透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.145.65.134
  • 期刊

治絲愈棼的國際關係理論研究對黃旻華先生的評論之回應

A Reply to Huang's Comment

摘要


黃文對於個人論文的誤解,源自黃文主觀地認定建構主義只有Wendt家別無分號,也未能理解建構主義的哲學背景以及建構主義在其他學科的影響,其次,對於建構主義的內部差異或是學者對建構主義的分類,未能理解這皆是依學者分類基準與研究旨趣而來。建構主義本身「絕對」不是一種知識論的絕對主義,它是歡迎更多的討論。

關鍵字

無資料

並列摘要


Mr. Huang has misunderstood and misinterpreted my views as well as those of some other scholars which I cited. Huang's comments are focused on the categorization of constructivism. What is constructivism? Agreeing on a clear definition is difficult, yet scholars agree upon characteristics or tenets to describe this phenomenon. Meanwhile, the typology of constructivism is based on the scholar's research purpose. I am against any absoluteness, even Wendt's; he is not and should not be the flag bearer of orthodox constructivism.

並列關鍵字

無資料

參考文獻


Campbell, D.(1998).Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Checkel, J. T.(1997).International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist Constructivist Divide.European Journal of International Relations.3(4)
Frederking, B.(2000).Resolving Security Dilemmas: A Constructivist Explanation of the INF Treaty.England:Ashgate Publishing Ltd..
Guzzini, S.(2000).A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations.European Journal of International Relations.6(2)
Hopf, T.(1998).The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.International Security.23(1)

被引用紀錄


劉昊(2009)。國際關係理論「結構—能動」問題之反思與重建〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.01737

延伸閱讀