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

Abstract 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

Polyarchies, Competitive Oligarchies, or Inclusive Hegemonies? 23 Global Intergovernmental Organizations Compared

In this paper, I assume that global intergovernmental organizations (GIGOs) function as "enablers" of interstate liberal politics by way of their multilateral institutional frameworks. To support this view, I recall and adapt the classical concept of "polyarchy," coined in the early 1950s by Robert A. Dahl. It consists of a two-dimensional theoretical construct applicable for measuring the level of liberalization in modern political societies. It follows that the more actors who take part in politics, and the more that institutions allow political opposition, the more open a society (of states) is likely to be. I thus wish to assess and rate the level of "polyarchization" of 23 GIGOs that cover various issue areas and fit some specific criteria (for example, more than one hundred member states from at least three different continents). The methodology section includes a scorecard that I have specially developed to help achieve these research objectives

Escavando a "comunidade internacional": por uma arqueologia do conhecimento metafórico Excavating "international community": toward a metaphorical archeology of knowledge

Neste artigo, argumento que metáfora e conceito são nomes para o mesmo tipo de coisa. E, se isso é assim, metáfora é uma metáfora para conceito; conceito é uma metáfora para metáfora. Se assim o é, então o conhecimento é, em geral, metafórico. Uma arqueologia do conhecimento metafórico é uma expressão metafórica para um conjunto de reivindicações e procedimentos concebidos para expor os pressupostos e as associações enterrados, constituindo (e, por meio da constituição, regulando) o que pensamos que sabemos. As ressonâncias afetivas e normativas das metáforas relacionadas a "comunidade" se remetem a um profundo anseio em um mundo onde as comunidades não mais se assemelham ao que um dia foram. "Comunidade internacional" é um sítio arqueológico situado na superfície da terra, tão proeminente quanto inexplorado. Sua escavação pode nos conduzir a algum distante passado, somente para nos trazer de volta ao próprio mundo que vivemos.<br>In this paper, I claim that metaphor and concept are names for the same kind of thing. And if this is so, metaphor is a metaphor for concept; concept is a metaphor for metaphor. An archeology of metaphorical knowledge is a metaphorical expression for a set of claims and procedures designed to expose the buried assumptions and associations constituting (and by constituting, regulating) what we think we know. The affective and normative resonances of metaphors related to "community" speak to a deep yearning in a world where communities no longer resemble what they once did. "International community" is an above-ground archeological site, as prominent as it is unexplored. Its excavation may take us to some distant past only to bring us back to the very world we live in