SISU-105.015 F2019 blog question #7

Question #7 already!

The version of constructivism that Shotter gives us, sometimes called “rhetorical-responsive constructivism,” emphasizes the way that people situated within various cultural traditions engage with one another. Social order emerges (and continually re-emerges) from those engagements, as people draw on the socio-ontological resources of their “living traditions” to determine what to do next. A skeptic, or perhaps a cynic, might call this naive or utopian, and say instead that social life can’t possibly be thought of as emerging from such rhetorical engagement; power and interest, the main themes of realist and liberal (not “liberalist” :-)) thought, are more important than dialogue and discussion.

Is constructivism, as portrayed and presented by Shotter, “idealistic” and “utopian”? Are the critics missing something, or are they essentially correct? Feel free to consider specific examples if that helps you make your argument.