Difference of Conventional Constructivism and Critical Constructivism Approach in International Relations Theory

Abstract

<p><em>This paper argues that Constructivism as the approach in International Relations are still debat</em><em>ed</em><em>. The debate is on Conventional (modern) and Critical (post-modern) constructivsm. Although both are claimed as critical approach (s</em><em>imilar</em><em> in the</em><em>ir</em><em> epistemological aspect) and emerged in the same context and same culture of school in IR, they are different in adopting the methodological aspect. It may cause</em><em>d</em><em> by the constructivist itself grow along the growing of critical studies and the legacy of IR’s behavoralism</em><em> which</em><em> still remains dominantly</em><em>. Thus, it</em><em> makes one constructivist hold on to reflectivism too much and another constructivist engaged to positivism in order to prove that constructivism is scientific enough</em><em> </em><em>theoretically. Outlining the historical background both context and academic text, this paper analyze this issue in a path.</em></p>