Transcript Priyanka Presentation file

Post Positivist Social Science:
Interpretation and Hermeneutics
Priyanka Talwar
LG 601
•
•
•
•
•
Positivism vs Classical Approach
What is Post Positivism? Three theories
Explaining and Understanding
Level of Analysis
Does Epistemology Make a Difference
Positivism and Classical Approach
Positivists (Easton, Kaplan)
• Scientific
• Objective
• Hypothesis
• Verifiable Empirical
Propositions
• Technical Expertise
• Dependent & Independent
Variables
Traditionalists (Hedley Bull)
• No Explicit Methodology
• Sceptical of Positivism’s
precision, predictive and
explanatory power
• Derives from history,
philosophy and law
• Scholarship-observing,
reading, enquiring, reflecting
• Detached & Disinterested
Analysis
Commonality: Empirical Analysis based on clear non-ideological, unbiased
concepts
Post Positivism: Critical Theory,
Postmodernism & Normative Theory
• Reaction to Positivism—rejected scientific
methods, objective knowledge
• Social world requires a different methodology
than that which studies natural sciences
Critical Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development of Marxist thought: developed by German scholars in exile in the US
(Frankfurt School)
Proponents: Robert Cox, Andrew Linklater
Rejects three cornerstones of Positivism: An objective, external reality, distinction
between the subject and object, and, value-free social science
The social world is a construction of time and place
Knowledge is always biased because it reflects the social and political perspective
of the analyst
“Theory is always for someone and for some purpose” (Cox:1981)
Desire to bring about emancipation and revolution by exposing the oppressive
structures of world politics and economics controlled and exacerbated by
hegemonic powers. Seek to overthrow the existing system which has so far favored
a tiny minority at the expense of the majority (similarity with idealists)
Reject the possibility of academic detachment (difference between CTs and
idealists)
Social science and social and social scientists are instruments of power
Problem with CT: Issue of integrity; no neutral way to decide which theory is
good in academic terms—All academic debates would essentially be political
debates
Postmodernism
• Originated among post-war French philosophers who rejected the
prevalent existentialism in the late 1940s-1950s
• Entered IR in the 1980s
• Proponents: Richard Ashley
• Questions objective knowledge of social phenomena
• Rejects concept of modernity and the assumption that modernization
leads to progress for all
• In fact, Postmodernism debunks the whole notion of universal human
progress—institutions cannot be so fashioned so as to be fair and just for
all of mankind
• Regards neo-realism as the epitome of intellectual error and academic
arrogance. There are no independent and impartial grounds for judging
neo-realist claims such as the notion of an unchanging anarchical world
system.
• Empirical theory is a myth.
• No such thing as ever-expanding knowledge of the human world
• Knowledge and power are intimately related
Problem: Nihilistic ; Negative for its own sake; Why should we accept it if all
theory is always biased?
Normative Theory
• It is pre-positivist rather than post-positivist—it can be traced back as far
as European antiquity
• Proponents: Chris Brown, Mervyn Frost, Terry Nardin
• Addresses the ethical nature of relations between communities/states
• IR contains some fundamental normative issues such as war and peace,
justice and injustice, human rights, intervention, environmental protection
• Normative Theory is about facts and values; eg. rules about the conduct of
war would constitute a fact for normative theorists. Facts are the
existential rules, institutions and practices which have normative content.
• Seeks to make explicit normative issues and dilemmas in international
relations and accuse non normative theories of being value based
themselves
• Shares with Constructivism a focus on intersubjective ideas and beliefs
Critiques: Positivists-NT fails to explain anything in scientific terms
Postmodernists-NT deals in delusions and deceptions of antiquated classical
values
• IR does not have to choose between extreme
versions of positivism and postpositivism.
• There is a middle ground between
subjectivism and objectivism and between
explaining and understanding
• Some methodological approaches such as
constructivism and critical theory and classical
and normative theory are oriented more
towards this middle ground
Ontology and Epistemology
• Ontology: Nature of the Social Worldobjective and subjective
• Epistemology: The Relation of Our Knowledge
to that World-explaining and understanding
Explaining
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scientifically explaining the world
Task is to build a valid social science on a foundation of verifiable empirical
propositions
Detect regularities in nature→propose generalizations→logical
deductions→predictions→empirical observations
Neutrality assumptions of positivist science have been persistently under attack.
Quine’s pragmatism states that facts are always theory dependent; Kuhn argues
that the thinking of a scientific community takes place within a paradigm which
governs what scientists are to make of experiences
Explanation involves an appeal to causal laws and not solely to generalizations. The
problem is to determine how causal powers can be known to exist—this can be
addressed from the standpoint of theory. Eg. Realism would rely on the concept of
national interest
However, interpretation is involved in the description of facts and results of tests.
Theoretical models represent the working of the world but the empirical evidence
for this claim is only that the facts can be read consistently with it.
Should the goal of IR then be understanding rather than explaining?
Understanding
• Task is to comprehend and interpret the substantive topic
under study
• Historical, legal or moral problems of world politics cannot
be translated into the terms of science without
misunderstanding them
• What happens in the social world has meaning for its
inhabitants
• Social action requires interpretation and meaning
• Hermeneutics: From the Greek word hermeneus which
means interpreter
• Understanding makes meaning central and takes this
hermeneutic or interpretative tradition in social thought
• Idea that social behaviour is oriented by and
to the behaviour of others
• Action must always be understood from
within-central hermeneutic theme. Part of
understanding from within is to understand
the rules which are operative.
• The rules of the social world are very different
from causal laws. Eg. Winking
Weberian Approach to Understanding
• Social sciences study social action and that action is
connected with the subjective meaning which the acting
individual attaches to it
• Understanding proceeds by reconstruction at an individual
level. Individuals choose among alternatives according to
their particular aims, interpretations, and calculations.
• Weber takes rationality as the key concept and
distinguishes between 4 kinds of actions: instrumental
rationality action (preferences&utility), value rational
action (the goal drives out all calculation or concern for
consequences), traditional action (governed by custom)
and affective action (unreflective)
Peter Winch’s Idea of Social Science
• Collective account of social action
• Emphasizes not choices made by individuals (Weberian
approach) but social rules followed by social actors. Eg.
Rules for the conduct of prayer for Muslims governs
the meaning of behaviour
• Subjective meanings and rational choices are not
independent of social rules
• Intentions and motivations are also determined by
rules of conduct and forms of life
• Ideology and world views: Differences have a huge role
in international relations. Eg. Communists & Capitalists,
First & Third Worlds
Level of Analysis
International System
↕
Nation State
↕
Bureaucracy
↕
Individual
Martin Hollis
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rejects positivist assumption of a world
out there
Level of analysis problem is a
methodological problem of
Understanding
Insider View: The actor’s
understandings not links in a causal
chain but the stuff of the world which
their understandings also reveal to
them
1st level: States rather than the System
2nd level: State rather than bureaucracy
3rd level: Role players determine
bureaucracies
Steve Smith
• Rejects positivist assumption of a
world out there
• Level of analysis problem is a
methodological problem of
Explaining
• Structural View: Social action can
best be explained as behaviour
caused by structures
• 1st level: System rather than State
• 2nd level: Bureaucracy rather than
the State
• 3rd level: Bureaucracy rtaher than
individuals
Does Epistemology Make a Difference?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preoccupation with epistemology since the 1990s following the Great Debate (Positivism vs Postpositivism)
Journals such as the International Studies Quarterly and Review of International Studies have carried out a number
of articles concerning this debate
Widespread assumption that epistemology makes a difference: Steve Smith argues that the selection of
epistemological position exerts a critical effect on what is considered worthy of interest. He contends that
positivism narrows the field of IR while postpositivism has expanded it
Houghton argues that it is not clear whether postpositivism cover a broad range of topics because their
epistemology allows them to or they choose a licensing epistemology because it matches their pre-existing
ontological commitment
He asserts that it is far from clear that the epistemological position one adopts has much effect on the kind of
truth claims one makes
It is not possible to be genuinely postpositivist—observations cannot be plucked out of thin air, one’s truth claims
about the world have to come from somewhere
Does the debate between postmodernists (everything is subjective/constructed) and positivists matter in the
sense of having a material impact upon the kind of empirical claims that each group makes? Houghton—no
Way out: Avoid the extreme position and assert instead that our perceptions of reality are subjective and can
never be demonstrated conclusively so that one can claim that postmodernist IR simply ‘looks better’ than eg.
Neorealism, neoliberalism, while admitting that the truth value of this claim cannot be demonstrated beyond a
doubt
Likewise, positivists cannot prove definitively that they are correct in a scientific sense
Emphasis on epistemology has pushed IR as a discipline further but the subsequent decline in policy relevance of
what we do, and our retreat into philosophical self-doubt is ironic given the roots of the field in practical political
concerns
Rather than epistemology, it would be more fruitful to engage with in the substantive theoretical and empirical
claims of different IR theories