James was constructive, or at least cognitive, in his theory of emotions (the labeling aspect was not objectively observable), but even in that theory he argued that there was arousal, a physiological phenomena. About 1/3 of his book Principles was about anatomy and physiology. His description does seem more like a classic biologist than a constructivist. Since so little of this writing is about social beliefs, it is difficult to find much evidence for the idea that he is strongly constructivist.

New Ideas in Psychology published recently a special issue on  William James. I think that you can benefit from reading such issue.

I think that William James was, so to speak, a constructivist avant la letre, just because, to some extent, he denied the existence  of an absolute external reality. Or, in other words, what would be the meaning of an absolute external reality if it could not be acted upon. As Piaget put it, objects exit outside. However, this would be a poor concept of objects.. Objects acquire meaning while we can act upon them, such as is the case when we touch them (motor action) or when we classify, count, rank order them(a mental action).

Note that we should be  aware that, constructivism a la Piaget or a la James has nothing to do with social constructionism a la K. Gergen, just to give an example. Contrary to postmodern constructionism claim that all knowledge and value is socially constructed, constructivist accounts assume that individuals all construct essentially the same understanding of knowledge and value as a result of their interactions with the physical and social worlds. A I see him, William James is a constructivist, not a constructionist-     

James was an avowed pragmatist. Within the philosophy of his day, what we call constructivism was known as idealism, and James was as opposed to that as he was to naive realism.

As a pragmatist, James was interested in belief as a source of action in the world. In particular, he emphasized the question of "what difference would it make" to act one way rather than another.

Morgan is correct. Trying to understand James through the lens of postmodernism results in an anachronistic  account of the past. 

Bailey is correct, but what Morgan's comment really shows is the fact that "constructivism" is multiply ambiguous.  That said, James's lovely remark "the trail of the human serpent is everywhere", and his avowed nominalism do seem to me to warrant the label if we insist on using it.

Pragmatists don't deny that interpreting prior beliefs is always part of the basis for action (as in, "the trail of the human serpent is everywhere"). Nor do we deny that the interpretation of the outcomes of action is necessary to determine beliefs. But it is the test of beliefs through action that is central, and that is completely foreign to constructivism.

Without any provision for testing beliefs, constructivism runs the risk of sliding into radical relativism, where anyone is free to construct any set of beliefs. Pragmatists avoid this problem through the central principle that the meaning of one's beliefs is found in the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

Mainz, Germany

Dear McCloughlin,

I'd say that James' pronounced nominalism is of special interest to your question, though in the end "constructivism" yes or no? is likely not a very good match for James.

I would like to recommend attention to my treatment of the theme of Jamesian nominalism in my edition to James, A Pluralistic Universe. You can find the Introduction to the volume here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264238447_The_Meaning_of_Pluralism

H.G. Callaway

Conference Paper The Meaning of Pluralism