The ES does come close to Wendtian constructivism on one point: materialism vs idealism. Both are in-between positions here, the ES somewhat more materialist than all/most constructivists. But they differ on a whole complex of other questions (notably the view of language, rationality, analysts role, and IR theory/theories) and this brings the ES closer to classical realism and post-structuralism, than to constructivism.
- Ole Waever, 1999.
ARGH! Stop screwing with my mind! That was NOT what I thought the ES was! And how can you mention classical realism and post-structuralism in the same breath? How?!?! How could you? Now what am I supposed to do? Now I know nothing!
------ (edited)
Ok, now that I've calmed down somewhat.
It seems I always get stuck on the theory, esp. the definitions... largely because I still believe that half the argument is won by definitions and categorization. I never seem to get to the application of theory. Ok I admit, it's also partly because I prefer theory to application.
This was exactly what happened to my HT, which was supposed to be an application of theory, but ended up being a meaningless 10,000 word exposition on a minor theoretical point that I could have dealt with in 2 sentences. Oh the benefits of hindsight.
I have to stop reading these theory-related articles and actually get down to application. Soon. As soon as I've got this latest bit figured out.
No comments:
Post a Comment