The argument we have developed over these pages is based on the assumption that the social sciences may indeed be a science. To be more precise, the project of making a rational description and explanation of social reality is possible and valid. In other words, it is possible a naturalistic approach to the social: social life is a reality like any other, and therefore can be analyzed with an empirical, systematic, and not only try to explain and describe.
A statement like the above will be highly criticized since forgotten the essential characteristics of social life that are not feasible using the previous approach: the social life clearly not a reality as others and requires a specific approach and very different from the natural sciences [1] .
Despite this, it is important to note that there are elements of this project naturalist who themselves are part of the consensus in the social sciences. In the natural sciences involve keeping a naturalistic approach that one can describe reality without extra-natural factors, which could not be observed (or did not have impact on what can be observed): Say, can you explain the nature from nature, without using extraneous elements: the rain is not explained from the rain god. In social sciences there is a similar situation, not supernatural beings, but with 'people' supernatural explanation of the great men, whether the explanation of the birth of agriculture, the discovery of fire from the great heroes of civilizations or the explanation of social processes from the actions of specific individuals and special. The idea of \u200b\u200bsocial science is that social processes can be explained from regularities in these processes, not requiring special forces. This is not to deny the importance of individual actors, but that their actions occur within a social network. This conviction is essential part of which is a naturalistic approach, and is in fact an ancient belief, prior to the development of modern social science: When Polybius trying to explain why the Roman Republic had been able to conquer all the Mediterranean, his explanation (in Book VI in its history) is based on the idea that it is in the nature of the Roman political structure that we find the explanation. Regarding the rejection of the explanation by great men and the idea that we need to focus on the social, the naturalistic project may be considered common to these disciplines.
However, beyond this, is a highly criticized project. It can be argued that a social science as indicated above is only an imitation of physics. An imitation even more inadequate as models would be based on science that sociology of science has shown does not correspond to the reality of science. It may also raise all social science project that attempts a naturalizing approach is impossible because forget the fact that social actors are reflexive and, in general, as the social sciences are part of social reality, is studying society society then no methods can be general or explanatory nature: Can not make a theory general of marriage as the concept of marriage is generated by social actors themselves, and any claims in this regard depends on the concepts of actor-Giddens is the argument for example. Moreover, one can assert that any naturalistic approach is a way to avoid a critical approach, making the status quo appears as natural and necessary. The 'naturalization of social' imply a neglect of the basic features of social life: humans construct social order through their actions.
criticism involves an approximation naturalizing imitate physics, which can not be done social science is invalid: There are many natural science disciplines that mimic the physical and therefore no longer make a naturalistic approach to phenomena. What we can not make experimental methods? There are many disciplines that are based more on observation. What we can not make a mathematical description? Biology for a long time without these tools work without ceasing to be a natural science. What we can not develop formal universal laws? The chemistry also works in the mode of creation of universal laws. None of these features defines the naturalistic approach. What defines it is simply belief that reality can be described clearly, and orderly manner, obtaining reproducible results [2] .
criticism that a naturalistic approach demands the use of general statements that forgets the reflexive character of social life is inadequate in terms of its amplitude. Moreover, the fact that the company is studying sociology society involves nothing special physics research is the subject matter, biology life life investigating. None of these things has been an obstacle to developing these sciences, do not see why it should be special in the case of sociology. The fact that it is true that what happens in society depends on the concepts of the subjects or that the actors are, finally, also on the social theorists and their theories are socially not change the situation. One can further develop an explanatory science and generalizing. Giddens's theory, so critical to this idea is full of arguments explaining and generalizing: The idea that ontological security is essential to building social order (Giddens, 1984) does not depend for its validity of knowledge of the actors or lost if the actors know it. If the actors know what would change their actions, but would use that statement as a basis it. The same goes for the idea in the theory of duality of structure whose validity is independent of the subject. Even remains valid if the subjects give it as true and use it in your life. In other words, I can build a set of valid claims for all subjects reflective as described by Giddens.
Regarding the possibility of criticism and avoid the 'naturalization of social' also looks very strong. For starters, describe a reality in a certain way does not mean evaluated in a determined, one can recall Hume there is no way to move from 'being' to 'must be'. Belief criticism need not be affected by the fact of maintaining a general knowledge naturalist. One can see that the problem is not the above but the fact that thinking about social reality as a given, something that can not be changed, avoid thinking about change as possible: If reality is so, then perhaps we can keep it a fact criticism, but we could not sue their modification. However, a naturalistic approach does not mean to raise a 'naturalization of social' or establish that the form now takes the social life is the only way possible-in fact, realize that there have been multiple ways to structure life is one of social events basic analysis of these disciplines. What I asked is that not every possible combination of features. In natural sciences the knowledge of these imposibuilidades has increased our ability to do things: Just because not everything is possible is that you can build tools for change. Similarly, one could argue that universal rules known in the social world (eg the need for ontological security) allow us to increase our capacity to generate change (knowing that if we make that change must maintain the ontological security, not otherwise work.) Knowing that not everything is possible we can improve the field as possible.
Beyond the specific criticisms that we have stated, we can show that the rules of the method we have outlined in this paper allow us to show that it is possible the project of a naturalistic social science that recognizes the specific characteristics of the social world. The rules contained, the actors have equal abilities, the actions make sense, actions have consequences, which we are interested are the frameworks that generate social interactions-are both rules that arise from specific features of the social world and that we enable you to build a science that attempts to explain the social world.
[1] The issue is not that social science does not require analysis methods and specific techniques. At the end of the day, every discipline you do, and do not use the same analytical approaches in biology than in physics (or chemistry). The issue is whether these differences warrant a radically different approach that does not equate to the use of specific tools.
[2] On the other hand, is common in social science argue that the findings of the sociology of science show that science natural, especially physics, are not as objective, rigorous or 'true', but they themselves are affected by social factors. Physics does not meet the requirements of scientific assumptions and, in essence, operates the same way that the social sciences. This is an old feature, is something to remember some reactions to the notion of Kuhn's paradigm in social sciences. The discussion that we have developed is not based on
0 comments:
Post a Comment