POLSC 20 Constructivism and Interpretive Theory PDF

C 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 MODULE 2 Constructivism and interpretive theory POLSC 20 Introduction to Political Science C 20 POLSC 20 POLSC...

C 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 MODULE 2 Constructivism and interpretive theory POLSC 20 Introduction to Political Science C 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 POLSC 20 Origins Originated with sociology during the late 19th Century ○ Émile Durkheim: Societies are held together by “social facts” of culture, not just objectively rational responses to “material” facts. Societies creatively invent different socially constructed ideas and beliefs. ○ Max Weber: Ideas are “switchmen” which often determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamics of interest Religious ideas led to the rise of capitalism. Origins Was very influential in the 50s and 60s, then fell out of favor and became popular again in the late 80s ○ Reemergence was a reaction to the perceived failures of non-constructivist thinking in IR ○ Wendt: “Anarchy is what states make of it” What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Weber: Two modes of argument about action ○ Explanation - concerned with an argument’s adequacy on a causal level ○ Understanding - concerned with an argument’s adequacy on the level of meaning What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism First view: Outsider and insider accounts ○ Outsider: Present science-style causal explanations of patterns in action. ○ Insider: Interpret meanings, perceptions, and the process of action. Constructivists and non-constructivists make separate contributions within a division of labor. “We always and inevitably have two stories to tell about action” (Hollis and Smith, 1990). What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Second view: Same, but that only “insider”, Understanding arguments apply to action. ○ Human action never responds to conditions in an automatic stimulus-response causal relationship. People always act through meanings and have some free will to choose (Winch, 1958). ○ We do not “explain” action. All we can do is offer meaningful interpretations of actors’ interpretations (double hermeneutic) What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Criticism: Weber created the “Understanding” category with a debatable definition of “Explanation”, which originated from David Hume. ○ We explain by offering correlations across many instances, not by specifying a mechanism/process by which one thing produces another. ○ Explanation subsumes action in a pattern of correlated conditions, but glosses over the process that produced it. ○ Rarely can we infer causation from correlation. What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Post-Humean definition of explanation erases the “Explanation/Understanding” line between constructivist and non-constructivist scholarship. ○ Example: RCT explanation where some people enacted a policy Humean view: Supporters benefitted, opponents did not Post-Humean view: Demands evidence of the “right mechanism” Any RCT mechanism makes claims about meanings and perceptions. What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Constructivism drawing the line between causal and constitutive arguments ○ Traditional-causal-explanatory scholarship: Why? ○ Constructivist-constitutive scholarship: How/What? For Wendt, culture and norms don’t usually cause things in a one leads to another type of manner, but rather define the properties of the world we perceive (Ex. sovereignty). What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Criticism of Wendt: Constructivists’ constitutive arguments do not just address static properties, but always directly imply certain accounts of processes that compete with non-constructivist explanations (Parsons, 2015). For non-constructivists, we arrive at our ideas, norms, and identities by a roughly rational and objective process. Thus, they are not constitutive of anything and are byproducts of rational political action. Debate: Do people arrive at norms/identities via a roughly rational reaction to objective conditions or via a What is/isn’t distinctive about constructivism Parsons: The core distinctiveness of constructivism lies in its relationship to contingency. The basic logical format of any constructivist argument is that certain people faced an indeterminate set of real conditions and arrived at a course of action as they adopted certain social constructs. ○ People, by creativity or by accident, choose one of many imaginable sets of meanings, building certain interpretations around themselves and constituting one world from many. Variations within constructivism Epistemological variations ○ Modern vs postmodern/interpretivist constructivists Postmodern scholars: The very notion of social construction means that science (esp about human action) is more a political, power- focused clash of interpretive agendas. They connect substantive views of social construction to an interpretivist epistemology. Variations within constructivism Epistemological variations ○ Modern vs postmodern/interpretivist constructivists Modern scholars: We can posit social construction among actors but we can still make some acceptable (if modestly tentative) claims about how the world works. How much the world is socially constructed is something we can show. Variations within constructivism Different mechanisms and different social constructs Socialization - norms and ideas spread in an incremental, evolutionary way generated by repeated interaction within groups. ○ It also suggests a diffused, decentralized, collective, and consensual process on how people arrive at certain norms/ideas. ○ Low levels of contestation and variation within groups ○ Socialization, unlike power/politicking, does not depend on “carriers” with special authority for Variations within constructivism Different mechanisms and different social constructs Persuasion - focuses on idea/norm entrepreneurs that invent new ideas and sell them to others. ○ Social construction happens via the conscious and explicit actions of actors. ○ “Carriers” purposefully manage to spread the idea to others. ○ A world of conscious advocates of competing ideas People consciously consider and knit together their ideas, seeking some coherence in their mix of ideas and norms. Variations within constructivism Different mechanisms and different social constructs Bricolage (bricoler - to tinker) - has the bottom-up incremental feel of socialization, some of the notion of entrepreneurial carriers of persuasion, and has an emphasis on complexity and interdependence somewhat different from both. ○ We tend to develop ideas/norms/practices to suit discrete problems and goals, ending up with a complex landscape of overlapping realms of action. ○ Result is a fairly decentralized, incremental Variations within constructivism Different mechanisms and different social constructs Bricolage (bricoler - to tinker) ○ We are in a world of incoherence, not consensual, collective identities. People have a very externalized relationship to ideas and norms. Actors encounter the hodgepodge of norms and practices as a set of external concepts. “The way things are done” We tinker with norms and practices to suit our immediate purposes. Variations within constructivism Different methods Constructivists with IR-focused training undertake close process-tracing over time. Constructivists in comparative political economy use small-N cross national comparisons. Poststructural scholars use discourse analysis and deconstructionist critique. Sociological institutionalists use multiple methods, often building their studies around quantitative analysis of changing patterns in norms, models, and actions over time.  WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIET ORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIE How Selected Pro-Duterte Facebook Pages Framed the ABS-CBN Shutdown Issue: A Discussion on Epistemic Discrediting in Echo Chambers Framing of ABS-CBN Shutdown Legal frames - mirrored the findings of the lawmakers’ technical working group (TWG) Political frames - ABS-CBN’s biased reporting, victory- over-oligarchs narrative, pronouncements related to the 2022 elections These frames served as reinforcing layers to fortify the echo chamber behavior of selected pro-Duterte pages against ABS-CBN through an attack-amplify- attract stratagem. Pre-Duterte: ABS as Kingmakers Media ownership as a family affair in the PH As preeminent kingmakers, the Lopezes have virtually tipped the balance of every presidential election since Manuel Roxas. ABS-CBN sought to dominate the post-EDSA broadcast industry by “launching innovative programs and pirating top-rated shows from rival channels.” ABS-CBN-GMA duopoly, with TV5 as third player Pro-Duterte Pages and Online Mis-/Dis-information Pro-Duterte pages are often linked to “malicious online behavior” (March 2020) and trolling activities that range from smearing opposition members to posting patriotic propaganda about Duterte (Bradshaw & Howard 2017). ○ DDS bloggers ○ Trolls and “Dutertards” Us vs them narrative Pro-Duterte Pages and Online Mis-/Dis-information Misinformation is sharing false information but with no harm intended. Disinformation uses lies to hurt others. Ong, Tapsell, and Curato distinguishes disinformation from misinformation with the intention to mislead (2019). Mal-information is sharing genuine information to harm, like doxing or publicizing supposedly private information (Marwick & Lewis 2017). Framework C. Thi Nguyen’s (2020) “epistemic discrediting” ○ “Echo chamber” pertained to a “significant disparity” of trust between members and non- members of an epistemic community. ○ The disparity excluded non-members through “epistemic discrediting” or being charged as unreliable, malicious, or dishonest. ○ Opposite this “epistemic demerit” is the necessity of amplifying the “epistemic credentials” of community members, who enjoy a high level of trust. Political and legal frames Reinforcing the Duterte administration’s narrative against ABS-CBN proved to be the main role of the pro-Duterte pages on the two time frames covering the shutdown and franchise denial. It mostly reflected the TWG findings which had nothing to do with the process of renewing the franchise per se and was arbitrarily conceived (La Viña 2020), leaving the report and the decision with “full of uncertainties and doubts” (Mercado 2020a). Political and legal frames Attack (Duterte admin’s enemies) Amplify (Duterte admin’s narrative vs ABS-CBN) Attract (individuals supporting the anti-ABS-CBN narrative) Most of the scathing remarks were hinged primarily on the network violating the law, overstating its predicament, and insisting the shutdown and franchise denial are press freedom issues. Pro-Duterte Echo Chamber and Frames of Epistemic Discrediting ABS-CBN management and its supporters as “unreliable outsiders” for rejecting the prevailing narrative which fortifies the cognitive and discursive walls of the pro-Duterte echo chamber. Aimed to restructure public perception of the professional media by presenting ABS-CBN’s “in the service of the Filipino” brand as nothing but a self- serving slogan. The network as an unrepentant violator, treating the Pro-Duterte Echo Chamber and Frames of Epistemic Discrediting The decoding practices of pro-Duterte pages find credence in the “expertise” they command as opinion leaders on a specific topic (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). ○ Trixie Cruz-Angeles - tax law specialist ○ Sass Sasot - IR ○ RJ Nieto - columnist, data modeling ○ Byron Cristobal and Mocha Uson - entertainment Pro-Duterte pages capitalize on this mantle of trust to bolster their endorsement power within the echo chamber. K IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY Thanks! Do you have any questions? CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon and infographics & images by Freepik Please keep this slide for attribution K IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY — WORK IN SOCIETY