[Interpretationandmethods] Mitchell On Social Science

[wjkellpro at aol.com]

?

?

Hi Laleh!

Thanks for the reference to that Mitchell article.? I found it very interesting.

One question that Mitchell raises for me is, "what is the right relationship between theory and subject matter for the social sciences?"? Another one is, "is it possible for social science to develop a method of study that does not impose its parochial conceptions upon other peoples?"

I agree with Mitchell that the idea of using European history as the beacon by which to shed light on the rest of the world seems kind of nightmarish; a type of intellectual colonialism.? (Maybe Fay's "multicultural approach" has some answers.)

Mitchell seems rather pessimistic about the prospects for success of "the American project of universal social science."

However, I am not ready to give up hope.? I think there is a chance for developing a social science with a distinct methodology, and clear divisions of specialty, like in the natural sciences.

The first thing I think we need is a method that is appropriate to our subject matter. ?As I have said in past posts, I think Polanyi has laid the foundation for that.? He has defined both human nature, and an interpretive method for study that is compatible with that nature.? His theory of human nature is based on evolution, and species-wide, or universal, and not culturally relative.? Therefore, his method of study can rise above many of the parochial conceptions that Mitchell discusses.? Human sentience, meaning, and rationality (as Polanyi defines it), seem to me to be a-cultural analytical conceptions.

Secondly, I think we need a rationale for organizing the social sciences that is both related to the subject matter, and intellectually convincing.? Mitchell shows how "real politics" has affected, or infected, the development of area studies.? Of course, natural science has had to deal with political interference ever since they burned Bruno.? So that is nothing new.

Perhaps the efforts of powerful interests, including government, to influence what social scientists study, say, and are kept silent about (Mitchell mentions Israel) can be ameliorated.? Natural science is not only organized by subject matter specialties, but it is also divided between pure and applied science.? While both areas must deal with political pressures, applied science seems to draw some of the heat away from pure research (with notable exceptions, like stem cell research).

The way Mitchell describes it, political science seems to combine the two functions, with area experts also joining the fray over policy directions. ?So, it is not surprising that the intractable problems of the Middle East would cause seemingly intractable problems for formulating a method to be used in Middle East area studies.? ?If there was a pure research division, separated from policy commentary, the pure researchers might have more freedom, and draw less fire.

You seem to like the idea of everybody doing their own thing, without a unified social science.? (Do I get that right?)? One problem I have with that is the advantage it gives to the powers that be.

As Mitchell suggests, neopositivism now dominates the status positions and research funding for most of social science.? In my view, they have the power, status, and wealth that ought to belong to interpretive social science!


Bill Kelleher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20080718/0ab326d5/attachment.html