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]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335911696_The_Nature_of_Social_Reality_Issues_in_social_ontology

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

https://www.etymonline.com/

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

RESEARCH PROPOSAL_GUIDE

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