Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
As presently constituted, the analysis of `ideas' is deficient in two key respects. First, despite presenting itself as an alternative to the dominant rationalist perspective on international relations and foreign policy, the turn to `ideas' represents only a minor modification of that tradition, rather than a serious challenge to it. Second, the retention of the rationalist framework has had problematical implications for how `ideas' are conceptualized. Although explicitly defined as shared beliefs, we argue that the metaphors structuring rationalist analyses lead them to conceptualize `ideas' as objects. As an alternative, we offer a constructivist account of ideas as `symbolic technologies' that enable the production of representations. This different metaphor enables us to address directly the difficulties for analysis stemming from a conception of ideas as objects. It also opens up for examination a range of empirical phenomena overlooked by rationalist analysts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laffey et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: