English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Constructivism in International Relations (IR) is popular, but constructivists seem disappointed. Allegedly something has been lost. Such criticisms are misplaced. There was never a uniform Constructivism. Since constructivism is socially constructed, to argue that constructivism has evolved “wrongly” is odd. This paper explains the dissatisfaction with constructivism followed by a second reading of its evolution as a tale of two cognitions. These two cognitions distinguish genera in the constructivist “family”. A criticism against one genus based on the cognition of the other is unfair. A focus on cognitions and the use of genera helps in perceiving constructivism’s future evolution.Keywords: Cognition, constructivism, evolution, evolutionary branching, disciplinary history. Received: September 7, 2016 Accepted: March 24, 2017 Introduction T he contemporary state of social constructivism in International Relations (IR) is somewhat paradoxical 1 . Constructivism is well established and popular, but many constructivists seem unhappy. The common claim by dissatisfied constructivists is a variation on a theme about the mainstreaming of constructivism and how something important was lost in that process. Yet, as this article argues, such claims are misplaced. For one, there was never some uniform IR “Constructivism,” which then lost something. Rather, constructivism has been characterized by plurality from the start. Second, dissatisfaction with contemporary mainstream constructivism risks being based on some notion of “real” constructivism, which in turn is difficult to square with an important constructivist tenet – social construction – which must apply also to social constructivism. It is odd to argue that the evolution

A tale of two cognitions: The Evolution of Social Constructivism in International Relations