Suchergebnisse

"Realism and constructivism, two key contemporary theoretical approaches to the study of international relations, are commonly taught as mutually exclusive ways of understanding the subject. Realist Constructivism explores the common ground between the two, and demonstrates that, rather than being in simple opposition, they have areas of both tension and overlap. There is indeed space to engage in a realist constructivism. But at the same time, there are important distinctions between them, and there remains a need for a constructivism that is not realist, and a realism that is not constructivist. Samuel Barkin argues more broadly for a different way of thinking about theories of international relations, that focuses on the corresponding elements within various approaches rather than on a small set of mutually exclusive paradigms. Realist Constructivism provides an interesting new way for scholars and students to think about international relations theory"--Provided by publisher

This volume presents 12 original papers on the idea that moral objectivity is to be understood in terms of a suitably constructed social point of view that all can accept. The contributors offer new perspectives, some sympathetic and some critical, on constructivist understandings of morality and reason

International audience ; Pragmatic constructivism is characterized in a particular epistemology based on the quest for parametric objectivity. In Peter Knoepfel's public policy analysis, this theoretical perspective relates to the study of the construction of marks of objectivity (that is, the measures contained in or inferred by a policy: problems, criteria, procedures, mechanisms, norms) which, according to him, make up the substance of policies. The place granted to the concepts of 'actors', 'resources' and 'institutional rules' in the proposed analytical framework is a clear illustration of this (Knoepfel, Larrue & Varone, 2006). However, this quest is unlikely to be successful if there is no empirical endeavour to explain the interactions between the three concepts. This is why Peter Knoepfel has constantly formulated the equation between actors, resources and rules, in operationalizable terms – in both his research work carried out in close proximity to public action (through various mandates) and in his teaching in Switzerland and abroad. The policy analysis defended by him is constantly shaped by a pragmatic perspective. The aim is to gain insight into concrete (observable) practices, through which actors produce a shared normative signification, particularly in terms of an hypothesis on problem causation (who or what is 'guilty' or 'objectively responsible' for the collective problem to be resolved?) and an hypothesis on state intervention (how can the collective problem be alleviated or resolved?). This pragmatism is located in a constant effort at methodological operationalization, which is systematically aimed at exploring the explanation for this trilogy (actors, resources, rules) and its interactions as a pragmatic concept. Peter Knoepfel always expects the explanation of a policy to cite factors that are important. For him the idea of importance (as for the pragmatists, Hilary Putnam (1990) in particular) is always dependent on the reason for asking the question why? In this instance, why ...

International audience ; Pragmatic constructivism is characterized in a particular epistemology based on the quest for parametric objectivity. In Peter Knoepfel's public policy analysis, this theoretical perspective relates to the study of the construction of marks of objectivity (that is, the measures contained in or inferred by a policy: problems, criteria, procedures, mechanisms, norms) which, according to him, make up the substance of policies. The place granted to the concepts of 'actors', 'resources' and 'institutional rules' in the proposed analytical framework is a clear illustration of this (Knoepfel, Larrue & Varone, 2006). However, this quest is unlikely to be successful if there is no empirical endeavour to explain the interactions between the three concepts. This is why Peter Knoepfel has constantly formulated the equation between actors, resources and rules, in operationalizable terms – in both his research work carried out in close proximity to public action (through various mandates) and in his teaching in Switzerland and abroad. The policy analysis defended by him is constantly shaped by a pragmatic perspective. The aim is to gain insight into concrete (observable) practices, through which actors produce a shared normative signification, particularly in terms of an hypothesis on problem causation (who or what is 'guilty' or 'objectively responsible' for the collective problem to be resolved?) and an hypothesis on state intervention (how can the collective problem be alleviated or resolved?). This pragmatism is located in a constant effort at methodological operationalization, which is systematically aimed at exploring the explanation for this trilogy (actors, resources, rules) and its interactions as a pragmatic concept. Peter Knoepfel always expects the explanation of a policy to cite factors that are important. For him the idea of importance (as for the pragmatists, Hilary Putnam (1990) in particular) is always dependent on the reason for asking the question why? In this instance, why ...

Framed by a new and substantial introductory chapter, this book collects Stefano Guzzini's reference articles and some less well-known publications on power, realism and constructivism. By analysing theories and their assumptions, but also theorists following their intellectual paths, his analysis explores the diversity of different schools, and moves beyond simple definitions to explore their intrinsic tensions and fallacies. Guzzini's approach to the analysis of power - within and outside International Relations - provides the common theme of the book through which the theoretical.

Nothing that can be said is independent of us. Whatever can be said is coloured by our dreams and aspirations, by the way our brain works, by human nature and human culture. Whoever claims to know or to observe is - according to the central constructivist assumption - inescapably biased.This book presents the views of the founders of constructivism and modern systems theory, who are still providing stimulating cues for international scientific debate. The conversations of Heinz von Foerste

Constructivist IR scholars study the ways in which international norms, culture, and identities-all intersubjective phenomena-inform foreign policy and affect the reaction to and outcomes of international events. Political psychologists similarly investigate divergent national self-conceptions as well as the individual cognitive and emotional propensities that shape ideology and policy. Given their mutual interest in human subjectivity and identity politics, a dialogue and synthesis between constructivism and political psychology is long overdue. The contributors to this volume discuss both theoretical and empirical issues of complementarity and critique, with an emphasis on the potential for integrating the viewpoints within a progressive ideational paradigm. Moreover, they make a self-conscious effort to interrogate, rather than gloss over, their differences in the hope that such disagreements will prove particularly rich sources of analytical and empirical insight

El Lissitzky opened his essay Art and Pangeometry by writing that "in the period between 1918 and 1921, a lot of old rubbish was destroyed."[1] This quote encapsulates the tumult of the early twentieth-century, when many long-established orders were overturned, not the least of which were both artistic and scientific in nature. Revolutions in the spheres of politics, mathematics, physics, and art combined in the vanguard movement of Russia known as Constructivism. This movement grew in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and thrived in Russia until Stalin took power in 1924. Thereafter, Modernism in general lost favor and was either curtailed or moved elsewhere. Constructivism was influenced by the concurrent debates and developments in modern mathematics and physics, particularly of the fourth dimension and non-Euclidean geometry. Both of these disciplines revolutionized modern conceptions of time and space. There were three primary ways in which artists used these modern studies. First, they were powerful metaphors for the spirit of change and rebellion rampant in the country's revolutionary atmosphere. Furthermore, they provided artists a new vocabulary of shapes, forms, and spaces which were imbued with that same spirit of revolution. Lastly, artists used these ideas to inform their own artistic theories and to create an art for the new Russian society and its people. They used mathematics and physics for a number of reasons and in a number of ways. This essay discusses this relationship of non-Euclidean geometry and space in a selection of works by Constructivist artists Naum Gabo and Aleksandr Rodchenko.

International audience ; This article discusses the methodological differences between the British school and the American school of international relations. It attempts to demonstrate that Susan Strange, representative of the British school, could be considered a critical realist. The aim of the article is to show that her vision of international political economy fulfills the methodological reorientation initiated in economics by Tony Lawson at the end of the 90s. Strange's radical ontology claims that structural power determines human actions. The paper contrasts Strange's approach with that of John Ruggie, from the American school, who identifies himself as a social constructivist. Ruggie emphasizes the role of ideational factors in international relations and the constructed nature of social reality.

In Rawls, Dewey and Constructivism , Eric Weber examines and critiques John Rawls' epistemology and the unresolved tension - inherited from Kant - between Representationalism and Constructivism in Rawls' work. Weber argues that, despite Rawls' claims to be a constructivist, his unexplored Kantian influences cause several problems. In particular, Weber criticises Rawls' failure to explain the origins of conceptions of justice, his understanding of "persons" and his revival of Social Contract Theory. Drawing on the work of John Dewey to resolve these problems, the book argues for a rig

This article aims to show how the revelations about the United States of America (US) spying on the European Union (2013) represented an occasion for the latter to reiterate its normative power and the particular importance of the transatlantic partnership. Through observation of "acts of social facts essentialization" by the US and EU and by using a constructivist conceptualization of "agent identity" and "international socialization", the article concludes that the constructivist framework of analysis explains the unfolding of the spying issue. This deductive approach uses the method of discourse and official documents analysis.