Arguable, constructivism or construction is a loaded term in academia. Whenever one uses constructivism or construction it usually means they are social constructivists. However, like Deleuze and Latour I find value in using the term and would like to see it detached from social constructivism. Maybe we could propose there are social constructivists (e.g. Berger & Luckmann) and (radical) constructivists (e.g. DeLanda, Latour, Deleuze). I would claim the difference between the two are the following:
Social Constructivism is concerned with the social construction of reality
(Radical) Constructivism is concerned with the construction of reality
The two ‘schools of thought’ appear similar, but their differences are significant and leads to two different positions. Social constructivists argue that reality is always social mediated and mind-dependent and Radical contructivists argue that mind-independent entities exist and they are knowable. It is along these dividing lines that the battle of constructivists are drawn. The former is anti-realist and the later is realist.
So which do you support? Former or latter?
I would favour radical constructivism. However, i do feel there is a possibility for a hybird of both forms of constructivism. The work of Latour and the Foucault of Discipline and Punish have the capacity to provide a framework for this type of hybird analysis.
Struggles with Philosophy,
In lieu of May Day 2009, I’m inviting people to take the time to answer the question, “When/if there is a revolution in the United States, what will it look like?” If you’re interested schedule a post for May 1st, and let me know so I can link to it.
- Utopia or Bust