How to think of ‘social reality’?
SOSC 1000
Lecture 4
Jan Krouzil PhD
May 20, 2021
Agenda
Announcements
Part I What is meant by 'social reality’?
Part II Hermeneutic phenomenology
Keywords
Readings & supplementary sources
Part I What is meant by 'social reality’? (1)
Conceptions of ‘social reality’
‘social realities’ are all around us
think of cocktail parties, football games, bar mitzvahs, political rallies, even nations
all made up of ‘social entities’
‘social entity’ can be defined in reference to ‘the separate existence of an organization that is perceived to exist by its members and the public at large as a given, i.e. something that exists before and outside of them.’
‘social realities’ are creations of not individual human minds, but
collectives of human minds
by their very nature, they are mostly founded on agreement (or contract)
What is meant by 'social reality’? (2)
humans are immersed both physically (somatically) and virtually in
a universe of ever changing ‘social realities’
they play a major role both in determining how humans live and how well they live
the social realm affects not only how humans relate to one another
but also how they interact with the rest of the biological and
physical realms
science, for example, is a complex social undertaking by which humans collectively seek to understand the physical, biological, and even the social realm itself
What is meant by 'social reality’? (3)
The constitution of the ‘social reality’
virtually all social entities are 'plastic’ - their properties change significantly over time, as a result of the purposive and unintentional behavior of the socially constructed individuals who make up a society
organizations, labor unions, universities, churches, and social identities all show a substantial degree of flexibility and fluidity over time, and this fact leads to a substantial degree of heterogeneity among groups of similar social organizations and institutions
the properties of a social entity or practice can change over time
they are not rigid, fixed, timeless; they are not bound into consistent and unchanging categories of entities
such as 'bureaucratic state', 'Islamic society', or 'leftist labor organization’
‘molecules of water preserve their physical characteristics no matter what. But in contrast to natural substances such as gold or water, social things can change their properties indefinitely.' (Little 2007)
What is meant by 'social reality’? (4)
the objects studied by social science include ‘social structure’
e.g., kinship structure, historical events, artistic and political movements, types of government, socio-economic classes, historical eras, technology, and the functioning of a market economy
if there is something like ‘social reality’ then all social
phenomena and thus all objects of social inquiry will be aspects
or parts of it
an account of social reality possible as a comprehensive account of the constitution of all objects of social science
‘social reality’ can be conceived of as the concrete, empirical reality of actual social life
What is meant by 'social reality’? (5)
What is meant by the expression 'social reality’?
‘reality’ is the totality of what (actually) ‘exists’
‘social reality’ can be formally and neutrally defined as part of
what is ‘social’
is experience giving us access to ‘reality’?
‘reality’ is there for the most part independent of any particular person’s experience
yet experience is something by means of which people apprehend reality
What is meant by 'social reality’? (6)
What does the word 'social’ refer to?
'socialis’ (Latin) connotes companionship
in modern times the word 'social' is used to qualify any mode of human coexistence
social reality is that part of the world to which experience gives us access that constitutes the realm of human coexistence
‘social reality’ consists in the interrelatedness of the continuous passage of different people's lives
in the interrelatedness of what determines, occurs in, and is produced by human lives
interrelated ongoing lives as the concrete, empirical reality in which actual social existence consists
What is meant by 'social reality’? (7)
Components of ‘social reality’ (Schatzki 1988)
analyzing ongoing life, or moment-to-moment existence, as series of
actions that are governed by ‘practical intelligibility’ and
performed in interconnected, local settings
‘practical intelligibility’ is what makes sense to an actor to do
it governs action by determining what an actor does
making sense to a person to perform a particular action is an instance
of ‘rationality’
what makes sense to people are actions that are considered to be permitted, appropriate, prudent, efficacious, sensible, called for, and so on
What is meant by 'social reality’? (8)
what makes sense to a person to do is determined by a range
of 'intelligibility-determining factors’
ends, ideas (including concepts and thoughts), mattering, knowledge, tasks and projects, rules, paradigms, customs, and setting
‘setting’ plays a dual role in ongoing existence
many actions are taken toward and in response to the people, events, and objects encountered in settings
the actions and entities people encounter in settings help shape which particular intelligibility-determining factors determine what makes sense to them to do
What is meant by 'social reality’? (9)
people become familiar with particular rules, paradigms, ideas, and
so on, for instance, by encountering books, movies, actions, including
linguistic actions, etc
the role that persuasion, indoctrination, threats, and pedagogy also plays in molding what makes sense to people to do
types of interrelations between lives
individual lives are not fully-formed atoms which exist independently of the external relations they maintain among one another, the entering into which would, on an atomistic way of thinking, constitute social existence
not only do lives take shape through interaction with one another but an individual life, merely by being a life, is thereby entangled in a multitude of interrelations
What is meant by 'social reality’? (10)
‘social reality’ consists in interrelated ongoing lives
the phenomena in which ‘social reality’ has its ‘being’ are the
phenomena constituting and interrelating live
actions
intelligibility-determining factors
the entities found in settings
interrelations
What is the significance of this account of social reality?
implications for the constitution of social phenomena and the
character of social inquiry
‘social construction of reality’ (Berger and Luckmann 1966)
What is meant by 'social reality’? (11)
Overarching social formations
embracing a plurality of lives, e.g., economic systems, political alliances, wars, football games, peer groups, conversations, artistic movements, and historical events
all these formations are parts of ‘social reality’
consist in combinations of phenomena of actions, entities in settings, intelligibility-determining factors, and interrelations
since ‘social reality’ consists in interrelated ongoing lives,
all social phenomena and facts must have their ‘being’ in
features of the nexus of lives
Part II Hermeneutic phenomenology (1)
Keywords - phenomenon, logos and hermeneutics
phenomenon (or phainomenon)
rooted in Greek language and derived from the verb phainesthai, meaning ‘to show itself’ (to manifest itself)
the meaning of the expression ‘phenomenon’ is established as ‘what shows itself in itself (in ‘the form of intuition’) (Heidegger 1962)
to clarify n which sense phenomenology can be ‘a science of’ phenomena the meaning of logos must be delimited
Hermeneutic phenomenology (2)
logos
can be literally translated to ‘apophantic speech’
translated and interpreted, as reason, judgment, concept, definition, ground, and relation
something to be seen (phainesthai) - what is being talked about
for the speaker or for those who speak with each other (i.e., subject matter)
phenomenology
can be defined as a universal a priori science which is the self-founding first philosophy (prima philosophia) articulated through rigorous and exhaustive
descriptive investigations of the phenomena of consciousness
Hermeneutic phenomenology (3)
human consciousness embraces transcendence in the limit concept of God
the insight that everything that actually exists is a ‘this-here-now’
hermeneutics
theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic and non-linguistic expressions
the hermeneutic tradition stretches all the way back to ancient Greek philosophy
in the course of the middle Ages and the Renaissance emerges as a crucial branch of Biblical studies
Hermeneutic phenomenology (4)
later on it comes to include the study of ancient and classic cultures
with the emergence of German romanticism and idealism the status of hermeneutics changes and it turns to the conditions of possibility for ‘symbolic communication’ as such
the question ‘How to read?’ is replaced by the question, ‘How do we communicate at all?’
now hermeneutics is not only about symbolic communication - its area is even more fundamental – that of human life and existence as such
hermeneutics provides the critical horizon for many of the most intriguing discussions of contemporary schools of thought
as an interrogation into the deepest conditions for symbolic interaction and culture in general
Hermeneutic phenomenology (5)
‘Life as a text’
to understand this ‘text’ we need to employ a method to
interpret this text
this method must cover ontological questions and the most fundamental questions one is faced with
‘What is Being?’ is such a question and it should be understood in
relation to the whole text it is rooted in
hermeneutics as ontology - about the most fundamental conditions of man's being in the world
Hermeneutic phenomenology (6)
hermeneutic phenomenology sets out to overthrow what it takes to be the Cartesian trajectory of the modern conception of reason (‘Cogito ergo sum’)
for Descartes the task of philosophy is to show how the subject can rationally establish the norms of epistemic certainty whereby a given representation is judged to be ‘true or false’ (Heidegger 1962)
such a position leads to a conception of truth in terms of the methods provided by the natural sciences alone
such a model tends to forget the most fundamental, pre-scientific aspects of our being in the world
‘the hermeneutics of facticity’ (Heidegger 1962)
Hermeneutic phenomenology (7)
phenomenology becomes hermeneutical when its method is taken to be interpretive rather than purely descriptive
every form of human awareness is interpretive
poetry and art as expressive works for interpreting the nature of truth, language, thinking, dwelling, and being (Heidegger)
meanings are not given directly to us - we must make a hermeneutic detour through the symbolic apparatus of the culture (Ricoeur)
Hermeneutic phenomenology (7)
Hermeneutic phenomenology (text and context)
concerned with the life world or human experience as it is
lived - ‘Being in the World’ (‘Dasein’)
examines how human meanings are deposited and mediated through myth, religion, art, and language
the focus is toward illuminating details and seemingly trivial aspects within experience that may be taken for granted in our lives, with a goal of creating meaning and achieving a sense of understanding (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1991)
views humans as primarily concerned Beings with an emphasis on their fate in an alien world (Heidegger)
Hermeneutic phenomenology (8)
Keywords
social construction of reality
action/practical intelligibility
setting
interrelations
overarching social formations
phenomenon
logos
hermeneutic phenomenology
epistemic certainty
meaning and understanding
Reading
Schatzki, Theodore R. 1988. The Nature of Social Reality. (ROR)
https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/stable/2107975?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Lawson, Tony. 2019. The Nature of Social Reality Issues in Social Ontology [ROR]
Shabazian, Mehdi. 2015. An Introduction to Hermeneutic Phenomenology. [ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312324059_An_Introduction_to_Hermeneutic_Phenomenology
Supplementary sources
The Matrix & The Social Construction of Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rukdvq8v8So
Understanding Social Constructionism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BDDMByOxJU
What does social construction really mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UpSoosy9ws
Hermeneutical Phenomenology
https://www.slideshare.net/ChanoAlfornon/hermeneutical-phenomenology-130347047
Social 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
Introduction to social science
SOSC 1000
Lecture 1
May 11, 2021
Jan Krouzil PhD
Agenda
Announcements
PART I Course outline - overview
PART II ‘What counts as knowledge’?
PART III From knowledge to wisdom
Keywords
Supplementary sources
Part II ‘What counts as knowledge’? (1)
Aporia (n.)*
Definition of aporia
an expression of real or pretended doubt or uncertainty especially for rhetorical effect
a logical impasse or contradiction especially: a radical contradiction in the import of a text or theory that is seen in ‘deconstruction’ as inevitable
First known use of aporia
circa 1550
History and etymology for aporia
French aporie, ultimately from Greek aporia difficulty, perplexity, from aporos impassable, from a- + poros passage
*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aporia
‘What counts as knowledge’? (2)
Etymology* of the word ‘knowledge’
know common Indo-European word for ‘to know’
found in all IE branches (know, ken in Germanic, cognizant in Latin, etc.)
most common IE root for to know is ‘to wit’
Germanic, videre (to see) in Latin hence visible, video, etc., whose ultimate meaning was ‘to see therefore to know’
as well as the Vedas in Sanskrit, etc
-ledge is a rare Germanic suffix
also found in the Swedish noun kärlek meaning love, with the first element kär akin to our ‘care’ and -lek this same element -ledge
‘What counts as knowledge’? (3)
stems from an Old English ending -laec which denoted realisation, ‘making real’
from an old Saxon verb lacan, meaning to move about, bring into the world, make happen, and hence (from its meaning of ‘move about’) to play - akin to the English dialect to lake meaning to play, which in turn yielded our more common word lark = a practical joke (‘for a lark’)
as well as the Danish lege = to play games (the Danish toy brand name Lego comes from that word)
Working definition of knowledge
“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms” (Davenport and Prusak 2000)
*etymologies are not definitions; they're explanations of what words meant and
how they sounded, say, 600 or 2,000 years ago https://www.etymonline.com/
‘What counts as knowledge’? (4)
How to define ‘knowledge’?
knowledge
an abstract concept without any reference to the tangible world
powerful concept, yet it has no clear definition so far
from the Greek philosophers up to present experts in knowledge management, people tried to define knowledge but the results are still very fuzzy
Key aspects of the dispute
the knowledge nature and the attempts made in epistemology to define knowledge
definition that knowledge is ‘justified true belief’ is shown as having the limitations given by the justification condition and the truth nature
‘What counts as knowledge’? (5)
the metaphorical approach to knowledge explanation
main metaphors used for knowledge - knowledge as objects, knowledge nuggets, knowledge as
an iceberg, and knowledge as stocks and flows
a new paradigm of metaphorical thinking based on the knowledge
energy
understanding knowledge as a multi-field paradigm composed of the rational, emotional, and spiritual knowledge fields
Knowledge nature
‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’ subjects of human inquiry from
the ancient times
ever since Plato and Aristotle developed epistemology as a theory of knowledge trying to answer the question: ‘What is knowledge?’
none of the theories and arguments so far accepted as being fully satisfactory
‘What counts as knowledge’? (6)
Knowledge nature - major perspectives
rationalism
Plato (428-348 BC) made a distinction between
rational reasoning grounded in axioms
opinion a product of our senses
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
makes rationalism the basis of modern philosophy
‘Cogito ergo sum!’
dualism of mind and body
impact on science, philosophy and education in Europe and late on in America
‘What counts as knowledge’? (7)
empiricism
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
opposable perspective to rationalism
ideas and forms cannot be separated from physical objects and sensory data
knowledge not created a priori and not innate in a deterministic form
created through our sensory interface with the real world and processed by our mind
John Locke (1632-1704)
objects do exist in the outer world
our sensory perception is the most important source of our knowledge
attempts to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism
conceptual frameworks based on different syntheses between them
‘What counts as knowledge’? (8)
Japanese intellectual tradition
Buddhism and Confucianism
integrated perspective of mind and body
three overarching premises
oneness of humanity and nature
oneness of body and mind
oneness of self and other
foundation of the Japanese view toward knowledge
approach to management practices
martial arts – learning with the whole body (Miyamoto Takeuchi 1995)
Part III From knowledge to wisdom (1)
Definition of knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995)
conditions for knowing - tripartite account
truth condition
belief condition
justification condition
one may conclude that ‘the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing that something is the case’ are
what one is said to know be true
one be sure of it
one should have the right to be sure (culturally and contextual dependent)
From knowledge to wisdom (2)
Kinds of knowledge
experiential knowledge
from the direct connection with the environment gained through our sensory system and processed by the brain
can be seen as created by an interaction between emotional, rational and spiritual knowledge
skills
knowledge about how to do something (‘know-how’)
based on experiential knowledge but a well-structured and action oriented knowledge we get by performing repeatedly a certain task and learning by doing it
thinking skills for knowledge workers and decision makers
intuitive skills
From knowledge to wisdom (3)
knowledge claims
what we know, or we think we know
we don’t know how much we know since knowledge means both explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (experience existing in our unconscious zone and manifesting itself as ‘intuition’)
explicit knowledge is something we learn in schools and reading books (or listening to professors)
knowledge claim is what we frame in an explicit way by using a natural or symbolic language
with explicit knowledge we enter the zone of exchange between personal and shared knowledge (Dombrowski et al 2013)
From knowledge to wisdom (4)
Metaphorical thinking
thinking as a conceptual process which is primarily metaphoric (Pinker 2008)
metaphors represent much more than just linguistic expressions
involved in our thinking process, helping us to understand new concepts and ideas
metaphors are embodied in our experience and through a progressive abstraction process they lead to new meanings for less known objects or concepts (Lakoff and Johnson 1999)
From knowledge to wisdom (5)
Conceptual metaphors - composed of two different semantic
domains
a source domain where we describe the known object or concept with its structural and functional attributes
a target domain where we place the less known object or concept
Metaphorical thinking
involves a structural mapping of the known attributes and relationships from the source domain onto the target domain
(see Fig. 1.1 in Bolisani and Bratianu 2018)
for ex. ‘time is money’
From knowledge to wisdom (6)
all of the above metaphors induce a series of limitations in understanding and using the full potential of knowledge
limitations derive from the Newtonian logic, the linearity property and the illusion of measuring knowledge by using the methods developed for tangible objects and their attributes
Metaphor based on energy
knowledge is conceived like a field without any tangible attributes (Bratianu and Andriessen 2008)
fields of knowledge: rational, emotional, and spiritual
From knowledge to wisdom (7)
Rational knowledge
explicit knowledge framed by our reasoning mind and natural language
a construct following the Cartesian spirit (‘Cogito ergo sum’)
Emotional knowledge
a wordless expression of our body response to the external environment and is a direct result of emotions and feelings
subjective and context dependent
Spiritual knowledge
contains values and ethical principles and is essential in decision making
both emotional and spiritual knowledge are embedded in tacit knowledge and mixed up in the fuzzy description of experience
From knowledge to wisdom (8)
knowledge as a universal concept attracted the attention of countless efforts to define it following the rules of scientific inquiry
searching for an objective perspective and a rational eliminated all subjective aspects related to perception and bodily involvement claiming that knowledge is ‘a justified true belief’
truth and its justification cannot have the same degree of objectivity anymore
think of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applicable to quantum mechanics that states in the case of nuclear particles position and velocity cannot be measured exactly at the same time
objective attributes can be conceived as being independent of the social context, but the subjective attributes are context dependent and cannot be transferred easily to some other similar contexts
the energy metaphor constructs a new paradigm that allows for a better understanding of knowledge and offers social science researchers, managers and leaders new opportunities to influence people in times of change and uncertainty
From knowledge to wisdom (9)
Academic inquiry
‘At present the basic intellectual aim of academic inquiry is to improve knowledge. Much of the structure, the whole character, of academic inquiry, in universities all over the world, is shaped by the adoption of this as the basic intellectual aim. But, judged from the standpoint of making a contribution to human welfare, academic inquiry of this type is irrational. Three of four of the most elementary rules of rational problem-solving are violated. A revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry is needed so that the basic aim becomes to promote wisdom, conceived of as the capacity to realize what is of value, for oneself and others, thus including knowledge and technological know-how, but much else besides. This urgently needed revolution would affect every branch and aspect of the academic enterprise.’
(Maxwell 2007)
Keywords
aporia
etymology
‘true justified belief’
rationalism and empiricism
knowledge nature
kinds of knowledge
tacit and explicit knowledge
metaphorical thinking
knowledge energy
academic inquiry
Readings and supplementary sources
Readings
Bolisani, Ettore. 2018. The Elusive Definition of Knowledge. [ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318235014_
The_Elusive_Definition_of_Knowledge
Maxwell, Nicholas. 2008. From Knowledge to Wisdom. [SOR]
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom/essays/from
Supplementary
Total Philosophy: Epistemology - How we gain knowledge
2013 3:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bwoVEYEdok
The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7
2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhJ3hHK9hQ
Online Etymology Dictionary
Foundations of social science research - OEM
SOSC 1000
Lecture 3
Jan Krouzil PhD
May 18, 2021
Agenda
Announcements
Part I Social ontology
Part II Social epistemology
Part III Research methodology
Keywords
Supplementary sources
Part I Social ontology (1)
What is ‘social ontology’ about?
study of the nature and properties of the social world
concerned with analyzing the various entities in the world that arise from social
interaction
deals with the analysis of social groups
Basic questions
do social groups exist at all? If so, what sorts of entities are they, and how are they
created?
is a social group distinct from the collection of people who are its members, and if
so, how is it different?
what sorts of properties do social groups have? Can they have beliefs or
intentions?
can they perform actions? And if so, what does it take for a group to believe,
intend, or act?
Social ontology (2)
Other entities investigated in social ontology
money, corporations, institutions, property, social classes, races,
genders, artifacts, artworks, language, and law
Scope for the field
the entities explored in social ontology largely overlap with those that
social scientists work on
a good deal of the work in social ontology takes place within the social
sciences
Social ontology (3)
Social ontology - questions about the nature of the social world
one set of questions pertains to the constituents, or building blocks, of social things in general
for instance, some theories argue that social entities are built out of the
psychological states of individual people
while others argue that they are built out of actions
and yet others that they are built out of practices
still other theories deny a distinction between the social and the non-social
Social ontology (4)
Different set of questions pertains to how social categories are constructed or set up
are social categories and kinds produced by our attitudes?
by our language?
are they produced by causal patterns?
is there just one way social categories are set up, or are there many varieties of social construction?
The term ‘social ontology’
has only come into wide currency in recent years, but the nature of the social has been a topic of inquiry since ancient Greece
the field can be understood as a branch of metaphysics, the general inquiry into the nature of entities
Social ontology (5)
Key themes and innovations in the history of social ontology
ancient and early modern debates on the sources of social entities
ancient inquiries into the nature of social phenomena introduced questions that remain active today
which features of the world are products of humans or society, and which are products of nature?
what does it mean to say that something is a social creation?
the contrast between nature (phusis) and custom, law, habit, or convention (nomos)
a central concern of Sophism, a school of Greek philosophy in the fifth century BCE
sources of justice, law, and language: are these rooted in phusis or in nomos?
Social ontology (6)
ancient philosophers explored the mix between natural and human contributions in the construction of familiar features of the world
didn’t theorize much about exactly what people do in order to create the social world
instead they wrote of agreements, compacts, conventions, habits, laws, customs without paying particular notice to separating these from one another
in the early modern period, theories of these sources broadened considerably as did the variety of social phenomena being investigated
Social ontology (7)
Approaches developed in the 17th and 18th centuries include social entities as
products of covenants (Hobbes, in Leviathan 1651)
products of convention
products of God and Nature
products of the individual mind (Locke)
Problem of demarcating social ontology
which things are social?
how are they distinguished from those that are not social?
Social ontology (8)
one option for interpreting the ‘non-social entities’ is that they include only the objects of physics, chemistry, biology, and other “hard sciences”
according to some theorists, even these are socially constructed and therefore fall on the social side of the division (Pickering 1984, Woolgar 1988)
Constituents of the Social World
many positions on these matters descend from the debates between individualism versus holism that took place in the early part of the twentieth century (cf. O’Neill 1973, Udehn 2001, Zahle & Collin 2014a).
individualism - the somewhat vague thesis that the social is built exclusively out of individual people
holism - the even vaguer thesis that social entities are “sui generis”, or ontologically fundamental in some sense
Social ontology (9)
Practices and ‘embodied agency’
theories of practice developed in anthropology in the 1970s and 1980s
attention to actions, routines, and the engagement of people with the world
a range of theories are now classified under the broad rubric of ‘theories of practice’ (Bourdieu 1977, Giddens 1984)
theorists as diverse as Foucault, Garfinkel, Butler, Latour, Taylor, Ortner, and Schatzki count among the practice theorists
Social ontology (10)
What are ‘social groups’?
debate in the literature concerns the kind of entities that ‘social groups’ are - collections, classes, sets, fusions, structures, or some other kind of entity
may seem natural to think of a group as a set of people in the mathematical sense
groups can persist through changes in membership, while sets are generally understood as having their members essentially
Social ontology (11)
different approaches to groups make different commitments with regard to the entities that should be included among the social groups
e.g., committees, teams, corporations, universities, nations, races, genders, red-haired people.
some theorists also propose that social groups must have certain distinctive characteristics, such as the members being in certain cognitive states or being subject to certain norms
Group minds, collective intentionality, and ‘group agency’
can groups take actions? Can they have intentions or beliefs? Can they bear responsibility? If so, how are these to be understood?
through much of the 20th century ascriptions of intentions and actions to groups were widely regarded as either erroneous or else merely ‘summative’
that is, for a group to have an intention or take an action is merely for all the members of the group to have that intention or take that action (see Tollefsen 2015)
Social ontology (12)
Race, gender, and disability
much recent interest in social ontology has been sparked by new approaches to race, gender, disability, and related social categories
historically, erroneous ontological claims have contributed to and been used to justify social oppression
claims about the genetic nature of race, for instance, are historically tied to claims about intellectual, character, and cultural differences between racial groups
likewise, claims about the nature of gender differences are historically tied to claims about how women ought to behave
Social ontology (13)
Controversy over race categories, gender categories, and other categories
pertains both to their construction and their essential properties
the term ‘essentialism’, as applied to categories such as race and gender, has a different meaning than it does in mainstream metaphysics.
as applied to race, for instance, ‘essentialism’ is often understood as synonymous with ‘biological essentialism’ - the view that races have simple, natural, and heritable biological properties, such that every member of a racial group has that biological property
this should not be confused with a metaphysical claim that might be made by a social constructivist proposing a ‘social essence’ of race
for instance, a claim that membership in a racial group essentially involves identifying with other people for reasons of solidarity, or that it involves being descended from a historically and geographically situated population
such a theorist would flatly deny ‘essentialism’ in the old sense, while still analyzing the (socially set up) essential properties of race (for a critique of essentialism, see Phillips 2010; see also entry on race)
Social ontology (14)
questions pertaining to the metaphysics of sex and gender resemble those pertaining to race
historically, descriptive and normative categories were conflated in simplistic biological theories
an important difference between sex/gender and race, however, concerns the distinction between sex and gender (Beauvoir 1949, West & Zimmerman 1987)
many theorists propose that sexes are biological categories and that genders are categories of social norms and behaviors that are traditionally attached to sexes
other theorists argue that it is incorrect to regard sex as biological (Fausto-Sterling 2000, Butler 2004)
thus in the case of sex/gender, there are arguably multiple socially constructed categories that interact with one another
some theorists reject the distinction between sex and gender (see entry on feminist perspectives on sex and gender)
Social ontology (15)
Question of racial and gender categories
whether these are descriptively adequate categories in the first place
many of the political phenomena associated with differential treatment of groups and oppression cut across lines of race, gender, and class
some theorists of intersectionality argue that it is misleading to regard standard gender and racial groups as if they were unified (see Crenshaw 1991, McCall 2005, Jones 2014)
Social ontology (16)
a central problem in the ontology of race, gender, and other categories is that how social scientists categorize not only has ethical implications, but is affected by ethically-laden facts
some theorists challenge the idea of a purely descriptive analysis of such groups; others propose that there can be descriptive analyses, but that such analyses are a stepping stone to ethically preferable categories
Haslanger (2000, 2012) argues for the ‘ameliorative’ analysis of racial and gender categories
part of the role of social ontology is to analyze the concepts and categories that are ‘operative’ in a social system
an equally important aim is to explore how we might otherwise construct social categories with the aim of social improvement
Barnes (2016) argues for an ameliorative account of disability
Part II Social epistemology (1)
Epistemology—the study of ‘knowledge’ and ‘true justified belief’
until relatively recently was heavily ‘individualistic’ in focus
the emphasis was on evaluating doxastic attitudes (beliefs and disbeliefs) of individuals in abstraction from their social environment
social epistemology seeks to redress this imbalance by investigating the epistemic effects of social interactions and social systems
Key points
an introduction a brief review of the history of the field
discussion of central topics in social epistemology including testimony, peer disagreement, and judgment aggregation
recent approaches using formal methods to address core topics in social epistemology, as well as wider questions about the functioning of epistemic communities like those in science
questions related to social epistemology and the functioning of democratic societies
Social epistemology (2)
The phrase ‘social epistemology’
in contrast with what might be dubbed ‘individual’ epistemology
epistemology - concerned with how people should go about the business of trying to determine what is true, or what are the facts of the matter on selected topics
in the case of individual epistemology, the person or agent in question who seeks the truth is a single individual who undertakes the task all by himself/herself, without consulting others
by contrast ‘social epistemology’ is an enterprise concerned with how people can best pursue the truth (whichever truth is in question) with the help of, or in the face of, others
also concerned with truth acquisition by groups, or collective agents
Social epistemology (3)
Western epistemology
standard epistemology takes the form of individual epistemology in which the object of study is how epistemic agents, using their personal cognitive devices, can soundly investigate assorted questions
René Descartes (1637)
represents the most influential tradition in (Western) epistemology
contended that the most promising way to pursue truth is by one’s own reasoning
the question was how, exactly, truth was to be found by suitable individualistic maneuvers, starting from one’s own introspected mental contents
John Locke (1690)
insisted that knowledge be acquired through intellectual self-reliance
as he put it, ‘other men’s opinions floating in one’s brain’ do not constitute genuine knowledge
Social epistemology (4)
Social epistemology
in contrast with the individualistic orientations of Descartes and Locke,
social epistemology proceeds on the idea that information can often be acquired
from others
to be sure, this step cannot be taken unless the primary investigator has already determined that there are such people
a determination that presumably requires the use of individual resources (hearing, seeing, language, etc.)
social epistemology should thus not be understood as a wholly distinct and
independent form of epistemology but one that rests on individual epistemology
Social epistemology (5)
Shaping the field of social epistemology
the middle part of the 20th century
sociologists and deconstructionists set out to debunk orthodox epistemology
challenging the very possibility of truth, rationality, factuality, and/or other presumed desiderata of mainstream epistemology
members of the ‘strong program’ in the sociology of science challenged the notions of objective truth and factuality
argued that so-called ‘facts’ are not discovered or revealed by science but instead ‘constructed’, ‘constituted’, or ‘fabricated’
‘There is no object beyond discourse. The organization of discourse is the object’. (Latour and Steve Woolgar 1986)
Social epistemology (6)
Richard Rorty
rejects the traditional conception of knowledge as ‘accuracy of representation’ and seeks to replace it with a notion of ‘social justification of belief’
argued that there is no such thing as a classical ‘objective truth’ - merely the practice of ‘keeping the conversation going’ (Rorty 19790
other forms of deconstruction inspired by social factors but less extreme in embracing anti-objectivist conclusions about science
Thomas Kuhn (1962,1970) held that purely objective considerations could never settle disputes between competing theories; hence scientific beliefs must be influenced by social factors
Social epistemology (7)
Michel Foucault developed a radically political view of knowledge and science, arguing that practices of so-called knowledge-seeking are driven by quests for power and social domination (1969,1977)
Moral social epistemology
expanding the notion of social epistemology by incorporating moral or ethical elements
‘epistemic injustice’ - arises when somebody is wronged in their capacity as a knower (Miranda Fricker 2007)
when a person or a social group is unfairly deprived of knowledge because of their lack of adequate access to education or other epistemic resources
Social epistemology (8)
Caveats re ‘creation of knowledge’
debates about these topics persist under the heading of ‘the science wars’
within the mainstreams of both science and philosophy the foregoing views are generally rejected as implausibly radical
this does not mean that no lessons can be learned about the status of social factors in science and philosophy
offer important insight into the role of cultural beliefs and biases in the creation of knowledge
Part III Research methodology (1)
Visualizing research - schematic conceptualization
defining the concepts of research and methodology
a model of research
different types of research activities
the steps involved in research
devising a research question
Research methodology (2)
Basic elements of research
observation and data collection
descriptive research
facts (tangible and perceptible and intangible and imperceptible)
conceptualization and classification
causal theory
models & hypotheses
operationalization & experimentation
hypothesis testing
applied theory/applied theoretical research
the applied 'trial-and-error' approach
theoretical refinement
Keywords
social ontology
individual epistemology
social epistemology
individualism vs holism
essentialism
social constructivism
postmodernism
moral social epistemology
Supplementary sources
Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods in Research Simplified!
2015 11:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCOsY5rkRs8
The End of Social Science as We Know it | Brian Epstein | TEDxStanford
2015 16:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLbEKpL-5Z0&t=84s
Minor Research Assignment I
SOSC 1000 6.0 Introduction to Social Science
Jan Krouzil PhD
May 13, 2021
Length: cover page + 2 pages of text
Due date: May 27
Grade value: 5%
__________________________________________
STANDARD COVER PAGE_TEMPLATE
Course: SOSC 1000 6.0
Name: ………………………………………………
Student number: …………
Tutorial Leader’s Name: …………………….
Tutorial Number: ……
Date of submission: ……
Number of the selected social phenomenon: ..........
Primary disciplinary perspective: ……….
Professional role: …………
----------------------------------------------------------------
Social phenomena to select from:
1. knowledge (production, dissemination, consumption)
2. international migration and/or diaspora
3. social and/or cultural capital
4. loneliness and/or suicidal ideation
5. COVID-19_related social effects
6. fake news and/or ‘post-truth’
7. circular economy
8. social science discourse
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. Select a social phenomenon and write a Minor Research Assignment 1_Proposal (MRA1_P) explaining (a) why you have selected this particular social phenomenon and (b) why you think it merits further research on your part as a social science ‘concern’(cca 250 words, double spaced).
2. Provide a list of at least five social science terms and/or concepts drawn from the course material that you expect to utilize in the course of your research.
3. Select a primary disciplinary perspective (i.e., sociology, economics, psychology, etc.) from which you intend to deal with the social phenomenon and one type of a professional role as social science researcher you want to assume for the purpose of this assignment (i.e., analyst, participant observer, advocate/activist).
4. Follow the format of this template.
5. Submit an electronic copy of the MRA1_Proposal on the course Moodle website under ‘Assignments’ by May 27, 11:59 p.m. Late submissions will incur a 2%-point deduction
per day.
NOTE ABOUT YOURSELF (NAY)
Compared to regular and direct in-person class contact, learning remotely can be alienating.
To alleviate to some extent this sense of ‘social isolation’ and to re-personalize your learning experience in this course, you are encouraged to write a brief note (up to a page) to your tutor about yourself.
In composing the note you may include your extracurricular commitments and responsibilities, interests or hobbies, grade expectations, the corona virus-related restrictions experienced in your everyday life, in-person vs online learning preferences, or any matter you are comfortable conveying.
The note will be treated as strictly confidential and is non-gradable.
2

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.
Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com