Download notes-old version

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
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: 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
Methodological Functionalism II
Merton distinguished functions from dysfunctions (those things which interfered with the functioning of
the whole)
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)
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
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:economics
Classical economic reasoning gives us possibly the earliest example of the use of psychological
reductionism
Psych. reductionism: 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
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” and 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” and Sociologists III
Counterculture – variation from the dominate culture that conflict with it
These variations may involve crime, sexual behaviors, drugs, “cults” and so on
Ogburn
Ogburn was a sociologist who studied with Boas at Colombia and whose introductory book influenced
generations of sociology students
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
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
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 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