ABSTRACT
Since its first appearance in International Relations studies some three decades ago, constructivism has reached considerable popularity: not just in the US (where it is the third of the three US IR mainstream approaches alongside neorealism and neoliberalism) but across the world in the now globalized IR discipline. This global “turn to constructivism” makes it difficult to orient oneself among many versions of constructivism, positivist, and nonpositivist, particularly when efforts are made to use constructivism as an analytical tool for some of the most challenging issues the world faces. The essay questions the utility of constructivism for the regional studies, particularly the Middle East, although only two versions of constructivism and its main protagonists, one positivist, the other nonpositivist, are examined. Making an excursion to the theory of knowledge, this essay makes a case for creating another form of constructivism, not just non- or post-positivist but also post-secular, to embrace the complexity of the Middle East as a layered mosaic in which not only states and non-state bodies but also civilizational, ethnic, and religion-based factors play a crucial role.
