[Interpretationandmethods] Mark Bevir's Methodological Gaps

Wed Jul 30 11:35:48 EDT 2008

Hi all,

This is a rather belated response to some of Bill's queries below. I just
finished reading Andrew Abbott's Chaos of Disciplines (Chicago, 2001) and
wanted to recommend chap. 5 of that book as perhaps the best thing I've ever
read on disciplines. It nicely differentiates the aspects of contemporary
academic life that are characterized by flux and change from those that are,
by contrast, largely static. And it uses this disjunction both to suggest
why there have always been recurring waves of intellectual excitement about
interdisciplinarity, and why these effervescent waves have so little impact
on the institutional structures of an academy in which hiring and curricular
are predominantly organized along disciplinary lines. 

Also, a couple of points with regard specifically to Bill's questions about
Mark Bevir's work. First, though it is a bit self-promotional (sorry!) to
note this, there are some reflections about disciplines (though not as
detailed as Abbott's) in the introduction to the volume Modern Political
Science (Princeton UP, 2007) that Mark, I, and Shannon Stimson recently
co-edited. Second, the issues about respect for others that Bill raises come
up in Mark's essay on Derrida and Heidegger--"Derrida and the Heidegger
Controversy: Global Friendship Against Racism," Critical Review of
International Social and Political Philosophy 3 (2000), 121-138--and some
his broader ethical/political views are suggested by the closing chapter on
"Social Democracy" in his book on New Labour (Routledge, 2005).

Cheers,

Robert Adcock

-----Original Message-----
From: interpretationandmethods-bounces at listserv.cddc.vt.edu
[mailto:interpretationandmethods-bounces at listserv.cddc.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
psshea at csbs.utah.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:51 AM
To: interpretationandmethods at malagigi.cddc.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Interpretationandmethods]Mark Bevir’s Methodological Gaps

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=ucias
pubs/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

_______________________________________________
Interpretationandmethods mailing list
Interpretationandmethods at listserv.cddc.vt.edu
http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/interpretationandmethods