Lecture 8 - constructivism

• 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)

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

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

people act within meaningful social constructs

• 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

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

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

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

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)

• 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

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

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)

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

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

• 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

• socialization • persuasion • bricolage how do social facts come about?

a learning of rules and behaviours chosen by a group socialization is diffuse, it is shared by a group of people

social facts that rely on explicit advocates, who clearly believe in their ideas or norms at a time before their ideas are embedded into broader action it is not shared/diffused, it is one individual that is trying to push a specific idea/norm

start from a view of a messy world of overlapping different social constructs and facts people tend to develop ideas and norms to suit discrete problems and goals people pick and mix their ideas/norms, this is not compeletly rational picking your own ideas/norms, it is picking from different constructs available bricolage kind of logic = social behaviour is understood through multiple social constructs (not one social construct determines a persons view/behaviour) DIY approach to social construction (kind of): resourceful, creative, improvisational

be careful to distinguish them: they aren’t the same easiest = just refer to antifoundatoinal ontology instead of constructivist ontology

not really important for exam main thing = the methodology doesn’t clearly fit in one of the columns of the table we keep looking at