Lecture 8 - constructivism Flashcards
take home points
- constructivism is an ontological position: realities are local and specific, they are actively constructed
- constructivism has a contested relationship to epistemology: many are epistemological interpretivists, but some accept causality and the scientific method
- understanding vs explanation (Weber)
- post-Humean causality = a distinction between constructivism and non-constructivism based on contingency
- there are many varieties of constructivism
- major constructivist mechanisms include socialization, persuasion and bricolage (they aren’t mutually exlcusive)
constructivist ontology
anti-foundationalism
‘realities are local and specific, they vary between individuals/groups’
reality is not discovered, it is actively constructed
ontological constructivists tend to be epistemological interpretivists (knowledge as discursively, theoretically and conceptually ‘laden’)
- prioritizes understanding social and political action over explaining it
complicating constructivism
many constructivists don’t break with science and causality
many do break with causality: to much contingency -> not possible to make causal explanations
subjective interpretation of some sort affects what people do
what is distinctive about constructivism
people act within meaningful social constructs
origins of constructivism
- Max Weber +
Emile Durkheim = constructivist perspective (in the study of sociology, weren’t only focused on this)
Durkheim: social facts
Weber: social construction of ‘intersts’ + idea of the iron case
social facts
Durkheim
language to talk about the constructivist idea that human behaviour can be influenced and shaped by things that are not directly measurable
social fact = norms, ideals, ideologies that exists outside of peoples mind (aren’t limited to ones’ mind)
e.g. ideas about marriage, non-discrimination
social construction of ‘interest’
Weber
comes back in marxist theory (proletariat has been brainwashed: difference between what they think is in their interest and what is in their objective interest)
idea that our view of our interests can be constructed, that there might not be an objective interest (might be a result of socialization, upbringing, education)
if this is true: rational choice theory has a problem
the Iron Cage
Important metaphor of Weber
idea that rationality and efficiency that come in conjunction with a rationalized bureaucratic view of government and capitalist economy constrain individual freedom at the level of thought
!this iron cage is internalized, it is not only an external constrained, it’s a constraint we co-construct
- it constructs the way we think -> hard to get rid of
- can also protect us, make us able to do things
Max Weber on religion
(example of constructivist thinking, illustrative)
idea that capitalism has developed along theological development: divide between protestantism, calvinism and catholicism
calvinist believing that they were predestined to be saved or damned -> obsession in identifying signs of predestination -> idea formed that one of the signs that god can give you of being saved is financial success -> capitalism
theological idea -> massive structural change towards more capitalistic economy + bureaucratic rationality
- capitalism as rationality ordered world view that is a sort of social facts (internalized in human behaviour)
understanding and explaining
- Weber
explanation is concerned with causal arguments: adequacy on a causal level
understanding concerns an arguments ‘adequacy on the level of meaning’
some constructivists accept causal arguments, others reject explanation and think social scientists are limited to the double hermeneutic
double hermeneutic
if all we have are peoples understanding of the world (no access to an objective world)
then a social scientists is not directly about the understanding of individuals, it is the understanding the researcher has of the understanding/interpretation of people
this limits the sort of claims we can make in the social world
causal versus constitutive arguments
Wendt
- causal = why it happens
- constitutive = what/how it happens
e.g.
causal: sovereignty caused modern states to come about
constitutive: sovereignty and modern states constitute one another (it happens at the same time, they are linked, to understand one, you must understand the other as well)
David Hume’s idea of causality
challenged the idea that causal connections can be objectively determined
cause and effect are never directly observed
supposed causal connections are instead inferred from observing correlated phenomena
Hume suggested belief in causality stems from psychological habit, not logic
Post-Hueman view of causality
accepts Hume’s statement that causality can’t be observed
argues that a plausible mechanism linking cause and effect is necessary for a causal argument
thus: combines explanation and understanding (explain: by seeing, understanding in looking into it)
widens the scope of constructivism
the real difference constructivists and non-constructivists
taking into account the post-humean view
- origins of ‘social facts’ (are they objective or constructed)
- the role of contingency: is the world of our making? or are we kind of like robots
constructivists find the focus on contingency, peoples own perception important
