Critiques of Constructivism

Constructivists differ from realists: Ideas are separate from the material base, not just a product of it.
Constructivists are often post-positivists, making their methodology hard to pin down for mainstream (positivist) scholars.
Constructivists need to better define their concepts and methodology, avoiding "weasel words" and nebulous concepts.
The challenge: If ideas aren't from a material base, where do they originate, evolve, or change?
- Example: Went's concept of friendship in international relations (e.g., why 5 North Korean nuclear weapons are perceived as more threatening than 500 British ones).
- Friendship matters, but where does this concept come from? What causes it to grow or diminish?
- Missing underlying factor: Constructivists might lack a variable that shapes the ideas they study. They can't attribute it to a material base (that would make them realists).

Similarity between Constructivism and Postmodernism:
- Replacing "discourse" with "socially constructed" (or vice versa) in texts of Foucault and Went yields similar meanings.
Difference between Constructivism and Postmodernism:
- Foucault (postmodernist): No progression or teleology in history. No way to step outside discourses to make judgments.
- Constructivists: Believe in progress and positive change; think they can build something better.
Problem: Constructivists assert they can make judgments but don't adequately explain how they avoid the relativist trap.
- They take it for granted that one way of organizing the world can be superior to another. But the critics ask them to "show your work."
Example: Child labor.
- Attitudes towards child labor have changed, and most think we've created a better world by restricting it.
- How do constructivists decide that not having child labor is better, given that any judgment is itself a social construct?
- Is abolishing child labor an application of human rights or cultural imperialism? How do you step outside the existing social construct to decide?
- Constructivists claim they can make such judgments but don't explain how.

Constructivists argue to be skeptical of all claims of truth because they are socially constructed.
If all facts are socially constructed, is that not true of constructivism itself?
Do constructivists think their analytical tool is superior without showing their work?
Analogy to Postmodernism: Postmodernism tells us to check assumptions, but discourse theory also has assumptions, leading to infinite regress.
Robert Cox: All theories are for someone for some purpose, Where do these theories come from including constructivism? And, you know, if we don't have an objective way of measuring truth, how can we say that constructivism is a superior way of critiquing than some other theory?

"Social construct" implies ideas are deliberately created, but are they?
Constructivists are inconsistent:
- Some argue ideas are deliberately constructed to imprison us and deny the truth (malevolent purpose).
- Others argue ideas have a life of their own and are not just aggregations of individual beliefs but have independent status as collective knowledge.
Inconsistency: Are these ideas deliberately constructed for a purpose, or do they emerge and take on an independent life?

Constructivism is not postmodernism, but there are similarities.
Differences:
- Postmodernism emerged from Marxist tradition (terminology), while constructivism came from the mainstream (realists, liberals).
- Are the terminological differences significant? Switching "social construct" and "discourse" yields similar meanings.
- Some postmodernist scholars argue constructivism is a mainstream, pale imitation of their theories, losing the critical edge.

Constructivists: Believe in making change for the good and can make judgments, and believe there is a trajectory/teleology to history.
- Foucault says it's impossible as one cannot step outside the discourse.
Postmodernism (Foucault et al.): No teleology; history just is, with no direction.
Constructivists have a hard time explaining how they make judgments about progress or direction.

Some constructivists may be closer to critical theory than postmodernism.
- Not all believe social constructs are completely detached from any underlying material structure; not all are post-positivists.
Anarchy: Constructivists say that anarchy is what states make of it. Fair enough. The concept of anarchy can be defined in different ways -- there can be different social constructs around the term anarchy.
Ideas are not infinitely malleable; there are limits to how detached they can be from an underlying material reality.
- Foucault (postmodernist) and most mainstream constructivists: A word can mean literally anything.
By linking ideas to an underlying material reality, this subset of constructivists is more like critical theory.