Constructivism Does Not Have a Politics

2019 ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Political Structures

This chapter lays out the argument that constructivism is fundamentally a social theory of the mechanisms at work in global politics, rather than a political theory of what, in international politics, constitutes “good” and “bad.” Constructivisms provide a set of tools that can inform understandings of the substance of global political structures and decisions about how it is possible to maintain or change political structures, but constructivisms cannot by themselves inform decisions about the desirability of particular political structures. Constructivisms, as social theories, can only meaningfully inform the practice of international politics in combination with some political theory, understood as a theory concerned with the “ought” when constructivisms are concerned with the “is.” Constructivisms as such are no more “naturally” wed to critical theory than they are to realisms, liberalisms, Marxisms, or any other political theories.

Understanding and Classifying Constructivisms

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-62
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
The Social

The chapter discusses various ways that constructivism might be defined, and finds in them a tendency to make constructivisms into at once more than they are (by imbuing them with “naturally” associated politics) and less (by divorcing them from their roots as social theory). The chapter builds an argument that what constructivisms have in common is the ontological assumption of the social construction of international politics as expressed in methodology for doing International Relations research. This assumption should not be understood as taking specific ontologies, let alone methods, methodologies, or politics, as definitional of constructivism. Work can reasonably be described as constructivist if it builds on an ontology of co-constitution and intersubjectivity in the context of a particular set of methodological claims underlying a research exercise about global politics. This brackets what work might be called constructivist but does not associate constructivism either with any specific ontology or with any specific methodology.

Understanding and Classifying Critical Approaches

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Copenhagen School ◽  
Critical Approaches

This chapter argues that what various theoretical approaches to IR that describe themselves or are described as critical share in common is that they are political rather than social theories. There are no other common elements to be found across this group of approaches. Various schemas used to typify different sorts of critical theories (e.g., emancipatory/postmodern; feminist/postcolonial/poststructuralist; Copenhagen School/Aberystwyth School/Paris School) signify different political theories with different political content but share political investment in both disciplinary International Relations and global politics. They are explicitly engaged in International Relations theorizing and International Relations research as a political enterprise with political ends.

scholarly journals From critique to reaction: The new right, critical theory and international relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 175508822110204
Author(s):  
Jean-Francois Drolet ◽  
Michael C Williams
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
New Right ◽  
Social Forces ◽  
Point Of Entry ◽  
Political Forces ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Critical Perspectives

Across the globe, radical conservative political forces and ideas are influencing and even transforming the landscape of international politics. Yet IR is remarkably ill-equipped to understand and engage these new challenges. Unlike political theory or domestic political analyses, conservatism has no distinctive place in the fields’ defining alternatives of realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism. This paper seeks to provide a point of entry for such engagement by bringing together what may seem the most unlikely of partners: critical theory and the New Right. Important parts of today’s New Right represent self-conscious appropriations of Critical themes and thinkers—turning them to self-declared “reactionary” ends. Developing outside the confines of the academy, these forms of thought have woven insights from across Critical theory into new and mobilizing forms of conservative ideology, seeking to link that ideology to social forces that play increasingly active roles in global politics. Our intention here is not to somehow blame Critical perspectives for the ideas of the New Right, either directly or by association. Rather, we seek to show how an engagement with Critical theory helps us understand the New Right, while also demonstrating some of the direct challenges the New Right poses for critical perspectives.

scholarly journals Šiądienos kritinės teorijos klausimu

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-038
Author(s):  
Algimantas Valantiejus
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Frankfurt School ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Theoretical Problem ◽  
Theoretical Structure ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Contemporary Practice ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Critical Social

Santrauka. Šio straipsnio paskirtis – atnaujinti diskusiją dėl teorinės struktūros sandaros, kurią suda­ro ir analitiniai, ir normatyviniai elementai. Pagrindinis uždavinys – analitiškumo ir normatyviškumo komponentų kintančioje kritinės socialinės teorijos sandaroje identifikavimas ir metodologinių požiūrių į šių komponentų tarpusavio santykį šiuolaikinėse praktikos teorijose analizė. Siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, kodėl kritikos sąvoka šiuolaikinėse praktikos teorijose keičiama reflektyvumo sąvoka. Straipsnyje, remiantis kritinių teoretikų nuorodomis ir jas interpretuojant, analizuojamos „nekalto“ (Wittgensteino Filosofinių tyrinėjimų 308 fragmente aptariama prasme) terminologinio pakeitimo euristinės implikacijos šių dienų kritinėms socialinėms teorijoms, kurios skiriamos nuo ankstyvosios Frankfurto kritinės teorijos. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: kritika, reflektyvumas, kritinė teorija, kritinė socialinė teorija, praktikos teo­rija. Key words: critique, reflexivity, critical theory, critical social theory, practice theory. ABSTRACT ON THE QUESTION OF CRITICAL THEORY TODAY The task of this article is to renew the discussion about the theoretical structure which includes both analytical and normative elements. The main theoretical problem analyzed in the article is the identifi­cation of analytical and normative elements in the structure of critical social theory and the analysis of the relationship between these elements in contemporary practice theories. The article seeks to answer the ques­tion why the concept of critique in contemporary practice theories is changed by the concept of reflexivity. The article aims to emphasize the implications of this „innocent“ terminological change for contemporary critical social theories, distinguished from early Critical Theory of Frankfurt School.

scholarly journals Some Current Controversies in Critical Legal Studies

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 290-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Tushnet
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Social Thought ◽  
Critical Legal Studies ◽  
Strategic Action ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Theories

The first few years in the development of critical legal studies (CLS) saw an ongoing discussion of an issue that was framed as “rationalism v. irrationalism”. The labels, it now appears, were misleading, for the discussion can be better understood as concerning the utility - for purposes of orienting strategic action as well as of understanding the social order - of relatively large-scale social theories in the traditions of Marx and Weber. The distinctive contribution of CLS to leftist social thought, and the embodiment of the fact that one side in the earlier discussion more or less prevailed, is its insistence that a leftist social and political theory does not need to be grounded in that sort of social theory.

Getting Real?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Goodhart
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
The World ◽  
Political Norms

Chapter 3 engages with realist political theory throughcritical dialogues with leading realist theorists. It argues that realist political theories are much more susceptible to conservatism, distortion, and idealization than their proponents typically acknowledge. Realism is often not very realistic either in its descriptions of the world or in its political analysis. While realism enables the critical analysis of political norms (the analysis of power and unmasking of ideology), it cannot support substantive normative critique of existing social relations or enable prescriptive theorizing. These two types of critique must be integrated into a single theoretical framework to facilitate emancipatory social transformation.

Feudal Europe, 800–1300: communal discourse and conflictual practices

1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Structural Theory ◽  
Historical Change ◽  
Fundamental Significance ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Scientific Argument

The discipline of international relations faces a new debate of fundamental significance. After the realist challenge to the pervasive idealism of the interwar years and the social scientific argument against realism in the late 1950s, it is now the turn of critical theorists to dispute the established paradigms of international politics, having been remarkably successful in several other fields of social inquiry. In essence, critical theorists claim that all social reality is subject to historical change, that a normative discourse of understandings and values entails corresponding practices, and that social theory must include interpretation and dialectical critique. In international relations, this approach particularly critiques the ahistorical, scientific, and materialist conceptions offered by neorealists. Traditional realists, by contrast, find a little more sympathy in the eyes of critical theorists because they join them in their rejection of social science and structural theory. With regard to liberal institutionalism, critical theorists are naturally sympathetic to its communitarian component while castigating its utilitarian strand as the accomplice of neorealism. Overall, the advent of critical theory will thus focus the field of international relations on its “interparadigm debate” with neorealism.

‘Inevitable and Unacceptable?’ Methodological Rawlsianism in Anglo-American Political Philosophy

1998 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne Norman
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Parallel Tasks ◽  
Profound Influence ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
English Speaking World

This article attempts two parallel tasks. First, it gives a sympathetic explication of the implicit working methodology (‘Methodological Rawlsianism’) of mainstream contemporary political theory in the English-speaking world. And second, principally in footnotes, it surveys the recent literature on justification to see what light these debates cast on the tenets of this methodology. It is worth examining methodological presuppositions because these can have a profound influence on substantive theories: many of the differences between philosophical traditions can be traced to their methodologies. My aim is to expose the central features of methodological Rawlsianism in order to challenge critics of this tradition to explain exactly where and why they depart from the method. While I do not defend it at length, I do suggest that methodological Rawlsianism is inevitable insofar as it is basically a form of common sense. This fact should probably lower expectations about the amount of progress consistent methodological Rawlsians are likely to make in grounding comprehensive normative political theories.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document