* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download notes winter 2010
Survey
Document related concepts
Symbolic interactionism wikipedia , lookup
Social network wikipedia , lookup
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of terrorism wikipedia , lookup
Frankfurt School wikipedia , lookup
Social constructionism wikipedia , lookup
Social exclusion wikipedia , lookup
Differentiation (sociology) wikipedia , lookup
History of sociology wikipedia , lookup
Social development theory wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Social group wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Structural functionalism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of knowledge wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Philosophy of social science (Phl 472) David M. Orenstein, Ph.D. Winter 2010 Who am I? I’m a Faculty member in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology as well as Director of the Masters Degree Program in Applied behavioral science I’m a Ph.D. Sociologist with doctoral minors in Anthropology and Social Psychology & have taught all three subjects Who am I? II I’m a practicing sociologist who has three books in print and am known mostly in the area of social theory Why are you here? Some possible reasons that you are here An intense desire to learn about the philosophy of social science You had me as an instructor before and it was not too traumatic an experience The course sounded like it was more fun than a logic course The course sounded less difficult than philosophy of physical science The time slot fit your schedule What do we need to read? Three books are required for this course Sun-Tzu – The Art of War B.F. Skinner – Beyond Freedom and Dignity Charlotte Perkins Gilman – Women and Economics When and how to read the books Read the Sun-Tzu book by the start of the 2rd week. Read the Skinner book by the start of the 4th week. Read Gilman by the start of 9th week Read for main points and assumptions – for the shape of forest and not that of each tree How will you be graded? This is a 400-level course. The instructor goes fast through a lot of material. It is intellectually demanding and requires that you pay attention, take good notes and ask questions when you need clarification. How will you be graded? II The second through the tenth class we will have a quiz covering lecture and reading materials (if assigned). The quizzes will each be 20 true-false questions. How will you be graded? III You must take eight quizzes If you take all nine quizzes the lowest grade will be dropped. How Will you be graded IV Your grade will be determined by the higher of the average of the eight highest quizzes or your final exam grade How will you be graded? V The grading scale is as follows: 90% = A, 80% = B, 70% = C, 60% = D, below 60% = F. (Upon request the instructor will present his short lecture entitled The illegitimacy of curving grades) How do I contact the professor? I’m in 270 Millett My regular office hours are: Th 2:30 – 5:00 and by appointment For an appointment during or outside of those hours call Susan at: 775-2667 [email protected] If you need help, contact me as early in the quarter as possible. Millett Hall Campus (including Millett Hall) Tunnel map (showing how to get to Millett Hall) F.A.Q. Can I get a copy of your notes? No. Can I record your lectures? Yes. Can I take the final early? No. Can I openly disagree with you? Yes. Does this course count as a G.E. humanities course? No. Does this course meet the COLA requirement? Yes. Course topics Introduction Preliminary definition On taking a philosophical approach Reflections on Harriet Martineau’s How to observe morals and manners Non-European anticipations of social science Greek pagan and Judeo-Christian roots Course topics II “Strands” of social science thought The Hegelian tradition The French “realist” tradition Psychological reductionism The Machiavellian tradition The Boasian tradition & concept of “culture” Identity and Social Science tradition The American ameliorative tradition Class Decorum “Do unto fellow students as you wish they would do unto you” Specifically: Avoid side conversations when I am talking and when other students are asking questions or making comments Class Decorum II If you eat or drink in class, do so quietly If you need to come late or need to leave early, please sit on the side of class near a door (and come or go as quietly as possible) Do not start packing-up while class is still on-going!!!! Avoid racist, sexist, belligerent, and vulgar language Introduction What is social science? Why take a philosophical approach? Reflections on Harriet Martineau Non-European anticipations Greek pagan and Judeo-Christian roots The six strands What is social science? As a preliminary definition we can view science as having three characteristics. Science is Naturalistic – concerned with this-worldly explanations Empirical – accepts or rejects explanations based on systematic observation of some kind Generalizing – concerned with knowledge that is widely applicable What is social science? II Science is social when it is concerned with the interaction and mutual influence of humans (and/or assemblages of humans) on one another Among the social sciences are cultural anthropology, sociology, social psychology, political science and economics What is social science? III By the preliminary definition the field of history may or may not be a social science depending on the extent that it is comparative and attempts general explanations Also by this definition, social work – with its administrative emphasis would generally not be considered a social science Why look at social science from the perspective of philosophy? There are a number of interrelated reasons for examining social science from a philosophical approach. These include, but are not limited to: Looking at the knowledge claims of social science Analyzing ethical issues raised by social science Why look at social science from the perspective of philosophy? II Analyzing assumptions of the social sciences Exploring competing approaches in the social sciences Exploring the language of the social sciences Looking at the connection between social science and its history Harriet Martineau on observation In 1837 Harriet Matineau (an English writer of travel books and other works) published a short, mostly forgotten work entitled How to observe morals and manners. This book, based on her own approach is the first systematic work on empirical observation of human behavior in natural settings to appear in English. Harriet Martineau on observation II Martineau wrote the book after doing observations in the United States and the Middle East. The book is difficult to read because she addresses topics for which the language had not yet been developed (Martineau uses the language of utilitarianism for the most part in this work) Harriet Martineau on observation III Fundamental for Martineau are some basic rules for limiting individual and cultural biases in the drawing of conclusions She points out that most travel books merely critique the people being observed for being different from the observer Harriet Martineau on observation IV Her approach (in more current language) included the following: Observation of cultural traits must be systematic and not casual Observe prior to formulating questions so you will know what to ask No cultural trait can be understood in isolation, but must be seen in relation to other traits Harriet Martineau on observation V A trait which on first look appears to be irrational may make sense in the context in which it exists A behavior that we accept as “normal” may not fit in in a society that is very different from our own All conclusions should be seen as tentative and subject to modification based on further observation A person from a different background is likely to ask different questions and draw different conclusions Harriet Martineau on observation VI Be wary of suggesting changes because of possible latent consequences Martineau lays a foundation for a social science view of the world. This view is now commonplace, but is itself of historical origin and did not exist in most places and at most times Harriet Martineau Non-European Proto-Social Science Sun-Tzu & Ibn Khaldun Non-European Proto-Social Science Despite its relatively recent European development, elements of social scientific were independently developed by thinkers from a number of cultural traditions at different times and in different places. Two of the most impressive of such thinkers that we know of were Sun-Tzu and Ibn Khaldun Sun-Tzu Sun-Tzu (or Sun Wu or Master Sun) is the name ascribed to the author of an ancient Chinese work that is generally translated into English as The art of war The art of war is usually dated from the 5th century B.C. (The time of Plato and Socrates in Greece) Sun-Tzu II Sun-Tzu is generally presented as having been a highly successful military general in an era of on going warfare His The art of war is usually organized in chapters covering a variety of topics (as with most ancient writings a variety of versions exist) followed by comments from later writers from ancient times into the middle ages Sun-Tzu III Widely studied in ancient times throughout Asia, the earliest translation into a Western language (French) did not occur until a little more than 200 years ago (An early version is said to have been the personal property of Napoleon) Sun-Tzu IV In the 20th century its approach was utilized by Japanese businessmen as they constructed their impressive economy from the ashes of WW II Sun-Tzu V While on the surface The art of war might appear to be simply a series of maximums for waging a successful military campaign, it is much more than that Chinese scholars have shown that it reflects many of the ideals of ancient Taoist thought in its emphasis on “harmony” and in other aspects For our concerns in this course it presents a consistent proto-social scientific approach Sun-Tzu VI Proto-social science features of The art of war include: 1) A naturalistic approach that assumes cause and effect outcomes without the interference of super natural agencies 2) A generalizing approach that assumes that there are constant features of society that are predictable and understandable Sun-Tzu VII 3) An instrumentalist approach (i.e. general knowledge can be applied to produce desired outcomes in future particular cases) 4) A holistic approach that sees society as an integrated whole in which an action in one area has an impact on actions in others Sun-Tzu VIII 5) A functionalist focus on social roles (such as the civilian leader and the military leader) that view such roles as distinct, requiring different foci and skills and serving different necessary purposes for the maintenance of social order Sun-Tzu IX 6) An understanding of the interplay between social, psychological, economic and political factors. Thus for example: The organization of the military is efficient only if the proper psychological motivations and attitudes (as well as skills) exist in the troops and the officers Military activities have to be planned with economic and political ends in mind: A seemingly successful campaign could in fact undermine the economic and political stability of a nation Sun-Tzu X 7) An appreciation of factors related to social class. (Thus a prolonged war - no matter how successful that inflates prices for the peasantry undermines their well-being and that of the upper classes and the whole nation that depend on the peasantry) Sun-Tzu XI 8) An understanding of latent consequences, i.e., that anticipated outcomes of individuals might produce unforeseen benefits or disadvantages for the larger society. (Thus a general who destroys an enemy city and is viewed as a great military leader may in fact have harmed his cause by not seeking a way to peacefully get the city to surrender and having allies in its populace and resources for further use.) Sun-Tzu XII 9)The formation of typologies of actors, actions and social situations Sun-Tzu XIII While no methodology is actually discussed, a contemporary reader gets the sense that working from a holistic paradigm that prized the maintenance of social harmony, The art of war reflects a careful comparison of particular empirical cases and examples either experienced by or reported to the author Sun-Tzu XIV In many ways well advanced over parallel works in the West concerned with the interplay martial and other factors (economic, political, social organizational and psychological) up until the writings of Machiavelli (about 2000 years later), Sun-Tzu was followed more by commentators than by those who wished to test and empirically critique and expand upon his work Sun-Tzu XV Another way of putting this is, that despite the foundation laid by Sun-Tzu, he was followed by disciples and not by the development of a social science based upon his work Sun-Tzu Sun-Tzu and the Emperor's Concubines Ibn Khaldun Abd al-Rahman Ibn Mohammad – who wrote under the name Ibn Khaldun - was born in Tunis in North Africa in 1337 and died in Cairo in 1406 In his attempt to treat the study of history as a science he developed ideas that today we would see as belonging to sociology and economics Ibn Khaldun II His analysis looked for the general causes of the rise and fall of civilizations He saw social change as multi-causal: that is, no single factor , but a combination of social, psychological, environmental and economic causes produced social advance and eventual decline Ibn Khaldun III Ibn Khaldun, despite looking at general causes, also recognized that there were unique cultural variations and attempted to document these amongst various peoples that he wrote about Ibn Khaldun Distant Western Ideational Roots of Social Science Greek Paganism and the Judeo-Christian Heritage Science and religion The relationship between science and religion is historical and complex and should not be simplified into either one of constant support or on-going opposition To the extent that religion impacts on collective ideas it will and has influenced the development of both social and physical science Science and religion II Developing in Europe, social science reveals many intellectual influences. To of the most important of these are those derived from ancient Greek (pagan) thought and those influenced by Judeo-Christian scriptures and writings interpreting them Greek Paganism Application of idea of telos to society – the assumption of development in terms of the innate nature of a thing Dynamic view of reality Leads to typologizing – allowing for analytic comparisons View of all societies as fundamentally the same only at different levels of development Greek Paganism II Cyclicalism Emphasis of rise and decline as natural and necessary Cyclicalism is useful in developing idea of stages Cyclicalism though limits long-term causal analysis Can raise applied questions concerning how to organize a society to delay decline Greek Paganism III Plato’s Republic as proto-applied social science reflecting the previous features Plato Judeo-Christian heritage Rejection of cyclicalism in favor of a linear historical outlook Events succeed each other with no inevitable decline allowing for long-term causal consequences (e.g. Moses at Sinai) Stress on universalism: all people fundamentally the same World as rational creation and not a product of the whims of competing deities Moses at Sinai Fusion of Pagan and Judeo-Christian ideas The synthesis of Saint Augustine The city of God as reflecting Greek stages seen in the light of a linear historical narrative Augustine as a direct and indirect influence on later thought and the idea that social forms are Natural Change over time Evolve through stages Can be analyzed and compared Saint Augustine The six “strands” By breaking up social science thinking into six “strands” of thought as we go through the rest of the quarter I want to emphasize that social science should not be thought of as a totally unified subject. Rather in the course of its historical development social science has produced a number of variations. While others may look at these differently, by focusing on the six strands I will highlight those variations. The six “strands” II Such variations involve (among others) differences in: Types of questions asked Appropriate methodologies for studying the social The relationship of the logic of social and physical science The relationship of social science to the study of history The six “strands” III The extent to which society should be seen as a “real” entity” The extent to which we are determined in our social behavior by forces we are not aware (or conscious) of The use of social science in solving social problems The major influences on social change The degree to which the future can be predicted Ethical issues related to social science research The six “strands” IV The Hegelian tradition The French “realist” tradition Psychological reductionism The Machiavellian tradition The Boasian tradition & concept of “culture” The American ameliorative tradition Hegelian and Neo-Hegelian Perspectives The ideas of Hegel, Marx and Mead Hegel We are concerned with the impact on social science of the German philosopher G.F.W. Hegel Hegel attempted to reorient philosophy focusing on knowledge as both concerned with and reflecting the development of human history Hegel II Hegel thus created a focus on process and change as opposed to a concern with fixed categories of reality For Hegel all of history was in a state of becoming That which we observe about us emerged and replaced earlier forms Hegel III And that which we observe, in turn will be replaced by later emergents Human history thus reflects a series of forms, as does human thought and human perception Hegel IV Hegel thus rejected Aristotle’s ancient dictum that that which exists is either “A” or “not A” Hegel V For Hegel, because everything is subject to developmental change and its nature is not fixed time. That which is “A” also has in its nature the becoming of something other than “A” – thus it is both “A” and “not A” Hegel VI Hegel did not believe though that new forms easily or smoothly emerged from old forms Change , in other words involved disharmony and conflict The new needed to supplant the old and meets resistance in so doing Hegel VII Thus for Hegel the old creates its own contradictory forces and brings about its own destruction destruction This overall process is called the Hegelian dialectic The dialectic is often discussed in terms of the Hegelian thesis, antithesis and synthesis Hegel VIII The thesis is the original form The antithesis are the contradictory, negating, or opposed elements that emerge from the very nature of the thesis The synthesis is the new for that emerges from an displaces the original thesis Hegel IX The new synthesis thus reflects continuity with the thesis it arose from as well as fundamental differences from it It emerges without contradictory elements, but overtime generates them Hegel’s dialectic Hegel X Thus ultimately each form will lead to its own destruction until a final form is reached Hegel asserts that we do not truly understand the form of our society until it is at an end: “The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk” Minerva with owl Temple University Owl G.W. F. Hegel After Hegel Hegel’s work is often abstract, difficult to follow, and attempts to encompass the whose of human history. He had many followers and even those who rejected his ideas had to deal with this new emphasis on all aspects of social existence as change and process After Hegel II After his death his followers split into two major camps: The “right” or more academic Hegelians who did not draw radical political ideas and the “left” or “young” Hegelians who saw in Hegel’s work a powerful approach to critique the existing political and economic systems of the day The Left Hegelians The left Hegelians were a mixed group of young intellectuals some of whom regularly met at a Berlin bar. The Left Hegelians II They included the theologian Bruno Bauer, the materialist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, the individualist anarchist Max Stirner and a young 22-23 year-old lawyer’s son with a Ph.D. on Greek philosophy – Karl Marx Left (or young) Hegelians (in a drawing by Engles) Marx on history Marx’s view of history involved an evolutionary series of stages, reflected Hegel’s dialectic process of change and extended materialism beyond that of Feuerbach It was evolutionary in that it had a series of stages that necessarily followed one another in a definite order Marx on history II It was dialectical in that each stage generated the antithetical forces that destroyed it in a class conflict It was material in that each stage was understood as representing a particular “mode of production” (level of technology) which determined all other social features of that stage. Marx on history III In Marx’s materialism technology/production form a causally determining underlying “structure” of society All other social elements –beliefs, values, religious organization, education, governmental form – reflected the determined “superstructure” Marx on history IV In Marx’s work all social stages except the first and the last have two socio-economic classes – an upper class that controls the “means of production” (those things that produce wealth – land in a farming society, machines and factories in an industrial society) and a lower oppressed class that works for the upper class Marx on history V Dialectical change occurs at the end of a stage when class conflict takes place destroying the old form of society and replacing it with a new one Marx on history VI Conflict depends on developing “class consciousness” (an awareness of its own interest as distinct from that of the upper class) in a leading segment of the lower class Marx on history VII An example of historical materially determined dialectical change from one stage to the next can be seen in Marx’s work on the transition from the stage of feudalism to the stage of capitalism Marx on history VIII A decentralized agricultural society (feudalism) produces an antithetical capitalist class which leads to the end of feudalism and the rise of capitalism The antithetical element is a product of the nature of decentralized agriculture itself which leads to the rise of cities and a new form of social life Marx on history IX Note here that the change is internal, economically generated, on-going, class divided and inevitable from the very nature of social life itself Marx on history X Note also that it is part of a sequence of evolutionary stages And note change is continuity and discontinuity and the product of violent revolution Marx on alienation Marx’s theory is a critical progressive one But progress is not continuous – in fact things get worse before they get better The key to understanding Marx’s critical approach is to understand his early work on alienation Marx on alienation II Alienation (also called “estrangement”) refers to the division of humanity into competing entities Marx has a “romantic” idea (inherited from Rousseau via Hegel) that humanity has a natural species unity and that competitive division is an unnatural distortion Marx on alienation III Marx holds that alienation reaches its peak in capitalist society which ideologically exalts competition among the members of society Marx gives an model of how alienation expands from one form to another Marx on alienation IV Alienation of labor (leads to) Alienation of self (leads to) Alienation from others (leads to) Marx on alienation V Alienation from the species (humanity) The termination of alienation therefore requires a critical holistic approach to and termination of capitalist society Marx as critical theorist Marx’s views of history and alienation show a critical approach to social science that has influenced all later such approaches Karl Marx Mead, the self and society Mead views the Hegelian dialectic as a powerful way of understanding society the implications of which even Hegel failed to comprehend Mead focused on dialectical processes involved not just in social form, but in each individual’s own life and consciousness and self-identity Mead vs. Marx Unlike Marx, he drew a great deal from the more academic Hegelians and rejected revolutionary politics in favor of social reform Mead emphasized the dialectical development of American democracy – democracy was not fully created in 1776, but is in a process of further development Mead vs. Marx II For Mead early laissez-faire capitalist democracy was a thesis that generated antithetical elements (like communist movements) out of which would emerge a reformed democracy with greater freedom and opportunity for all Mead’s dialectical self Mead posits that each of us is constituted by a number of dialectic processes that involve a process that he calls “the self” The self as “I” and “me” aspects (not parts) Mead’s dialectical self II I and me involve Subject and object process Present and past in creating a future process Inspiration and reflection process Individual and other process Mead’s dialectical self III General and particular process Process that lays the foundation for the evolution of democracy George Herbert Mead Neo-Hegalianism legacy Neo-Hegelianism alive in many critical approaches Language of “consciousness raising” and progressive optimism reflect its roots Neo-Hegelianism legacy II But the majority or more mainstream approaches which seek to be more or less value neutral in the doing of social science are not based on neo-Hegalianism but on other social science approaches French Realism and its Anglo-American Offshoots Comte, Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, Merton and Parsons French realism - origins Realism – treating society as a reality unto itself and not just a collection of individual behaviors is very old in French philosophical and theological thinking (for instance the medieval notion of the “divine right of kings” was argued based on it). It is not surprising then that French social science assumptions would incorporate realism French social science A key figure for the development of a realist is Auguste Comte – a philosopher trained in math & science who coined the word “sociology” Comte combined ideas from two earlier figures The organicism of Joseph de Maistre The mentalistic evolutionism of Condorcet Joseph de Maistre Marquis de Condorcet Comtean Realism For Comte society was a real organic being that evolved through time Comte argued that society was “real”, whereas the individual is an abstraction For Comte the basic unit of society is a social unit – the family Comtean Realism II The family is basic or fundamental in two senses In terms of change it is the first social unit In terms of creating new members of society it is the first agent of socialization Comte’s formulation of a real society paved the way for Durkheim’s influential sociology Auguste Comte Durkheim’s Sociology (David) Emile Durkheim is probably the most important figure in the institutionalization of sociology as an academic figure and is generally revered by most contemporary sociologists Durkheim’s Sociology II Durkheim argued that society is a sui generis phenomenon As such it is nor reducible to other phenomena – but has its own properties and generates its own facts Durkheim’s Sociology III Durkheim viewed a number of levels of reality (the physical, the chemical, the biological, the psychological and the social) as emerging from the previous Durkheim’s Sociology IV Each level generates its own facts which are distinct from the facts of other levels It is these facts which are viewed as causally determinant Durkheim thus issued the famous dictum to “treat social facts as if they are things” and causally impact on one another Durkheim’s Sociology V Durkheim also insisted that society as a real phenomenon is characterized by generality, externality and constraint Durkheim also discusses the reality of society in terms of morality (upon which social order depends) The moral is always oriented toward the collective and not toward an individual or an aggregate of individuals (David) Emile Durkheim Radcliffe-Brown, Anthropology and Functionalism A.R. Radcliffe–Brown was a British anthropologist who was an admirer of Durkheim. Radcliffe-Brown knew that Durkheim had said that all explanations of a social phenomenon needed to be both causal (stating how the phenomenon developed) & functional ( stating what the phenomenon did for some larger social unit) Radcliffe-Brown, Anthropology and Functionalism II As an Anthropologist Radciffe-Brown lacked historical information and therefore just focused on functions of the activities he observed – creating the approach of functionalism Functionalism looks at society as a “real” organic entity composed of parts in a mutually supporting relationship Radcliffe-Brown, Anthropology and Functionalism III Parts of the social whole were to be analyzed in terms of Their function for the whole Their function for other parts Mutual influence Mutual determination of parts Influence of function and structure on each other A.R. Radcliffe-Brown Merton and Methodological Functionalism Robert Merton was an American sociologist who rejected features of Radcliffe-Brown’s and other early functionalisms Merton created a “methodological functionalism” in which the functions of a part were not to be assumed but empirically determined Merton & Methodological Functionalism II Merton distinguished functions from dysfunctions (those things which interfered with the functioning of the whole) Merton & Methodological Functionalism III Merton also distinguished between why people’s intentions (manifest functions) and the empirically discovered actual functions of their actions (latent functions) Merton argued that functionality is an empirical and not a theoretical question (hence methodological functionalism) Merton & Methodological Functionalism IV Critics of Merton’s approach concerned with a number of issues If you go hunting for functions won’t you always find them? The discounting of thought & intention Robert Merton Parsons’ Conceptual System Parsons “girl friend GAIL” – the four “functional requisites” of any social system Goal attainment Adaptation Integration Latency (or pattern maintenance) Parsons builds a huge model based on these requisites in each subunit with the most basic unit being the role and not the individual Parson’s Conceptual System II Thus for Parson’s the tradition of realism is inherent –society and its roles are real The actions of people are explained via a conceptual system of roles, collectivities (groups), social systems and so on Parsons’ Late Fusion Late in life we see in Parsons an attempt to fuse his functional conceptual system with evolutionism Parsons reintroduces evolutionism as a process of functional differentiation and reintegration Parsons’ Late Fusion II Differentiation – parts become more specialized Reintegration – more specialized parts reform into a higher and more efficient social reality Talcott Parsons Critiques of Functionalism Functional for whom? Justification of the status quo Ignoring of power Ignoring of intention and orientation Making the abstract “norm” appear to be the reality Distracting from the need for justice and reform Critique of realist approaches in sociology and anthropology Acceptance of a very old approach based on an organismic analogy that is incomplete and thus a distortion of social reality Psychological Reductionism Reductionism in economics, Freudian Psychology, Skinnerian Psychology, and Exchange Theories Psychological reductionism By psychological reductionism I am not just referring to the field of academic psychology – I’m referring to an explanatory approach of accounting for the social by focusing on the individual psychological processes of an aggregation of persons Psychological reductionism II Psychological reductionism is thus a social nominalist approach There are other forms of reductionism we will not be focusing upon in this class – for example biological and chemical reductionism Examples of psychological reductionism is found in the fields of economics and sociology as well as in the field of psychology Psychological reductionism III The logic of psychological reductionism can be used to justify experimentation in “artificial” settings in psychology (If the social exists within each person then we need not worry about looking at people outside of their normal everyday situations and can do our observations in a controlled lab setting) Psychological reductionism IV The logic of psychological reductionism can also be used to justify statistical approaches in sociology (If the social exists within each of us then statistics that reflect an aggregated population tell us the makeup of a society) Psychological reductionism V A “random sample” is generally viewed in sociology as an acceptable substitute for a population in forming generalizations (In a “simple random sample each member of a population has an equal chance of selection”) Psychological reductionism VI Psychological reductionism with its emphasis on experimentation and statistics (and other mathematical procedures) tends toward strict determinism and positivism Social behavior is viewed as determined by fixed psychological forces Precise observation and measurement allows for the formation of lawful generalizations as in the physical sciences Psychological reductionism in economics Classical economic reasoning gives us possibly the earliest example of the use of psychological reductionism Psychological reductionism in economics II Classical economics presents explanations based on the assumption that society is composed of an aggregation of individuals each of whom is motivated to engage in economic exchange in which they aim to maximize their gain (rewards, income, profits, etc.) and minimize their costs Institutionalist critique of reductionism in economics One critique of this view comes from the “Institutionalist economists” and their founder – Thorstein Veblen Veblen argued that “value” of an object is not given in the individual but is derived from the culture and status system of a society An example of this is a sweat band without the Nike “swoosh” costs $1 and with it costs $5 Thorstein Veblen Freudian vs. Skinnerian psychology Sigmund Freud presents an influential (both academic and popular) view of an internal (or mindcentered) psychological reductionism B.F. Skinner gives us an a non-mind centered “behaviorist” version of psychological reductionism Freudian vs. Skinnerian psychology II Both Skinner and Freud drew implications from their work for society and its future Both Freud’s and Skinner’s work reflect positivism and determinism Freudian vs. Skinnerian psychology III Both present their ideas as the “truth” and reject all earlier notions of human action – especially those grounded in additional religious conception of “free will” or even limited freedom and choice (Note: Freud’s The future of an illusion and Skinner’s Beyond freedom and dignity Freud’s Mechanistic Model Tri-part model of the mind The id – the bioorganic (inborn) self-seeking part The super-ego – the socialized (acquired) socio-moral part The ego – the balancing mechanism between the other two parts Freud’s mechanistic model II Balance between id and super-ego must be recreated at every stage of psycho-sexual development This balance is maintained at a non-conscious level (hence a non-conscious determinism of our behavior) Freud’s mechanistic model III Freud discusses what happens when balance isn’t properly achieved developing such concepts as fixation and regression Freud’s mechanistic model IV Freud incorporated elements of Lamarkianism in his work (a now out-dated biological theory that held that acquired traits were biologically inherited Discusses such traits in terms of a “racial memory” that was a product of the “primitive horde” Freud’s mechanistic model V In Group Psychology and the analysis of the ego Freud accounts for social rules by arguing that primitive competition for a father’s approval produces conformity by all the sons Implications of how Freud constructed his model One can see how Freud’s theory came out the way it did when notes it was constructed by a Victorian era physician looking at repressed mentally ill patients who had difficulties dealing with the world and their feelings toward others Freud and the irrationality of social life Social life for Freud is fundamentally an irrational product of non-conscious forces We may become aware of theses forces, but because their built into our very nature, there is very little we can do to control our destinies Sigmund Freud Some Critiques of Freud Construction of his theory might be analogized to designing a bridge by only looking at those that have collapsed Freud may not have been open to more obvious explanation of behavior as arising from abuse Lack of physiological confirmation of model Behaviorism: From Pavlov to Skinner Behaviorism does not begin with an internal model of any kind, but instead focuses on external (environmental) It does assume a great malleability of human behavior Behaviorism: From Pavlov to Skinner II Behaviorism does not see any sharp break between how non-human and human behavior are shaped Pavlov’s dogs Ivan Pavlov was a Russian physiologist who developed his ideas while studying the digestive track of dogs Pavlov’s dogs II Pavlov discovered the conditioned response – that a stimulus (such as a bell) could take on the power of another stimulus (such as a piece of meet) after they were paired together Pavlov’s dogs III Pavlov demonstrated the conditioned response by producing salivation in dogs using the bell alone This laid down the foundation for later behaviorists Ivan Pavlov (with dog) Ivan Pavlov (without dog) Dog (without Ivan Pavlov) Cat (without dog or Pavlov) B. F. Skinner and operant behaviorism B.F. Skinner was a Harvard psychologist who is considered the founder of modern behaviorism Whereas Pavlov began with the analysis of stationary animals (harnessed dogs), Skinner assumed active animals whose behavior “operated” on the environment Skinner’s main assumptions All behavior is determined by environmental stimuli acting on an organism Mind or other supposed internal processes have no impact on behavior The Skinner box Skinner’s early research involved creating an environment in which the behavior of an animal could be observed before and after the application of a stimulus – This environment has come to be called a “Skinner box” Skinner box (with rat) Skinner’s terminology Skinner can be understood through a number of key terms related to environment and the application of stimuli – these terms are operant level, stimulus condition, reinforcement and punishment, positive and negative, extinction, schedules of reinforcement Operant level The “operant level” is the rate at which some specified behavior occurs at the start of observation Stimulus condition Stimulus condition refers to the adding or removal of a stimulus from the environment Reinforcement Reinforcement is said to have occurred when after a change in the stimulus condition the behavior increases above the operant level Punishment Punishment is said to occur when after a change in the stimulus condition behavior declines below the operant level Positive The term “positive” placed before reinforcement or punishment refers to the addition of a stimulus from the environment after the measurement of the operant level of behavior Negative The term “negative” placed before reinforcement or punishment refers to the removal of a stimulus from the environment after the measure of the operant level Extinction Extinction refers to a return toward the operant level after reinforcement or punishment have ceased Schedules of reinforcement Schedules of reinforcement refer to the rate at which a behavior is reinforced or punished. Types of schedules Schedules may be: Continuous – reinforced or punished each time the behavior occurs Ratio – reinforced or punished 1/x times the behavior occurs Variable ratio – reinforced or punished on average 1/x times (mean = 1/x) Skinner’s main conclusions All behavior of human and non-humans can be accounted for through reinforcement and punishment Statements of why we did a behavior are not explanations of causes but merely reinforced verbal behavior Skinner’s main conclusions II Behavior is learned quicker and less subject to extinction via reinforcement (as opposed to punishment) Variable ratio reinforcement occurs most in nature and is least subject to extinction Skinner’s main conclusions III Social reforms not based on operant behaviorism are unscientific and doomed to failure Objections to behaviorism on grounds of “freedom” and “dignity” are unwarranted in that these are false and illusory ideas B.F. Skinner Critiques of Skinner Skinner has been widely influential and even more widely critiqued. The following are just a sample of anti-Skinnerian arguments: 1. Humans respond based on reflection and not automatically 2. Humans never simply go back to the operant level in relationships Critiques of Skinner II 3. Language is more complex interplay of biology and environment than Skinner admits 4. Skinner’s view of social reform is totalitarian and elitist with no provision for who controls the controllers Critiques of Skinner III 5. Humans act in terms of goals and not simply in terms of past reinforcement and present stimuli 6. There is no account of emotional responses 7. His concepts are tautological Skinner Joke One rat says to the other: “I have this guy so well trained that every time I step on this thing he gives me something to eat.” Exchange theories Exchange theories tend to merge elements of classical economics with those of operant behaviorism The key concept used in these theories is that of social reward Exchange theories II A reward is something a person acts to get – therefore exchange theory (unlike Skinner’s behaviorism) assumes a future orientation Homans’ Exchange Propositions George Homans came up with a number of exchange propositions that we can briefly look at. These include The greater the reward, the more likely the behavior The costlier the reward, the less likely the behavior Homans’ Exchange Propositions II The more one has received of a particular reward, the less valuable each unit of it is and there fore the less likely one is to engage in the behavior to get it Violation of expected rewards produces an emotional response George Homans The Machiavellian tradition Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Mills and Dahredorf Machiavelli Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian political philosopher His thought reflects the rough and tumble of competition for power in and between Italian city-state during his lifetime His theory sees power as central feature on which all order depends Machiavelli II Secular state power is seen as a force in and of itself and not subordinate to moral rules The rule who feels inhibited from using force, violence, threat and terror will not maintain rule and therefore not have a society in which culture, religion, morality art and learning can take place Machiavelli III Presented as a guide to a ruler, Machiavelli created tradition focusing on power and control that runs through much Italian political theory Nicollo Machiavelli Pareto Pareto was an engineer, then an economist and finally a sociologist He argues that there are differential instinctual proclivities that produce a constant in human affairs and preclude progress Pareto says that an elite will always rule the mass of the population Pareto II The elite is driven by a desire for power The mass is driven by non-rational emotions manipulated by the elite to stay in power Contests for power is always between competing elites Pareto III The greatest danger for an elite is to become too in-grown and cut off talent from below Pareto denigrated theorists who confused their own moral yearnings for what he saw as reality Vilfredo Pareto Michels Michels was a political sociologist He begins his book, Political Parties, with a review of Aristotle's three form of government Dictatorship: rule by one person Oligarchy: rule by a small group of persons Democracy: rule by the many Michels II Michels argues that no true democracy or dictatorship has or can ever exist. Thus he posits his “iron law of oligarchy” According to this law the majority can never really rule because actual government will be in a small group who act on their own interests Michels III Similarly, a dictator is always surrounded by a small group who filter information to the dictator and intervene in how orders are carried out. This group will again always act in its own interest Michels presents a number of sociological and psychological reasons why this must be the case Roberto Michels The Machiavellians As a whole they seem to argue Democracy as illusion The reality of self interest The ignorance of the masses The separation of power and morality Mills An American sociologist, C. Wright Mills argues elements of the Machiavellians’ views are reflected in the U.S. The “power elite” in the United States and the Machiavellian heritage C. Wright Mills Darendorf Neo-Machiavellian approach to “Class and class conflict” Division over authority (legitimated power) as permeating all of social life Potential for conflict arising in interest to get or obtain power makes conflict always a potential Dahredorf II Ignoring interest differences and potential clashes would distort social life Freedom and justice only achievable if inevitable interest differences are recognized – to pretend they don’t exist in fact supports totalitarianism Ralf Dahredorf The Boasian tradition and the concept of “Culture” Origins, nature and criticisms “Culture” as a concept - Boas Trained in physics in Germany, Boas was the preeminent Anthropologist in the U.S. who trained a generation of the field’s leaders at Colombia University Thus his influence has been much greater than his popular name recognition “Culture” as a concept - Boas II While “culture” is a very old term its social science meaning is a little over one hundred years old Various attempts have existed to define it for social science, but generally the dominant definitions derive from the work of Franz Boas & his students “Culture” as a concept – Boas III In Germany academicians had distinguished between merely being civilized and possessing Kulture In their usage to be civilized merely meant to know the appropriate ways to act toward one another in society – it represented a knowledge of external form “Culture” as a concept – Boas IV In German academic usage to take part in Kulture implied additionally a higher “internal” level of knowledge, feeling and intellectual sophistication including a feel for a society's art, literature, classic music and so on “Culture” as a concept – Boas V They felt most people were civilized, but Kulture belonged to an intellectual elite who learned and developed it “Culture” as a concept – Boas VI For Boas all societies had a culture Cultures vary from one society to another Cultures are learned, shared and form the basis of common sense Cultures are integrated and thus aspects fit together Culture as non –biological adaptive mechanism Franz Boas “Culture” a a concept – Benedict Ruth Benedict, a Boas student, wrote a widely read book , Patterns of culture, in which she emphasized a key point of her teacher “Culture” as a concept – Benedict II She argued that since all moral judgments are derived from some specific culture, there is no neutral way of judging right and wrong when cultures differ – this is an extreme version of cultural relativity Ruth Benedict “Culture” as a concept – Kroeber Another Boas student, Alfred Kroeber, looked at culture change as an internal elaboration that is often cyclical Kroeber seems to be saying that once established culture can determine behavior for a very long time Alfred Kroeber “Culture” as a concept – Mead Mead probably did more than anyone else to popularize the Boasian concept of culture in such popular books as Coming of Age in Samoa “Culture” as a concept – Mead II Mead used it as a research term and focused on sex and youth in an exotic location – topics that made her a popular figure in the mass media and a kind of intellectual celebrity “Culture” as a concept – Mead III Her work has been seriously challenged only in the last few years Margaret Mead (and unnamed Samoan) “Culture” as a concept - Powdermaker Hortense Powdermaker was almost unique in her generation by being a major cultural anthropologist who was not a Boas student (she had studied at Oxford with Bronislaw Malinowski) “Culture” as a concept - Powdermaker II She applied the concept of culture not to exotic foreigners but in an anthropological analysis within the United States Hortense Powdermaker “Culture” as a concept – Sociologists Starting in the 1920s sociologists began borrowing and expanding the Boasian concept of culture Sociology, focusing on complex advanced societies conceptually distinguish between – dominate culture , subculture and counterculture “Culture” as a concept – Sociologists II Dominate culture – the culture shared by the general population of a society Subculture – variations from the dominate culture without conflict with it These variations may be ethnic, regional, occupational, religious and so on “Culture” as a concept – Sociologists III Counterculture – variation from the dominate culture that conflict with it These variations may involve crime, sexual behaviors, drugs, “cults” and so on Culture as determining change – Ogburn Ogburn was a sociologist who studied with Boas at Colombia and whose introductory book influenced generations of sociology students Culture as determining change – Ogburn II In Social Change, Ogburn sought to show that all invention was a product of culture and not of individual genius. He did this by documenting independent discovery of the same thing by different persons William F. Ogburn Criticism of Culture as explanatory device Has overuse of the term for political purposes and special claims by groups rendered it less useful to social scientific inquiry? – example The deaf as a “culture” Cultures are not as monolithic as generally presented – even in simple societies studied by Anthropologists Criticisms of Culture as explanatory device II Blumer’s criticisms Cultural explanations are always post facto Cultural explanations ignore the motivations of actors and present them as overly determined Circularity in its use Non-refutable explanation Herbert Blumer Identity and Social Science A brief side discussion Charlotte Perkins Gilman W.E.B. Du Bois Identity Position and perception Oppression and perception The problem of inter-subjectivity vs. the problem of power and ideology The American Ameliorative Tradition Jane Addams and the Hull House Applied social science In the 19th century Auguste Comte drew a distinction between “pure” social science and applied social science Pure social science involved research into questions of knowledge which would have long term benefits to humanity Applied social science would be useful to ameliorating some condition of human suffering in the immediate present or near future Applied social science II Applied social science is thus: Relevant to present conditions Instrumental (figures out how to do something) Focused on a specific perceived problem area Likely to be more politically controversial than other social science in that it Defines what a current problem is Points to solutions that everyone may not perceive to be in their own interests Applied social science III Unlike Comte’s dichotomous thinking, pure and applied are probably best thought of as poles on a continuum with most social science falling somewhere between the two poles The argument for a prevailingly pure social science is that intent matters. If you structure your research to only get general answers you are likely never to get to practical solutions in the real world Jane Addams and Hull House The most important figure in the development of ameliorative applied American social science was the sociologist and founder of professional social work, Jane Addams Jane Addams and Hull House II Addams was born in 1860 into a very prosperous family in Illinois and raised by a father who emphasized universal political rights and a concern for political liberty throughout the world. He was, in fact a friend of Lincoln’s, with whom he served in the Illinois legislature. Jane Addams and Hull House III After college Addams considered a medical career, but then unsure of her future made a number of trips to Europe. These trips made her aware of the reformist research being done by such individuals as Beatrice Webb on the conditions of working class life and the settlement house movement in England Beatrice Webb Jane Addams and Hull House IV In England Addams was also influenced by a number of lectures that she heard from neo-Comtean intellectuals. She accepted their views that the time for revolutionary violence had ended, that a new modern international harmony needed to be created and that social scientific research was a major means by which social problems could be investigated and their solutions discovered. Jane Addams and Hull House V Addams returned to Chicago with a determination to put these ideas into practice. Using at first her own money (and later funds she would raise from others) she bought Hull House – which was located in the center of the poorest and most ethnically diverse immigrant neighborhood in Chicago. Jane Addams and Hull House VI Addams viewed Hull House and its activities in a number of different ways 1. She considered it her home. Thus she was concerned with a neighborhood as a resident and not as an interested outsider. 2. She viewed it as a settlement house that helped her neighbors in practical ways but also increased their pride in their own ethnic heritages as well as exposing them to cultural events they otherwise would not have experiences Jane Addams and Hull House VII 3. But, most important from our concern here, she viewed Hull House as a center for applied social science research. Under her Hull direction Hull house became the leading center of “progressive era” social research in the World and a model for others so inclined Hull House Hull House Library Jane Addams and Hull House VIII Research at Hull House generally 1. Was collaborative – with individuals staying there and working on specific research problems for a period of time. Different views, concerns and skills and backgrounds of researchers was seen as a positive by Addams Jane Addams and Hull House IX 2. Graduate students from the University of Chicago were encouraged to take part in research activities (Addams held a position in the sociology department for a time and was close friends with G.H. Mead and W.I. Thomas. When forced out of that department by Albion Small, she founded the Social Work Department) W.I. Thomas Albion Small Jane Addams and Hull House X 3. Research was to deal with practical problems in modern society. Congested, ethnically, diverse, economically complex and linked via trade and travel to the rest of the world, Chicago was seen as the perfect laboratory to look at and solve the problems that eventually would have to be dealt with everywhere Jane Addams and Hull House XI 4. Diversity was not seen as a problem, but as an opportunity. Her concern was not with harmony out of likeness, but one that encouraged an appreciation of cultural differences. 5. Addams viewed youth as a time of development and experimentation. She did not expect perfect obedience or that young people would simply replicate the views and ideals of earlier generations Jane Addams and Hull House XII 6. People were seen as capable of making choices that governed their lives, but such choices were limited by environmental factors (e.g., poverty), inefficient social organization (e.g., ineffective or nonexistent governmental programs) and lack of knowledge (e.g., unavailable or inadequate education). Accordingly research would focus on these areas Jane Addams and Hull House XIII 7. Research had political implications. Its main goals were not political (in the narrow sense of the word), but such political activity should not be ruled out of the question 8. Democracy was not just the right to vote or an abstract ideal but a real emergent phenomenon. Jane Addams and Hull House XIV Addams herself wrote on topics such as prostitution, youth gangs, child labor and generational conflict Addams was also involved in political activity ranging from the sanitation department in Chicago to the leading peace activist during World War I Jane Addams and Hull House XV Addams view of the role of the social scientist and political activity got her earned her criticism from a number of directions. (e.g., Her former friend and political ally, Theodore Roosevelt attacked her for her opposition to World War I and the anarchist radical Emma Goldman attacked her for not sufficiently opposing the powers that be) Emma Goldman Jane Addams and Hull House XVI Perhaps the most significant research coming out of Hull House were the body of studies leading to the creation of a separate juvenile justice system Jane Addams Father and Jane Addams Addams- Peace Ship Addams – Suffrage March Addams (ill) Receiving Nobel Prize Critique of applied reasoning Veblen and the importance of idle curiosity Thorstein Veblen argued that the greatest and most useful scientific discoveries have been the product of “idle curiosity” – that is a scientist following a question of interest and not one dictated by immediate practical concern Critique of applied reasoning II Applied for whom? (Or “he who pays the piper calls the tune”) When research requires outside funding, applied research can be seen simply as research not in the interest of humanity as a whole but in terms of the governmental, corporate, or special-interest funding organization. To some extent the social scientist becomes an agent of the organization and science is subordinated to its interests Critique of applied reasoning III Reformism and prejudice of the times: Gilman, Weatherly, eugenics and racism Choosing how to apply research implies decisions made on both scientific knowledge and explicit or assumed ethical beliefs (i.e., what is morally good and desirable). Looking into the past we can see social scientists in the early 20th century who held views that most of us today would find abhorrent. Critique of applied reasoning IV These include racist and eugenics views. Examples are those found in the writings of Charlotte Perkins Gilman (who had stayed at Hull House) and those of Ulysses B Weatherly (who for a time headed the American Sociological Society). Charlotte Perkins Gilman Critique of applied reason IV Remembering Robert Burns Perhaps the best caution to all applied research is to remember the line of the great Scottish poet, Robert Burns: “The best-laid schemes o’ mice an 'men gang aft agley” (The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray ) Robert Burns