Breaking the Rules: Constructivism's Liberation from the Constraints of Scientific Knowledge

Breaking the Rules:

Constructivism's Liberation from the Constraints of Scientific Knowledge

In class, we talked about how constructivism rejects, or at least questions a grounding of scientific knowledge.  This aspect of constructivism is often used as a critique of the approach, but I believe that it is actually one of its strengths.  I came to this conviction while I was reading an article by Sandra Lipsitz Bem for my Psychology of Women and Gender class. 

In this article, Bem points out how the current debate over sexual inequality often rests on the biological difference between the sexes.  In other words, many people argue that our biological makeup makes sexual equality impossible. For instance, since painful and cumbersome periods are a scientific fact of life for a woman and not for a man, some would say that women are less able than men to consistently perform in combat zones and consequently should not be allowed to fight in combat.  The proponents of this stance would say that they are inarguably correct, that no matter what alternative is offered, the fact remains that women are simply biologically inferiorly equipped to be good soldiers.  They would herald proven scientific knowledge as their unbreakable foundation.  Upon reading the article filled with similar examples, however, I saw Bem’s main point: scientific knowledge can be a limitation just as much or more than it is a foundation.

In the argument above, and in many other instances of sexual inequality, science takes on the role of insurmountable obstacle, blocking from the get go all argument or action for change.  I think that the situation is similar with constructivism in international politics.  Many people would say that constructivism is limited in value as a political theory because it lacks a scientific basis.  It is argued that constructivism doesn’t work in the real world because it doesn’t take into account the facts of what the world is or the rules for how it works.  This argument, however, is inherently flawed because the facts of the world and its governing rules change constantly and, most importantly, humans are capable of finding ways around the rules, so to hold onto one version of the world and its rules is to hold oneself back.  

If scientific knowledge is allowed to control international politics, then whatever problems arise must either have a solution within the scientific knowledge framework or, if no such solution exists, the problems will remain unsolved. This is the way of political theories that are grounded in fact.  These theories claim their scientific validity as their strength, but through Bem’s interpretation of scientific knowledge as a restriction, I clearly see that clinging to science and fact is actually often those theories’ weakness, limiting what they are able to accomplish.   Not all political situations have solutions within the preexistence of scientific knowledge, so if solutions are to be found at all, scientific knowledge has to be recognized as a possible constraint and then put aside (as it is in constructivism) when it does indeed become constraining.   

If scientific fact was allowed to dictate the world of sexual equality, then women would only be allowed to be sexual partners and mothers, because scientifically speaking, their bodies are made for that.  In the same way, if scientific fact is allowed to dictate the world of international politics, then a vicious cycle of conflict is all we are left with, because humans are hardwired to survive and the security dilemma of realism reigns.  We do not have to resign ourselves to either of those situations, however, if we follow constructivism’s example and break free from the binds of scientific knowledge.  My argument that the lack of a factual foundation is constructivism’s strength can be summed up with the idea: if you can’t win the game playing by the rules, you have to break the rules. 

 

Source

Bem, Lipsitz Sandra. “Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality: From Biological Difference to Institutionalized Androcentrism.” Excerpt adapted from Lenses of Gender. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1993.