[Interpretationandmethods] Mark Bevir’s Methodological Gaps

[psshea at csbs.utah.edu]

Thanks Laleh for that citation.  I would also add Wallerstein's The  
End of the World as We Know It:  Social Science for the Twenty-First  
Century,1999,U of Minn Press.  Peri


Quoting Laleh Khalili <lk180 at columbia.edu>:

>
>
> I can't speak to the second question, but as for disciplinary
> boundaries, Tim Mitchell has written a fascinating chapter for a book
> in which he argues (very briefly, as the main thrust of the article is
> something related but different) that the hardening of disciplinary
> boundaries is very recent and really a function of the politics (of
> both the "real world" sort and of academia). I find the argument
> plausible.
>
> Beside, having been trained as a "political scientist" in the US and
> teaching in a "politics" department in the UK which is anything but
> scientistic, and using all the methods and methodologies of *other*
> disciplines makes me not so concerned or worried about the possibility
> that these boundaries may be dissolved...  Quite the contrary!  :)
>
> The Mitchell chapter can be read at
>
> http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=uciaspubs/editedvolumes
>
> Laleh
> SOAS
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, wjkellpro at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hello Fellow Interpretationistas!
>>
>> Lately I have been reading essays written, in whole or in part, by   
>> Mark Bevir.  I am very impressed by his understanding, and   
>> practice, of interpretive social science.  However, I do have a   
>> couple of concerns. 
>>
>> One is that his approach seems to dissolve all the traditional   
>> "boundaries" in the social sciences.  How can he, or any   
>> interpretive social scientist, distinguish between sociology,   
>> political science, or history?  What is the methodological   
>> rationale, if any, for marking off these boundaries?  Is it only a   
>> matter of self-identity?  E.g., "I am employed in the Sociology   
>> Department, therefore whatever I do is 'sociology'"?
>>
>> Can anyone point out some literature where this problem has been   
>> resolved?  I don't think Bevir has even addressed this issue.
>>
>> Secondly, Bevir's idea of being "critical" also leaves me   
>> unsatisfied.  He seems to think that being critical is limited to   
>> such things as: a) exposing the actual relativity of claims to know  
>>  what is true or right with universal intent;  b) revealing the   
>> internal contradictions in an ideology, or claim to know;  c)   
>> finding distortions of fact; or, d)unmasking deceptions.
>>
>> These are all "critical" tactics from the neopositivist   
>> "logical-empirical" point of view, but this very point of view   
>> seems to me to be a self-contradiction within the interpretation   
>> framework.  In my understanding, there cannot be a "neopositivist"   
>> value-neutral interpretive social science.  Its
>> an oxymoron!
>>
>> Bevir says that he is committed to the view that people generally   
>> act for reasons, and that it is his job to interpret those reasons   
>> from the human behavior.  But his theory of human rationality seems  
>>  to me overly technocratic; that is, lacking in any feeling for the  
>>  respect that is implicit in the major part of human behavior.  He   
>> sees people as creatively responding to dilemmas as their   
>> traditional ways of acting and thinking are challenged.  But he   
>> seems unable to account for the way people generally shape those   
>> responses with some element of concern for their impact on others.   
>>  He appears to distinguish between capitalist ideologies and   
>> socialist ideologies, only by their logical properties.  He doesn’t  
>>  explain why or how humans are valued differently within either   
>> belief system.  In the technocratic view, humans have no more value  
>>  than any of the other things in the world. 
>>
>> For reasons stated in my prior posts, I would like to ask Bevir how  
>>  a human could be "rational" without being respectful of others?
>>
>> Consistent with this technocratic theory of rationality, Bevir's   
>> method fails to acknowledge any part played by feelings of respect   
>> for those whose meanings he sets out to interpret.  And this seems   
>> to me to be a methodological self-contradiction. 
>>
>> To interpret the meanings of another, one person must engage the   
>> other with a substantial degree of mutuality.  This is a   
>> requirement of empathy.  The other is regarded as a person in   
>> fundamen
>> tal ways like oneself; that is, sentient, full of meanings, and   
>> acting for reasons.  As Polanyi points out, this relationship is a   
>> form of companionship.  Even if the other is one of those dead   
>> white guys they study in history, to understand him requires a   
>> relationship of human mutuality. 
>>
>> So, how can anyone have such a relationship without feeling some   
>> respect for the other?  That does not mean one must approve of the   
>> other’s behavior, but to know someone person-to-person is to have a  
>>  respectful relationship.  There is no such thing as an objective   
>> interpretation, and Bevir has recognized that.  So, to interpret   
>> requires that one person engage the other as a fellow person.    
>> Polanyi calls it an I-Thou relationship.
>>
>> Therefore, the professional conduct of interpretive social science   
>> requires having respect for the human subject.  But Bevir's   
>> approach seems overly intellectualized and perhaps alienated from   
>> the other.
>>
>> I am sure he actually does respect people, but he factors this out   
>> of his social science.  But is that intellectually honest, or fully  
>>  truthful?  If you respect people as you are interpreting their   
>> meanings, isn't that a part of your methodology?
>>
>> I think it is, and we Interpretationistas ought to say it.
>>
>> Bill Kelleher
>>
>>   
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>
> !DSPAM:487ef9e719257163845084!



-- 
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Professor

University of Utah
Political Science Department
260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252
Salt Lake City, UT  84112-9152

(801) 581-6300 phone mail
psshea at poli-sci.utah.edu