Relational Constructivist Perspective

Jackson makes a compelling argument about why why taking a relational approach solves the Agent structural problem. Jackson states that Constructivists try to incorporate agents and structure into their accounts, however these require events that can don't be predicted nor can they be explained. It isn't until this event occurs that the Constuctivist can legitmate his or her claim. The Relational Solution poses that it is not the actors but the actions taken and the ways in which these actions are seen as legitimate by the various actors which commit them. Jackson then breaks down the relational approach into three steps. One is to identify a course of action to be explained, two is to map the rhetorical common places developed in the course of arguments about courses of action to be pursued and third is to explain historically how the relevant commonplaces came to be available to interlocutors at a specific point in time, and trace their concrete deployment (page 144-145). In conclusion Jackson argues that this approach that relational consrtructivism helps to explain and legitmate actions by actors however I'm not convinced that it really gives any more concrete definition of how to predict outcomes. I was under the impression that these -isms in addition to explaining the world we live in were meant to help us makes assumptions about courses of action in which we should take in the future. However it seems that Relational Constructivism complicates the ability to make assumptions. Not only by taking into account all of which an actor is composed but by further supporting the difficulty in predicting what such and actor might do. Jackson even writes "there is no way to predict in advance what a particular speaker will do in a situation, but whatever the speaker does do has consequential effects. This is the very definition of agency." Isn't he telling us what we already know? We have all of these different perspectives of how to analyze certain situations, but they all come up short when they get to the question "What, based on your analysis, would be the most appropriate course of action?" There is nothing concrete that follows and thus you continue to get "unpredictable" actions because no one group can stand up say do this because of what i think is a fear that an outcome may de-legitimate that which they have based their whole careers on.