{"id":3810,"date":"2011-05-02T06:35:56","date_gmt":"2011-05-02T11:35:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=3810"},"modified":"2011-05-02T06:39:46","modified_gmt":"2011-05-02T11:39:46","slug":"more-on-constructions-gun-hammer-or-scaffold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/05\/02\/more-on-constructions-gun-hammer-or-scaffold\/","title":{"rendered":"More on constructions: gun, hammer, or scaffold?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The comments on this previous post<\/a> resulted in my doing a bit of quick research (methodology: googling) on how often the terms “constructivism” and “constructionism” get used in relation to certain theorists and theoretical terms.<\/p>\n

Here are the results. I’ve put the “winning” terms in bold:<\/p>\n

Berger Luckmann<\/a> + constructionism<\/strong> 147,000 \/ + constructivism 43,000
\nFoucault + constructionism 112,000 \/ constructivism<\/strong> 284,000
\nDerrida + constructionism 103,000 \/ constructivism<\/strong> 389,000
\npostmodernism + constructionism 174,000 \/ constructivism<\/strong> 595,000
\nLatour + constructionism 19,000 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 70,000
\nPiaget + constructionism 68,000 \/ constructivism<\/strong> 177,000
\nGabo + constructionism 2,000 \/ constructivism<\/strong> 78,000
\nTatlin + constructionism 689 \/ constructivism<\/strong> 40,000<\/p>\n

(Note: The latter two are intended to check the “truthiness” of the others, since Gabo & Tatlin are almost never, to my knowledge, called \u201cconstructionists.\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

According to Google, then, Berger & Luckmann are the constructiONists, while Foucault, Derrida, Piaget, the \u201cpostmodernists\u201d (whoever they are, though by outsiders’ accounts they often include Foucault and Derrida) *and* the artists are all constructiVists.<\/p>\n

In Google Scholar, on the other hand — which provides a much more scholarly sample — the results are a little less clear for a few of the figures:<\/p>\n

Berger Luckmann + constructionism<\/strong> 18,000 \/ + constructivism 4120
\nFoucault + constructionism<\/strong> 16,400 \/ + constructivism 13,900 (a reversal!)
\nDerrida + constructionism 6180 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 7160
\npostmodernism + constructionism 18,300 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 20,400
\nLatour + constructionism 4330 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 6640
\nPiaget + constructionism 5900 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 20,400
\nGabo + constructionism 42 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 704
\nTatlin + constructionism 28 \/ + constructivism<\/strong> 983<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The implication of the Foucault, Derrida, and postmodernism figures would seem to be that scholars (i.e. Google Scholar) use “constructivism” and “constructionism” almost interchangeably for the so-called “postmodernists,” while the term “constructivism” is the one that has caught on more popularly (i.e., in Google).<\/p>\n

The Latour figures need some further contextualization: they are skewed by the fact that he published an article<\/a> entitled “The Promises of Constructivism<\/a>” — in which he uses the term “constructionism” interchangeably with (but less frequently than) “constructivism” (but if the article title is cited somewhere, you wouldn’t know that).<\/p>\n

In the article Latour makes precisely the argument that I made in my last post: he argues against <\/em><\/em>a strictly social<\/em> constructivism and for <\/em>a more generalized constructivism that has to do with the building of a “common world” from which (among other things) humans and non-humans cannot be separated.<\/p>\n

In Latour’s terms, a “construction” (though he’s not wedded to the word and prefers the term “composition”) designates<\/p>\n

something which a) has not always been around, b) which is of humble origin, c) which is composed of heterogeneous parts, d) which was never fully under the control of its makers, e) which could have failed to come into existence, f) which now provides occasions as well as obligations, g) which needs for this reason to be protected and maintained if it is to continue to exist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In typically Latourian (tongue-somewhat-in-cheek) fashion, he ends by proposing the following test: <\/span><\/p>\n

When you hear that something you cherish is a ‘construction’, your first reaction is (check the right circle):
\no to take a gun
\no to seize a hammer
\no to erect a scaffold<\/p>\n

Answer: If you checked the first, then you are a fundamentalist ready to anihiliate those who appeal to the destruction of what remains strong only if it is unconstructed by human hands\u00a0; if you ticked the second, then you are a deconstructionist who sees construction as a proof of weakness in a building that should be pressed to ruins in order to give way to a better and firmer structure untouched by human hands\u00a0; if you checked the third, then you are a constructivist, or, better, a compositionist engaged at once in the task of maintaining and nurturing those fragile habitations\u00a0; if you ticked them all, then you are hopelessly muddled.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The comments on this previous post resulted in my doing a bit of quick research (methodology: googling) on how often the terms “constructivism” and “constructionism” get used in relation to certain theorists and theoretical terms. Here are the results. I’ve put the “winning” terms in bold:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":99,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[688977],"tags":[17873,17871,16788,17875],"class_list":["post-3810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geo_philosophy","tag-constructionism","tag-constructivism","tag-latour","tag-postmodernism"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4IC4a-Zs","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":3770,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/04\/30\/for-a-moratorium-on-constructivism\/","url_meta":{"origin":3810,"position":0},"title":"For a moratorium on “constructivism”","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"April 30, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"I'd like to call a moratorium on the use of the word \"constructivism\" (or \"constructionism\") to refer only to social constructivism. (This post was prompted by Tim\u00a0 Morton's Object-Oriented Strategies for Ecological Art, but his point there is somewhat differently directed and mine addresses a more general issue that can\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Eco-theory"","block_context":{"text":"Eco-theory","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/ecophilosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":13022,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2022\/10\/09\/r-i-p-bruno-latour\/","url_meta":{"origin":3810,"position":1},"title":"R.i.p., Bruno Latour","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"October 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Hearing the announcement of Bruno Latour's death earlier today, I remembered his visit to the Feverish World symposium, which I co-organized in 2018 in Burlington, Vermont. Despite his health (which was turning for the worse at the time), he participated gracefully in this strange mixture of conference, festival, and street\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Eco-theory"","block_context":{"text":"Eco-theory","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/ecophilosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/10\/image.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/10\/image.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/10\/image.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/10\/image.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/10\/image.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/10\/image.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1214,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2010\/03\/12\/toward-a-post-constructivist-synthesis\/","url_meta":{"origin":3810,"position":2},"title":"toward a post-constructivist synthesis","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"March 12, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"I recently mentioned my belief, or hope, that the humanities and sciences are working their ways toward a post-constructivist synthesis, a paradigm in the making with the potential to become a powerful player in twenty-first century public discourse. \"Post-constructivism\" says little, and \"post-representationalism\", \"post-anthropocentric humanism,\" and \"post-Kantianism\" -- the other\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3126,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/04\/08\/eco-onto-politics-2-integralism-climate-change\/","url_meta":{"origin":3810,"position":3},"title":"Eco-onto-politics 2: Integralism & climate change","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"April 8, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"This is the second post in a series on the intersections between ecology, ontology, and politics. (The first reviewed Andrew Pickering's The Cybernetic Brain.) Here I focus on integral ecologist Sean Esbj\u00f6rn-Hargens's article An Ontology of Climate Change: Integral Pluralism and the Enactment of Multiple Objects. This post can also\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Climate change"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/climate-politics\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2011\/04\/immanence-275x98.gif?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":7713,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2015\/09\/04\/peirces-long-revolution\/","url_meta":{"origin":3810,"position":4},"title":"Peirce’s “long revolution”","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"September 4, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"As the world's refugee crisis builds -- reminding us that much worse movements of people loom ahead, and much worse wars, as climate systems destabilize\u00a0and the capitalist world-ecology unravels in the decades and centuries ahead -- I can't help\u00a0asking myself what, if anything, philosophy can offer in response. It depends\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2464","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2015\/09\/2464-275x165.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":11576,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2021\/02\/13\/zone-as-metaphor-metaphor-as-zone\/","url_meta":{"origin":3810,"position":5},"title":"Zone as metaphor, metaphor as Zone","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"February 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"My book Ecologies of the Moving Image takes Andrei Tarkovsky's Zone, so richly depicted in his celebrated 1979 film Stalker, as a kind of master metaphor for how cinema works and, by implication, how art in general works: it beckons its receiver into following it into a zone where, at\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cinema"","block_context":{"text":"Cinema","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/cinema_zone\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2021\/02\/stalker-1979-002-00m-ln4-dog-running-through-water_0-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2021\/02\/stalker-1979-002-00m-ln4-dog-running-through-water_0-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2021\/02\/stalker-1979-002-00m-ln4-dog-running-through-water_0-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2021\/02\/stalker-1979-002-00m-ln4-dog-running-through-water_0-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3810","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/99"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3810"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3810\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3821,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3810\/revisions\/3821"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}