Are you a realist or a constructivist? The ongoing debate within the ‘Science Wars’ over realism and constructivism is commonly answered in reference to philosophical arguments about truth and reality. This has created hardened fronts that divide the sociology of science and the philosophy of science. To compensate for the lost common ground is the motivation of this work which offers an approach that applies the sociological motivation of deconstruction to the philosophical terrain. In this, the above-mentioned question is answered practically by considering the theoretical implications of the adoption of a realist or constructivist philosophy of science.
These are exposed by investigating the anthropology that is implicit in the philosophical standpoints of realism and constructivism. Accordingly, the scientist does not only choose abstract philosophical ideas but an anthropology that views the human as a rational and isolated individual, in the case of realism, or as part of a world of interrelated subjects in constructivism. An exemplary hermeneutic investigation of Max Weber and Bruno Latour confirms that their philosophical standpoint correlates with the anthropology expressed in their sociological subject. Moreover, the concept of philosophical anthropology allows the establishment of theoretical correlations between the cultural subjects of postmodernism and constructivism, as well as of modernity and realism. Additionally, these originally hidden concepts have implications for political ideas that are also crucial in the face of the democratic crisis. As different notions of agency emerge from the philosophical anthropologies, democracy can experience a re-interpretation in the light of the constructivist uprising. This stresses the importance of reflecting on the own (not merely) philosophical choice as a researcher.