158
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
3.4.2.5 Social Constructivism
Social constructivism has a different view of knowledge and power than what liberal
institutionalism and the hydrosocial contract theory teach us. Guzzini (2000: 147)
argues that: ‘…constructivism is epistemologically about the social construction
of knowledge and ontologically about the construction of social reality’. Social
constructivism highlights interpretivism in social science and puts it centre stage
in the analysis of social reality. This philosophy refers to the levels of observation
and action, as well as their relationship to each other. At the level of observation, we
find epistemological constructivism, which was developed out of social constructivism’s critique of empiricism and positivism. Then there is the dogma of methodological intersubjectivity, or sociological constructivism (Guzzini 2000), and hence
the term ‘social constructivism’. This methodology sprouts from the critique of the
rational choice approach. Lastly, there is also the concept and analysis of power
in constructivism that ‘…functions as the reflexive link between observation and
action’ (Guzzini 2000: 156). A central theme of power is the ‘art of the possible’,
which is challenged by social constructivism, and, by doing this, the theory presents
a wider definition of politics, since meta-theories matter, both empirically and politically (Guzzini 2000). Since PULSE
3 identifies and gives meaning to social structures
through a meta-theoretical analysis, social constructivism is apt to produce a deeper
comprehension of the wider political nuances that are discernible in eThekwini’s
green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape.
Social constructivism attempts to explain and make sense of social relations by
describing the construction of the socio-political world through human practice (Du
Plessis 2000), which is constituted by ideational elements. Guzzini (2000: 149)
‘…understands constructivism in terms of both a social construction of meaning
(including knowledge), and of the construction of social reality’ (emphasis in the
original). As such, it is ‘…an approach to social analysis that deals with the role
of human consciousness in social life’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001: 391). Social
constructivism argues that ideational factors primarily shape human interactions.
This means that it is not only the material factors, or visible actors, that play a role
in relations. Furthermore, the approach notes that the most significant ideational
influences are widely shared intersubjective beliefs, which we cannot, through other
perspectives like the hydrosocial contract theory and liberal institutionalism, reduce
to the individual level (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001). In this light, social constructivism asserts that positivist theories have been exceedingly materialist and agentcentric (Hobson 2000), with social constructivism taking the middle ground (Adler
1997; Guzzini 2000), so to speak, between the rationalism and postmodernist theories (Risse and Wiener 1999). Hence, the focus on the ideational elements constitutes
social relations. Moreover, the shared beliefs create the actors’ purposive interests
(Finnemore and Sikkink 2001), which are translated into action.
To reiterate, from a political perspective, social constructivism focuses its attention
on the core ideational elements of intersubjective beliefs (ideas, concepts, assumptions, rules and procedures) that people share (Ruggie 1998; Risse and Wiener 1999;
Jackson and Sørensen 2003). Norms (p. 31) construct the identities of the actors,
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
3.4.2.5 Social Constructivism
Social constructivism has a different view of knowledge and power than what liberal
institutionalism and the hydrosocial contract theory teach us. Guzzini (2000: 147)
argues that: ‘…constructivism is epistemologically about the social construction
of knowledge and ontologically about the construction of social reality’. Social
constructivism highlights interpretivism in social science and puts it centre stage
in the analysis of social reality. This philosophy refers to the levels of observation
and action, as well as their relationship to each other. At the level of observation, we
find epistemological constructivism, which was developed out of social constructivism’s critique of empiricism and positivism. Then there is the dogma of methodological intersubjectivity, or sociological constructivism (Guzzini 2000), and hence
the term ‘social constructivism’. This methodology sprouts from the critique of the
rational choice approach. Lastly, there is also the concept and analysis of power
in constructivism that ‘…functions as the reflexive link between observation and
action’ (Guzzini 2000: 156). A central theme of power is the ‘art of the possible’,
which is challenged by social constructivism, and, by doing this, the theory presents
a wider definition of politics, since meta-theories matter, both empirically and politically (Guzzini 2000). Since PULSE
3 identifies and gives meaning to social structures
through a meta-theoretical analysis, social constructivism is apt to produce a deeper
comprehension of the wider political nuances that are discernible in eThekwini’s
green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape.
Social constructivism attempts to explain and make sense of social relations by
describing the construction of the socio-political world through human practice (Du
Plessis 2000), which is constituted by ideational elements. Guzzini (2000: 149)
‘…understands constructivism in terms of both a social construction of meaning
(including knowledge), and of the construction of social reality’ (emphasis in the
original). As such, it is ‘…an approach to social analysis that deals with the role
of human consciousness in social life’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001: 391). Social
constructivism argues that ideational factors primarily shape human interactions.
This means that it is not only the material factors, or visible actors, that play a role
in relations. Furthermore, the approach notes that the most significant ideational
influences are widely shared intersubjective beliefs, which we cannot, through other
perspectives like the hydrosocial contract theory and liberal institutionalism, reduce
to the individual level (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001). In this light, social constructivism asserts that positivist theories have been exceedingly materialist and agentcentric (Hobson 2000), with social constructivism taking the middle ground (Adler
1997; Guzzini 2000), so to speak, between the rationalism and postmodernist theories (Risse and Wiener 1999). Hence, the focus on the ideational elements constitutes
social relations. Moreover, the shared beliefs create the actors’ purposive interests
(Finnemore and Sikkink 2001), which are translated into action.
To reiterate, from a political perspective, social constructivism focuses its attention
on the core ideational elements of intersubjective beliefs (ideas, concepts, assumptions, rules and procedures) that people share (Ruggie 1998; Risse and Wiener 1999;
Jackson and Sørensen 2003). Norms (p. 31) construct the identities of the actors,