reunification.
### 6a. Legitimacy discussion
– The instructor asked the class to define **legitimacy** in political science terms.
– **Baktybekov Azamat Baktybekovich** responded and helped move the discussion toward the distinction between legitimacy and sovereignty.
– The instructor clarified that legitimacy is not simply raw power or formal documentation; it is about **acceptance**.
– The class collectively worked through several refinements:
– international legitimacy = recognition by other states,
– domestic legitimacy = acceptance by the population.
– A student contribution emphasized that leaders need **public acceptance** so their authority and decisions are accepted.
– The instructor synthesized this into the working definition used for the rest of class:
– **Legitimacy means that others accept your right to rule.**
– He then explained the consequence of losing legitimacy:
– instability,
– resistance,
– possible overthrow,
– revolution or removal from power.
### 6b. Chinese history and state narrative
– The class then connected legitimacy to the Chinese case.
– **Mamadboqirova Muqaddas Mamadboqirovna** contributed several times, first by linking the discussion to the **Century of Humiliation**, then later by noting that China had already recovered places such as **Hong Kong**, while Taiwan remained the major unresolved case.
– Another student elaborated on the destructive historical impact of foreign intervention, unequal treaties, civil conflict, and partition-like processes in China’s modern history.
– The instructor used these comments to explain a constructivist reading of Chinese state identity:
– China sees itself as an **ancient, continuous civilization**,
– a **great power**,
– and also as a **victim of foreign humiliation and injustice**.
– **Jaimes Elena Mary** contributed that China’s own name is associated with the idea of the **“Middle Kingdom,”** and argued that China has historically understood itself as a regional center and rightful leader to which neighboring states should look.
– **Turdueva Ainazik Muratalievna** added that China wants to be **dominant**, which the instructor linked to a broader identity narrative rather than only material ambition.
– Muqaddas also noted strong anti-Japanese sentiment in China and framed it as part of a broader historical memory that is still politically mobilized.
### 6c. CCP legitimacy and reunification as a mechanism
– The instructor then tied these observations to the **Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy**.
– He explained that the CCP presents itself as the actor best able to:
– overcome the Century of Humiliation,
– restore China’s rightful status,
– rebuild economic strength,
– and complete national reunification.
– From this perspective, Taiwan is not only territory; it is a **symbolic and political test** of whether the CCP can fulfill its historical promise.
– The instructor stressed the mechanism clearly:
– If the CCP’s legitimacy is partly built on ending historical humiliation and restoring territorial unity,
– and Taiwan is framed as the last major unresolved remnant,
– then abandoning the reunification goal would weaken one of the CCP’s own claims to legitimacy.
– He explicitly stated that this is the kind of **constructivist argument** students could build in their papers: identity and legitimacy shape state behavior because leaders are protecting not only territory, but also the narrative that justifies their rule.
## 7. Realist explanation: expansion, power maximization, deterrence, and survival
– The instructor then returned to the first independent variable—expansion—and asked which theory best explains it.
– A student referenced **realism**, and the instructor used that as the bridge into a realism-based explanation.
– He asked the class to recall the basic assumptions of realism:
– states seek to survive,
– states face threats from other states,
– and states therefore pursue power.
– The concept of **power maximization** became the centerpiece of this segment.
– The instructor asked why a state would want to maximize power, and the class worked toward the answer that stronger states are better able to **protect their survival**.
### 7a. Student contributions in the realism discussion
– **Calmettes Zoe** contributed that the international system functions like a **zero-sum game**, and the instructor built on this to say that if a state does not climb, another will climb over it.
– The same discussion led to the realist view that the greatest threat to a state is generally **another state**, not simply domestic instability.
– The uncertain student earlier rendered as **“Udus”** also contributed the idea of **bandwagoning**, explaining that weaker states often align with stronger ones when they cannot successfully compete. The instructor noted that while useful, this point was somewhat secondary to the main Taiwan example.
– Another student—possibly **Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna**, though the transcript is not fully clear—raised **grand strategy**, describing it as the effort of a state to become highly powerful across military, economic, and other domains. Because the name is not fully reliable in the transcript, this contribution should be treated as **uncertain identification**.
### 7b. Offensive realism and security logic around Taiwan
– The instructor then shifted into a more specific realist mechanism, especially one close to **offensive realism**:
– to be safe, states must keep growing,
– expansion can create a security buffer,
– and increased power deters attack.
– He explained this through analogy and geopolitical reasoning:
– if you are visibly strong, others are less likely to attack;
– if you create a wider territorial or strategic buffer, enemies remain farther away from the core state.
– He used Russia and Moscow as a comparative illustration of buffer-zone thinking, then mapped the same logic onto China.
– In this framework:
– the **United States** is China’s most significant external military threat,
– U.S. regional military presence constrains China,
– and gaining stronger control in the Taiwan area would help China push threats farther away and increase deterrence.
– The instructor emphasized that, from this realist perspective, even a risky move can be seen as rational if leaders believe the long-term gain in security outweighs the immediate danger.
## 8. Group activity: interrogating students’ own arguments
– After the extended example, the instructor asked groups to return to the **independent variables and arguments** they had developed on Tuesday.
– Students were instructed to spend **2–3 minutes** trying to **pick apart their own arguments**.
– Specific instructions included:
– imagine someone is trying to prove your argument wrong,
– identify which parts remain vague,
– ask what major questions are still unanswered,
– and write those questions down for later use.
– This was an explicit exercise in strengthening argumentation by stress-testing the explanatory logic.
## 9. Causal chains: how to show each step of an argument
– The instructor then introduced the idea of a **causal chain** as a way to organize explanations more clearly than a single sentence can.
– He explained that arguments often become vague when compressed into prose, whereas a causal chain forces students to show **how one step leads to the next**.
– He drew an example on the board using the same China–Taiwan case.
### 9a. Board model of a causal chain
– The instructor placed the **dependent variable** at the end of the chain:
– **China increases the number of military ships around Taiwan**
– He then worked backward to establish the earlier links:
1. **China needs to survive**
2. **Foreign military powers threaten China’s sovereignty and survival**
3. **China must maximize power to deter those threats**
4. **One way to maximize power is to increase military presence around Taiwan**
5. **Outcome: more Chinese ships around Taiwan**
– He explained that this structure helps students:
– visualize the full logic of their claim,
– identify missing steps,
– and make their mechanisms explicit rather than implied.
– He acknowledged that real causal chains can be even more detailed, but said this simplified format was sufficient for the current stage of the assignment.
## 10. Final task and homework directions
– Students were instructed to work with their groups and produce **at least one causal chain** for one of the arguments they had developed on Tuesday.
– At the end of class, the instructor assigned homework:
– students must prepare **two causal chains** total,
– one for each of their two arguments,
– and be ready on **Tuesday** to consult with group members and **draw those chains on the board**.
– The instructor explained that the next step after this would be using the chains as the basis for **finding evidence** to support the claims in their midterm papers.
– He also reminded students to **keep working on the midterm** overall.
## 11. Closing announcements and administrative discussion
– The instructor announced an **AUCA outdoor club / hiking club** trip for the following weekend after next, to **Lake Boruluu** near **Sokuluk**.
– He described it as approximately a **3.5 km hike** to a mountain lake and invited students to follow **@AUCA.outdoor.club** on Instagram for signup information.
– Estimated cost for transportation was described as approximately **200–400 soms per person**.
– At the very end, a student with an **uncertain identity** asked whether there would be any **in-person course requirements during the week after break / finals period**, because the student was considering going home to save time and money.
– The instructor replied that **final presentations are scheduled in Week 16** and estimated this was around **April 30**, but asked the student to **send an email** so he could double-check and confirm.
# Student Tracker
– **Baktybekov Azamat Baktybekovich** — Contributed to the discussion on the meaning of legitimacy and helped distinguish it from sovereignty and formal authority.
– **Mamadboqirova Muqaddas Mamadboqirovna** — Connected China’s Taiwan policy to the Century of Humiliation, discussed recovered territories such as Hong Kong, and emphasized Taiwan as a remaining symbolic issue tied to Chinese legitimacy.
– **Turdueva Ainazik Muratalievna** — Noted China’s desire to be dominant, which was used to connect state ambition to a broader identity narrative.
– **Jaimes Elena Mary** — Explained China’s self-image as the “Middle Kingdom” and described how China historically sees itself as a regional leader and civilizational center.
– **Calmettes Zoe** — Contributed the idea that the international system can function as a zero-sum competition, supporting the realism discussion.
– **Uncertain student name (“Udus” in transcript)** — Provided a key constructivist interpretation of China’s policy, linking reunification to historical narrative, humiliation, and state identity; also mentioned bandwagoning during the realism discussion.
– **Uncertain student (possibly Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna, but not clear enough to confirm)** — Raised the concept of grand strategy during the realism segment.
– **Uncertain student** — Asked the end-of-class question about whether there would be in-person requirements during the post-break/finals period.
# Actionable Items
## Immediate / Before Next Class
– Midterm is **due in one week**.
– Students should prepare **two causal chains**, one for each argument.
– Students should be ready on **Tuesday** to **draw their causal chains on the board** with their groups.
– Continue developing the midterm from the Tuesday whiteboard maps and this session’s theory/mechanism work.
## Instructor Follow-Up
– Confirm by email the student’s question about **whether there are any in-person requirements during the week after break / finals period**.
– Double-check and communicate the exact timing of **final presentations in Week 16**.
## Course Materials / Access
– Whiteboard photos from Tuesday are posted in **Week 10 on e-course**; students should continue using these for group work and midterm drafting.
## Optional / Extracurricular
– Outdoor club hike to **Lake Boruluu** near **Sokuluk** announced for the following weekend after next.
– Signup details to be posted on Instagram: **@AUCA.outdoor.club**.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Prepare Two Causal Chains for Your Midterm Arguments
You need to turn the two arguments you developed about your case into clear causal chains so that you can show not just what your explanation is, but how each part of the explanation leads step by step to your outcome. This assignment is meant to help you strengthen the mechanisms and theoretical logic in your midterm by showing why a state would take a risky action and how your independent variables connect to the dependent variable.
Instructions:
1. Open the whiteboard photos from Tuesday’s class in the Week 10 section and review the visual maps your group created for your dependent variable and independent variables.
2. Identify the two main arguments you are using for your midterm paper. These should be the two explanations you developed from your earlier independent variables.
3. For each argument, write out one full causal chain.
4. Begin each causal chain with the broad starting condition, fear, desire, pressure, or motivation that drives the state’s behavior.
5. Then add the intermediate steps that explain how that starting condition leads to later choices or pressures.
6. End each chain with your dependent variable, meaning the final outcome you are trying to explain.
7. Make sure your chain shows mechanism, not just a list of ideas. Each step should answer the question: “How does this lead to the next step?”
8. Challenge your own logic as you build the chain. Ask yourself:
1. Why would the state care about this?
2. Why would it accept the risks involved?
3. What makes this explanation persuasive rather than incomplete?
9. Connect your chain to international relations theory where appropriate. For example, if your argument is about identity, legitimacy, historical memory, or national narrative, think about how constructivism helps explain it. If your argument is about survival, security, power maximization, deterrence, expansion, or threats from other states, think about how realism may help explain it.
10. Keep each chain clear enough that you could draw it on the board in class.
11. Bring both completed causal chains to class on Tuesday.
12. Be ready to consult with your group mates and draw the two chains on the board at the start of class, with one chain for each of your two arguments.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Continue Working on Your Midterm Paper
Your midterm paper is due in one week, so you should continue developing it now while the discussion of theory, legitimacy, realism, constructivism, and causal mechanisms is still fresh. The purpose of this work is to make sure your paper does more than describe events; it should analyze why your state is acting the way it is and explain the logic behind your argument.
Instructions:
1. Review your current midterm draft, notes, and any argument outlines you already have.
2. Revisit the two main arguments you are making in your paper.
3. Check whether each argument clearly explains not only what happened, but why the state would be willing to take a risky action.
4. Strengthen your use of theory in each section of the paper. If you are making an argument about identity, legitimacy, historical memory, or political narratives, consider how constructivist logic helps support that claim. If you are making an argument about survival, security, deterrence, or power, consider how realist logic supports that claim.
5. Incorporate the causal chains you created into your thinking and, where useful, into the structure of your paper so that your reasoning unfolds step by step.
6. Look for weak points in your draft where you make a claim that still invites the question “Why?” Add explanation there.
7. Make sure your paper connects your independent variables to the dependent variable with clear mechanisms rather than simple assertion.
8. Use the class discussion as a model: instead of stopping at a statement such as “the state wants expansion” or “the state wants reunification,” explain why that motive matters and how it produces the observed outcome.
9. Continue gathering or organizing the evidence you will use to support these claims, since the causal chains will serve as the starting point for finding evidence in the next class.
10. Keep revising so that your midterm paper is ready for submission one week from today.