From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Other constructivists 2 the putative mainstream 3 Rewriting 4 Frank Schimmelpfennig

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)