So the article by Prawat & Floden shows that constructivists agree on outcomes but not on the process to get to those outcomes. That is new to me. While I tend to be a constructivist, I have never considered that there are disagreements over the best process. And apparently, the mixed process doesn’t work. I think I understand the basics of these different approaches to process, but I need more understanding of them before I figure out which one I subscribe to.

I am not really sure that I understand much of what Bernstein is trying to get at in this week’s reading from The New Constellation. He just seems to amble and twist through so many ideas, speaking of two narratives and specters of Nietzsche and then Habermas gets drug in there and soon I am not sure what his point is with this chapter. Hope that one will make more sense after class.

Of course, in The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, Bernstein is still arguing for the acceptance of social sciences as real sciences, and deconstructing different arguments and critiques that surround that issue. Like I have said, I have no problem with social sciences being treated as a real Science (even if there are special cases to be considered as Bernstein discusses), so I still feel that I find myself often going “great, what’s next?” to most of the points.

Habermas is dealing more with how to convert our language into actions. He works his way through meaning and validity and ends up examining validity claims. A lot of this revolves around his explanation of how people reach understandings. I guess coming to an understanding with someone is much more complex than I thought it was. It seems to be something that you know has happened but often can’t explain. Or maybe that is why it takes Habermas so long to explain – there is a lot more going on than most of us realize. Or maybe it is just that I don’t understand much of what he is saying.