建構主義的爭論與評價

Constructivism in International Relations: A Critical Evaluation

洪鎌德(Lien-Te Hung)

批判理論 ； 理性主義 ； 建構主義 ； 後現代建構主義 ； 邏各斯中心主義 ； critical theory ； rationalism ； constructivism ； postmodem constructivism ； logos-centralism

哲學與文化

41卷9期（2014 / 09 / 01）

139 - 155

繁體中文

本文首先討論理性主義陣營中新現實主義和新自由主義在1980年代的激辯，而引出批判理論的不滿與介入。這就是西方國際關係理論背後哲學思維的爭執，涉及到本體論、知識論和方法論的歧異。這是理論界大鳴大放的時期。在批判理論抨擊理性主義之際，全球冷戰突然結束，蘇聯崩解，東歐諸國紛紛變成「新民主」國際局勢的丕變，為傳統國關學說無法理解與闡釋。這就促成建構主義的生成。這一建構主義理論的轉折同結構兼行動理論之盛行有關，更可以看作批判理論的延申。由於建構主義重視理念，而非物質因素在國際政治上扮演的角色，而招致批評。對此抨擊建構主義者也有合理的反駁與辯解。要之，建構主義所強調的規範、文化、認同體、國際互動相互建構的「意義」和理論是國際局勢的決定因素，這種主張強化其學科當成整體之可能性，也豐富建構主義與理性主義的內涵，是協助吾人對21世紀國際政治更為深刻理解的工具。

This article deals with the hot debates on international relations (IR) between neorealists and neoliberalists within the camp of rationalism in the 1980s. From those academic controversies arose not only the critical theory but also the constructivist school of world politics. In fact, the so-called constructivism in IR theory evolves and develops out of the polemics with the critical theory. It can be regarded as the extension and enlargement of the critical theory. The constructive emphasis on ideational factors in IR provokes the critiques of the adequacy of its interpretation of world affairs. However, in a rapidly changing global society IR are not only constituted by material interests but also shaped by human ideas and views. Indeed, we live in an age of information and communication. Our world is constituted by various material and ideational forces that make the pluralist and inter subjective outlook meaningful. Finally, the treatise discusses the strength as well as the deficiencies of the modem and postmodern constructivism and reevaluates their contribution to the further development of IR theories.

1. 洪鎌德(2010)。國際關係中的批判理論。臺灣國際研究季刊，6(3)，1-30。
   連結：
2. Dornelles, Filipe Krause. “Postmodernism and IR: From Disparate Critiques to a Coherent Theory of Global Politics,” Global Poltics. 1981. Retrieved in World Wide Web on 8 Nov 2010, http://www.globalpolitics.net.
3. Ashley, Richard K.(1988).Foreign Policy as Political Performance.International Studies Notes,13(2),48-71.
4. Burchill, Scott(2001).Theories of International Relations.Houndsmill:Palgrave.
5. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(1998).The Constructivist Turn in International Theory.World Politics,50(2),324-348.
6. Farrell, Theo(2002).Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program.International Studies,4(1),49-72.
7. George, Jim(1994).Discourse of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations.Boulder:Lynne Riemer.
8. Griffiths, Martin(ed.)(2007).International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century.London:Routledge.
9. Griffiths, Martin(ed.)(2005).International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century.London:Routledge.
10. Hoffman, Mark(1991).Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four Voices in Critical International Theories.Millenium,20(2),169-185.
11. Jacobsen, Robert(2003).Dueling Constructivisms: A Post Modern on the Ideas Debate in Mainstream IR/IPE.Review of International Studies,29,39-60.
12. Keohane, Robert(1989).International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations.Boulder:Westview Press.
13. Kratochwil, Friedrich(1989).Norms, Rules, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Kratochwil, Friedrich(2000).Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics and the Constructivist Challenge.Millenium: Journal of International Studies,29,73-101.
15. Palan, Ronen(2004).Constructivism and Globalisation: From Units to Encounters in International Affairs.Cambridge Review of International Affairs,17(1),11-23.
16. Price, Richard,Reus-Smit, Christian(1998).Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.European Journal of International Relations,4(3),259-294.
17. Sterling-Folker, Jennifer(2000).Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared.International Studies Quarterly,44,97-119.
18. Thomas, George(ed.)(1989).International Structure: Constituting State, Society and the Individual.London:Sage.
19. Varadarajan, Latha(2004).Constructivism, Identity and Neoliberalism (In)Security.British International Studies,30,319-341.
20. Wendt, Alexander(1999).Social Theory of International Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
21. Wendt, Alexander(1995).Constructing International Politics.International Security,20(1),71-81.
22. Wendt, Alexander(1992).Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Poltics.International Organization,46(2),391-425.
23. 包宗和編(2011)。國際關係理論。臺北:五南圖書公司。
24. 洪鎌德(2004)。法律社會學。臺北:揚智文化。
25. 洪鎌德(1977)。世界政治新論。臺北:牧童出版社。
26. 洪鎌德(2000)。人的解放─21世紀馬克思學說新探。臺北:揚智文化。
27. 洪鎌德(2004)。西方馬克思主義。臺北:揚智文化。
28. 洪鎌德(2014)。個人與社會─馬克思人性論與社群觀之評析。臺北:五南圖書公司。
29. 洪鎌德(2013)。當代政治社會學。臺北:五南圖書公司。
30. 洪鎌德(1999)。當代政治經濟學。臺北:揚智文化。
31. 洪鎌德(2011)。全球化下的國際關係新論。臺北:揚智文化。
32. 洪鎌德(2010)。西方馬克思主義的興衰。臺北:揚智文化。
33. 陳柏宇(2013)。國際關係的亞洲學派─中國、日本與印度的「再世界化」。臺北:臺灣大學政治學系中國大陸暨兩岸關係教學與研究中心。

1. 謝旻凱、劉孟竹、許夆池(2016)。以國際關係學説批判理論談大型國際運動賽會辦理之反思。輔仁大學體育學刊，15，137-149。
2. 張純純,李美英(2015)。實作導向的個案報告訓練成效評值。領導護理，16(4)，66-75。