Minor research proposal
lazy808
lect02.pptxSocial science paradigms
SOSC 1000
Lecture 2
Jan Krouzil
May 13, 2021
Agenda
Announcements
PART I Foundational paradigms
Keywords
Part I Foundational paradigms
Rooted in different ontological and epistemological assumptions (implicit or explicit)
materialism and ideationalism
individualism and collectivism
biological evolution determinism
socialization and anti-socialization
conflict paradigm and harmony paradigm
Dichotomy of materialism vs ideationalism
Foundational paradigms
Materialism
Key claims (ontological)
objective material things and facts exist independently from our cognition
‘social facts’ cannot exist without some input from material forces and entities
material forces have ontological priority over ideational forces
Key principles (epistemological)
Foundational paradigms
material forces should always be part of the understanding or explaining frameworks
better to explain social facts with material forces than with ideational forces
reduce ideational explanations to material explanations or underpin ideational explanations with material factors
Examples
realism
claims that material power rather than ideational forces determine outcomes in international politics and states foremost seek material power (Niebuhr [1932] 1960; Carr 1939; Morgenthau 1948)
historical materialism
claims that it is material productive forces that underpin superstructure, which is mostly ideational (Marx 1859, preface)
Foundational paradigms (3)
Ideationalism
Key positions (ontological)
ideational forces hold ontological priority over material forces
cannot be reduced to material forces
ideational forces ultimately determine outcomes in human society
the more important force in our world is ideational rather than material (Wendt 1999)
Key principles (epistemological)
better to explain social facts with ideational forces
our brain invents ideas
Foundational paradigms (4)
Toward a synthesis
since human society is made of both material forces and ideational
forces any social science must be based on both materialism and
ideationalism
a purely materialistic approach is obviously untenable because human beings invent ideas and ideas have profoundly (re)shaped human society and the physical environment
a purely ideationalistic approach will not do either, because even if one insists that an idea matters—and ideas do matter— one still needs to explain how that idea comes to exist and matter
the challenge is how to synthesize materialism and ideationalism
organically
Foundational paradigms (5)
Dichotomy of individualism vs collectivism
Individualism
Key assumptions (ontological)
individuals make collectives
collectives have no extra or unique properties other than the sum of the properties of the individuals within
even if collectives have some unique properties they have little effect on individuals’ behavior thus social outcomes
Key axioms (epistemological)
Foundational paradigms (6)
to adequately understand human society, all we need is to understand the individuals and how their actions together add to the collectives
in its extreme form, groups are assumed to be nonentities and thus irrelevant for understanding society
individualism adopts a reductionist methodology of reducing groups to individuals (either implicitly or explicitly) (Collins 1981; 1992)
Examples
the neoclassical economics approach
assumes atomistic individuals with (bounded) rationality
the rational choice approach in sociology and political science
Foundational paradigms (7)
Collectivism
Key notions (ontological)
collectives have extra properties other than the sum of the properties of the individuals within them
contain interdependence among individuals, group/collective identity, and social structure that are absent among independent individuals (Turner et al. 1987)
cannot be reduced to the simple sum of individuals - collectives are real entities
properties of collectives, while a creation of individual human agents, have a life of their own once created
Foundational paradigms (7)
Key principles
to adequately understand human society, we need to understand collectives’ properties (e.g., group identities, structure, culture, and norm) and how these properties change and shape social outcomes over time
for understanding individuals’ behaviors, we need to understand how collectives’ properties impact or even dictate individuals’ behaviors
collectivism thus explicitly rejects the reductionist position of reducing collectives to the mere sum of individuals within collectives
Foundational paradigms (8)
all schools that emphasize collectives either as an agent or as a starting point for understanding social realities are adherents of collectivism.
extreme collectivism even holds that collectives often have logic, soul, or reasons
Toward a Synthesis
Key principles
individuals make collectives thus holding ontological priority over collectives
as such, all collectivism theories must contain assumptions at the individual level (implicitly or explicitly)
collectives have extra properties other than the sum of individuals’ properties
cannot be reduced to the simple sum of individuals
Foundational paradigms (9)
individuals invent and deploy both material stuff (e.g., temples and monuments) and ideational stuff (e.g., ideas, rituals, identities, norms, institutions, and culture) to hold the collectives together
once created, these collective-derived properties come back to shape individuals’ mentalities and behavior, and thus social outcomes afterward.
the information flow between individual and collective is an enclosed circle rather than a one-way street
to adequately understand human society, we need to understand the interaction between individuals and collectives (i.e., how individuals’ actions shape collectives and how collectives shape individuals)
this interaction, in the much debated agent-structure problem, one of the major driving forces behind the evolution of human society
Foundational paradigms (10)
Human Nature - Biological Evolution, Socialization, Anti-socialization
the complexity of human nature as a thorny problem that will not—and should not—go away because no social theory is possible without some assumption over human nature
all social theories assume some kind of human nature, one way or another
Key paradigms
Biological evolution (ontological)
Key notions
the most critical force that has shaped human nature
has endowed the human mind with certain specific traits before the coming of human society
the human mind has never been a tabula rasa or blank slate (Pinker 2002)
universal, fundamental and inerasable (through socialization or anti-socialization)
survival (i.e., security) and reproduction (Buss 1995) as the two most critical drivers of human behavior
Foundational paradigms (11)
Biological evolution (epistemological)
Key notions
seeks to uncover and then explain human psychological traits exclusively with biological evolution
esp. with the drive to survive and reproduce
the principal explanatory mechanism for biological evolution determinism is the central mechanism of biological evolution
variation-selection-inheritance
Foundational paradigms (12)
Examples
Darwin’s theory of biological evolutionary
social Spencerism/ Darwinism
evolutionary psychology
Socialization paradigm
Key notions (ontologically)
human behavior is fundamentally constrained and shaped by the social system
esp. its institutions (often backed by power) and culture
human behavior is fundamentally driven by individuals’ urge to conform and adapt to the social system
esp. individuals’ conforming and adapting to the society in turn underpins a society’s stability
Foundational paradigms (13)
Key notion (epistemological)
individuals’ behavior is best explained by a society’s constrains and individuals’ (rational) urge to conform and adapt
satisfy themselves materially and psychologically
individuals’ conforming and adapting to the society in turn explains a society’s stability
Example
the Comte-Spencer-Durkheim-Parsons-Mertonian structural functionalism
Foundational paradigms (14)
Anti-socialization paradigm
Key notions (ontological)
socialization (and by implication, society) limits human’s (natural) freedom
‘man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains’ (Rousseau ([1762] 1973)
human behaviors are fundamentally driven by the urge to rebel against the prevailing social system
i.e., its norms, power, knowledge, etc
this urge to rebel is what ultimately drives social change what brings human emancipation
Foundational paradigms (15)
Key principles (epistemological)
agents’ behavior is best explained by the oppression in the society and agents’ urge to rebel against it
if subjects (as agents) have yet to rebel, then we must look for domination, “false consciousness,” and power/ knowledge (Weber 1978; Gramsci [1926-1937] 1992-1996; Foucault 1980)
agent’s success or failure to rebel and rebel successfully explains societies’ stability and change
Foundational paradigms (16)
holds that all of us are capable of critical thinking against the prevailing social order—it is part of our nature, although not all of us actually do critical thinking
the ‘power elite’ have no incentives to be critical because they profit from the prevailing social order (Mills 1956)
Examples
Marxism
the Frankfurt School’s ‘critical theory’ (e.g., Marcuse, Habermas) postmodernism (e.g., Nietzsche, Foucault, Deleuze)
Foundational paradigms (17)
Toward a synthesis
socialization and anti-socialization must have a material foundation provided by the biological evolution of the ancestors of our species (i.e., pre-Homo habilis species)
the part of human nature determined by biological evolution, which in all likelihood is inerasable and universal holds ontological priority over both socialization and anti-socialization
increasing institutionalization or ‘rationalization’ of society drives some individuals to anti-socialization
a dialectic relationship between socialization and anti-socialization
Foundational paradigms (18)
Conflict and harmony paradigms
Conflict paradigm
Key assumptions (ontological)
agents (i.e., individuals or collectives of individuals) generally have divergent interests
agents often have conflict of interest—mostly real but sometimes imagined—among them
agents often resort to actual conflictual behavior—that is, quarreling, passive resistance, struggling, threat of force, and actual use of force—to advance their interests
most social outcomes are produced by agents’ conflictual behavior to advance their interests
Foundational paradigms (19)
Key claims (epistemological)
we want to uncover agents’ conflict of interest, real or imagined
we want to understand agents’ conflictual behavior for advancing their interests
we want to understand social outcomes as the product from the interaction of agents’ conflictual behaviors to advance their interests
Examples
Marxism sociology
Weberian sociology
realism in international politics
Foucauldian postmodernism
Foundational paradigms (20)
Harmony paradigm
Key assumptions (ontologically)
there is a general harmony of interest, or at least, more common interest than conflict of interest among agents
even when conflict of interest does exist, agents will generally eschew conflictual behavior and favor cooperative and coordinative behavior to resolve their conflict of interests
most social outcomes are produced by agents’ cooperative and coordinative behavior to resolve their conflict of interest and improve their collective welfare
Foundational paradigms (21)
Key assertions (epistemological)
we want to uncover agents’ common interest, including their urge to harmonize
their interest
even when agents have conflict of interest, we want to understand agents’
cooperative and coordinative behaviors because of their urge to advance their
common interest while minimizing their conflict of interest
we want to understand social outcomes as the product from the interaction of
agents’ cooperative and coordinative behaviors
Examples
functionalism assumes a general harmony of interest among individuals
the society is a ‘big happy family’ (Darhendorf 1968, 176-77)
neoclassical economics
incl. neoclassical economics-inspired New Institutional Economics (e.g., Coase [1937]; Williamson [1975], [1985])
Foundational paradigms (22)
Toward a synthesis
Key principles (ontological)
there is both conflict of interest and harmony of interest among agents
and they often coexist
conflict of interest often exceeds harmony of interest
agents engage in both conflictual and cooperative behaviors,
depending on circumstances
social outcomes are the products of both conflictual and cooperative
behavior
cooperation and conflict are intermixed; cooperation sometimes is achieved in the shadow of possible conflict
Foundational paradigms (23)
Key principles (epistemological)
just because agents have conflict of interest does not mean that they are doomed to actual conflict
likewise, just because agents have common interest does not mean that they will cooperate or coordinate
we cannot assume conflict of interest behind actual conflict or harmony of interest behind cooperation and coordination
instead, each particular social outcome needs a careful search for its specific causes
Keywords
scientific realism and anti-scientific realism
dichotomy
materialism and ideationalism
individualism and collectivism
biological evolution determinism
socialization and anti-socialization
conflict paradigm and harmony paradigm
Reading
Tang, Shiping. 2010. Foundational Paradigms of Social Sciences [ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249678327_Foundational_Paradigms_of_Social_Sciences
