Talk:Constructivism (international relations)

Other constructivists
The list of noticable constructivists in IR could arguably be expanded by the International Society approach (a.k.a. the English School) and the securitization approach (a.k.a. the Copenhagen School). Especially the latter is clearly constructivist, while the prior at least have noticable contributors that insist on the constructivist approach (like Barry Buzan).

The reason I didn't insert Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver is that they might not be seen as important contributors on a world wide scale - that they have been influential in European constructivist thinking seems indisputable. --Jakob mark 14:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Included Jeffrey Checkel, Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan. Constructivism "on a world wide scale" means largely in the US. and Europe. Having contributed extencively to European IR, then, is not a minor achievement. --129.240.157.31 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)IRate

I have been in International Relations for some time now and would like to see Dr. Harry Gould's name added on the list of notable constructivist. His contribution goes well beyond books like "international Relations in a Constructed World," "Tabloid terror: war, culture, and geopolitics," "Language, agency, and politics in a constructed world," "Isolationist States in an Interdependent World," "Ethics, Authority, and War: Non-State Actors and the Just War," "Pragmatism in international relations," and "Cultures of Order: Leadership, Language, and Social Reconstruction." He also published a book on International Law from a constructivist perspective titled, "The Legacy of Punishment in International Law." Other than that he was also a student of Nicholas Onuf and has written countless papers in Journals and other publication. He is currently a professor of International Relations and International Law at Florida International University and Graduated from Johns Hopkins University. Omarxizt (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)omarxiztOmarxizt (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definition of "notable constructivist." You cut some very influential figures in Constructivist theory (e.g., S. Guzzin & J. Checkel).173.66.171.6 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the putative mainstream
I very much dislike and strenuously object to the use of the term "mainstream" in this entry. This usage attempts to police the discipline by demarcating the acceptable from the unacceptable according to the perspective of a set of self-appointed defenders of the faith. This is particularly problematic in international studies, as in this discipline theoretic positions map onto practical political interests.

This entry should be rewritten without judgments concerning what falls within and without some (explicitly) undefined "mainstream." One could use Ruggie's threefold designation (naturalistic constructivism, neo-classical constructivism, and post-modern constructivism), for instance, although the neo-classical school can be subcategorized by relying on their classical sources (e.g., Weber, Wittgenstein, Marx-Gramsci-Habermas). This is important, since the bulk of the empirical work is in the neo-classical vein. Precious little has emerged from the naturalistic school (see Ruggie), but the author of this entry implicitly identifies this school as the "mainstream," endeavoring thereby to marginalize those with whom (s)he disagrees.

This is just bad practice. Darvon.guppy (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully - and have removed a sentance claiming that Ashley etc. are not 'in the mainstream'. I agree that they are radical constructivists, but are widely renowned throughout IR, and Ashley has contributed to central texts such as 'Neorealism and Its Critics'. They are renowned and not part of some eccentric fringe, we should stress their radical departure from traditional ideas without boxing them out of the central academic discourse. Jleadermaynard (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

=Rewriting=

I am engaging in a substantial re-writing of this article, particularly the section of theory as it is currently a very sparse description of Constructivism. I will try and take into accounts comments made so far. If people have other suggestions/responses, feel free to make them here. Jleadermaynard (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say add a section criticizing constructivism but I don't think there is very much literature since constructivists represented such a boneheaded fringe minority most self resepecting academics don't even bother looking at it. As far as I can tell constructivism was invented since communism and socialism proved to be unworkable under rational choice theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by r\ Meltwaternord (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The author of the paragraph immediately above was not educated, so much as indoctrinated. Darvon.guppy (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

=Frank Schimmelpfennig=

Frank Schimmelpfennig may be notable, but he can not considered to be a constructivist. Schimmelpfennig follows positivist epistemology and shares rationalist assumptions. His argument is that in a community environment rational actors can exploit normative claims in order to achieve egoistic goals, yet this does not make him a constructivist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.11.180 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

=Intro= The intro to this article needs work. It defines constructivism using the term "constructivist ontology"- i.e., it defines the concept with the concept itself. To someone who's never heard of constructivism before (like me), that explains nothing, and the constructivist ontology link doesn't lead anywhere, so that's no help either. Someone should add a sentence or too explaining what "constructivist ontology " is. Catgirl the Crazy (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

=More Rewrites=

I have implemented a number of changes. For one, I've noted the fact that Onus is usually credited with coming up with the term, and tried harder to signal the key roles that Ashley, Kratochwil, Onuf, etc. played in developing what we now know as constructivism. I've also modified the "notable constructivists" list. I've added names that either got references in the new version or that seemed to be as important as those already listed. I removed some names that, to be honest, lack any influence in the field. I changed the IPE examples to two books with 100+ citations on google scholar, rather than the one that was there previously (which had approximately zero). I also added a recent developments section which hopefully illuminates some of the issues involved with the "mainstream" designation. --71.178.210.151 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wendt and Neorealism
I realize that much of Wendt's "Anarchy is what States Make of it" article is dedicated to explaining why neorealism isn't adequate, but this article is about constructivism--not about the faults of neorealism. Just my two cents. --Lacarids (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is too long and full of unexplained jargon
This article is far too long and reads like a not awfully good academic paper. It is not written for the non-practitioner but rather seems intent on pressing home technical positions to others active in the particular academic field. Sentences like; ""power politics" is socially constructed—that is, not given by nature and hence, capable of being transformed by human practice" make little sense. What lay person thinks power politics is not capable of influence by human practice? The whole thing needs to be edited down and made relevant and accessible to Wikipedia users. See WP:NOT : "Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Academic language in the text should be explained in lay terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)