Les disciplines herméneutiques et la théorie critique sont-elles des formes de la rationalité scientifique?

Dialogue ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-326
Author(s):  
Stéphane Courtois

AbstractThe general aim of this paper is to question the idea that hermeneutic and critical social sciences have to be conceived as specific embodiments of the scientific enterprise. This idea is rather implicit in Habermas's work, but has its grounds in his thesis about the argumentative unity of all sciences, upheld for the first time in 1973. Such a point of view turns out to be untenable for two reasons. First, the indiscriminating inclusion of the hermeneutic and critical social sciences in scientific enterprise raises problems of consistency with regard to the systematic guidelines of The Theory of Communicative Action. Moreover, the thesis of argumentative unity of the sciences itself is incompatible with Habermas's methodological conception of the role of Verstehen in the social sciences developed in section 1.4 of the book. Finally, the author argues that this conception calls for another understanding of the status and role of the hermeneutic and critical disciplines, which is outlined in some detail.

Author(s):  
Milja Kurki

This chapter, first of three to develop relational cosmology in conversation with critical social theory and IR theory, argues that at the heart of relational cosmology lies a commitment to situated knowledge. This perspective on knowledge production is similar in some regards to standpoint epistemology but also diverges from it in key respects. The chapter argues that IR scholarship can benefit from close engagement with relational cosmology suggestions as to how our knowledge is limited and how we might need to ‘deal with it’, especially in the social sciences, where there is a tendency to glorify the role of the human in knowing the human.


1984 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 59-73
Author(s):  
W. Newton-Smith

A series of lectures organized in part by the Society for Applied Philosophy and entitled ‘Philosophy and Practice’ is presumably aimed at displaying the practical implications of philosophical doctrines and/or applying philosophical skills to practical questions. The topic of this paper, the role of interests in science, certainly meets the first condition. For as will be argued there are a number of theses concerning the role of interests in science which have considerable implications for how one should see the scientific enterprise in general and in particular for how one assesses the claim that science ought to be accorded its priviliged position in virtue of its results and/or methods And in view of the respect and resources accorded to science what could be of greater practical interest? It remains the case, however, that my interest may seem the inverse of that of the organizers of this series. For in looking at the role of interest in science, one is examining, so to speak, the extent to which the sphere of the practical determines what goes on in science. One is exploring ways in which the non-scientific impinges on the scientific. While my primary focus will be on the physical sciences, it will be argued that there is a significant difference between them and the social sciences; a difference which renders the social sciences intrinsically liable to penetration from outside. As will be seen, some of the particular arguments for this conclusion make pressing the question: what about philosophy? The answer, it will be concluded, is that philosophy is insulated from external influences to a considerable extent. In that lies both its importance and an explanation as to why much of it has little practical application.


1984 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 59-73
Author(s):  
W. Newton-Smith

A series of lectures organized in part by the Society for Applied Philosophy and entitled ‘Philosophy and Practice’ is presumably aimed at displaying the practical implications of philosophical doctrines and/or applying philosophical skills to practical questions. The topic of this paper, the role of interests in science, certainly meets the first condition. For as will be argued there are a number of theses concerning the role of interests in science which have considerable implications for how one should see the scientific enterprise in general and in particular for how one assesses the claim that science ought to be accorded its priviliged position in virtue of its results and/or methods And in view of the respect and resources accorded to science what could be of greater practical interest? It remains the case, however, that my interest may seem the inverse of that of the organizers of this series. For in looking at the role of interest in science, one is examining, so to speak, the extent to which the sphere of the practical determines what goes on in science. One is exploring ways in which the non-scientific impinges on the scientific. While my primary focus will be on the physical sciences, it will be argued that there is a significant difference between them and the social sciences; a difference which renders the social sciences intrinsically liable to penetration from outside. As will be seen, some of the particular arguments for this conclusion make pressing the question: what about philosophy? The answer, it will be concluded, is that philosophy is insulated from external influences to a considerable extent. In that lies both its importance and an explanation as to why much of it has little practical application.


Organization ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian P. O’Doherty

The appearance of ‘Olly the cat’ on the doorsteps of a major UK international airport provides occasion to reconsider the role of the animal in organization and offers suggestive insight into how we might have to learn new ways of being within extended multi-species or interspecies ontologies. Olly is found to lead multiple lives that cannot be reduced to the status of object or media of human intentionality. Her increasing political involvement in the management and organization of the airport challenges orthodox understanding of agency and organizational action. As the ethnography becomes progressively more implicated in the entanglements between human and animal, the concept of ‘feline politics’ is proposed and deployed. This allows research to retain focus on actions and behaviour and modes of thinking that would ordinarily be occluded by conventional modes of organizational representation. In these ways the ethnography moves beyond the interpretative and symbolic treatment of organization analysis and finds resource in the recent ‘ontological turn’ in the social sciences. Embracing what is the inevitable participation of the social sciences in the reflexive and recursive enactment of its phenomena, the ethnography discovers new potentialities and new capacities for action as emergent properties of ‘the human’ and ‘the animal’ were mutually learnt, exchanged and acquired. This article adds to what we know about the limits of management as it confronts a radical undecidability characterized by the co-existence of multiple and interacting ontological becomings.


Lituanistica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelijus Gieda

It has been emphasised on several occasions that Professor Eduard Wolter was a prominent figure and a broad-profile humanitarian in the history of Lithuanian humanities, who for many decades was actively interested in Lithuanian studies, among other things. The revolutionary changes in Russia divided Wolter’s academic career into two unequal parts: nearly forty years of academic work in Tsarist Russia and thirteen years in Kaunas. Bearing in mind the status of academic Lithuanian studies at the beginning of the twentieth century, his was an unprecedented case in Lithuania until 1940. We can claim that before 1940, no other Lithuanian humanitarian had such a long academic career of several decades devoted to Lithuanian studies. However, we still do not have an academic biography of Wolter, and Stasė Bušmienė’s work Eduardas Volteris, published almost 50 years ago, remains the most comprehensive publication in the field. Because of these circumstances, we must search for new problematic aspects, updated interpretations, and new material-based approaches. The article analyses the context of the revolutionary changes in Russia, the role of Augustinas Voldemaras in the history of the Wolters’ emigration, and Prof. Wolter’s recurrent concern about the academic possessions he had left in St. Petersburg when he was already in Lithuania. This article seeks new solutions: the emigration of the Wolter family to Lithuania is viewed as a potentially crucial knot in the professor’s biography. It allows understanding and linking two seemingly very different stages in his biography (Tsarist Russia and independent Lithuania). Lithuanian research interests and the related circle of like-minded people that had evolved in the course of many decades form a consistent deep-rooted epicentre of Prof. Wolter’s biography. The research method chosen imparts inner integrity to the biography of Prof. Wolter and an opportunity to look into the path of this scholar, who was also a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the long term perspective. This text develops and substantiates the thesis that scholars’ emigration from Bolshevik Russia took place under dire circumstances: they had to leave not only their homes but also their libraries behind, their manuscripts and much of the material accumulated over many decades of academic work. Also, from the point of view of a collective biography, the context of the loss of the old University of St. Petersburg after the Bolshevik takeover in Russia is shown. While in Lithuania, Prof. Wolter made great efforts to recover the manuscripts, the library, and the collections he had left behind in St. Petersburg. This moment justifies the emigration of the Wolter family to Lithuania as a relevant key to the whole biography of Prof. Wolter. For the first time in historiography, the article gives a detailed analysis of Augustinas Voldemaras’ 53 letters to Alexandra Wolter (translated and published by Gediminas Rudis). The letters offer an interesting and characteristic description of the actual circumstances of the emigration of the Wolter family to Lithuania. This correspondence reveals a special connection between Voldemaras and the Wolter family. Voldemaras, who had lived in the Wolters’ house in St. Petersburg for over a decade, became a true family member, and their communication in the process of the emigration of the Wolter family was best described as close familial relations. In this way, the article sheds light on the role of Prof. Voldemaras in the relocation of the Wolter family to Lithuania, which did not find reflection either in Wolter’s biography or in general historiography.


1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-8

One of the fields of sociology which is experiencing a dramatic explosion is that catch‐all area of Women's Studies. Books and articles touching on women's experiences in the labour market or in the home, the education of girls or images of femininity, the impact of the law on women or sexism in the social sciences have been proliferating in the last decade. Much of the impetus has been provided by the renascent Women's Movement, and the various academic concerns echo the diverse attacks on the status quo being made by politically active women. The one thing which holds all this material together is an explicit concern to bring women to the centre of the stage in the social sciences, instead of leaving them (as they so often have been) in the wings or with mere walk‐on parts. Taking the woman's point of view is seen as a legitimate corrective to the tendency to ignore women altogether. But is this sufficient to constitute the nucleus of a new speciality within sociology, which is what seems to be happening to ‘Women's Studies’ and ‘feminist’ social science? More seriously, should sociological discussions of women be ghettoised into special courses on women in society? As a preliminary attempt to redress the balance maybe such separate development can be justified, but if that is all that happens, the enriching potential of feminist social science may well be lost to mainstream sociology. It is not just that feminist social scientists want women to be brought in to complete the picture. It is not just that they claim that half the picture is being left unexposed. The claims are often much more ambitious than that: what much feminist writing is attempting is a demonstration of the distortion in the half image which is exposed. An injection of feminist thinking into practically any sociological speciality could lead to a profound re‐orientation of that field. More than this, a feminist approach can indicate the ways in which traditional boundaries between sociological specialities can obscure women and their special position in society. Feminist social scientists throw down the gauntlet on the way in which the field of sociology has traditionally been carved up. But if women's studies are kept in their ghetto, this challenge will be lost: to me, the explicitly critical stance which feminist research takes with respect to mainstream sociology is one of its most exciting qualities, and such research has important insights to contribute to the development of the discipline.


Author(s):  
Aukje A.H. van Hoek

EU law recognizes the regulatory role of social partners—the bodies representing management and labour—but provides neither a legal nor a fully developed conceptual framework. An output analysis of the texts produced by the social partners demonstrates that they fulfil a variety of functions, both as stakeholders and co-regulators. However, only a small percentage of the documents produced in the European social dialogue have the status of EU collective agreements. It is the latter group which is most interesting from the point of view of regulation. A further analysis tracks the different interactions between EU law and EU collective agreements and highlights the tension between horizontal and vertical subsidiarity created by the REFIT agenda.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 160940692090993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice Morse

When examining the changes in society and the concomitant changes in research methods in the last century, unquestionably qualitative inquiry has been superseded by quantitative methods and had to work to find its niche in the social sciences. Here, I explore the push factors that have made space for the establishment and legitimization of qualitative inquiry. I discuss what we are doing well in qualitative methods, then examine the status quo—present worries, concerns, and future trends. I present three major problems that need attention, critique, and resolution in qualitative methods to further strengthen our foothold as we move forward. Methodological development is one of the primary purposes of the International Institute of Qualitative Methods (IIQM). In closing, I examine the role of the IIQM in the global development of qualitative methods.


Author(s):  
O. L. Protasova ◽  

The elements of the ideological platform of the People’s Labor Socialist Party (PLSP) concerning the issue of statehood are analyzed. For the first time in the historical and legal literature, a comparison was made of the basic features of a welfare state from a modern point of view and its obvious components presented in the political program of moderate populism. It is shown that the PLSP differed from other socialist parties in its pronounced consistent etatism, paying great attention to the issue of the role of the progressive state as a moderator of the relationship between the individual and society. It is concluded that it was this party that proposed one of the first projects of state structure in Russia, the meaning and content of which anticipated the general trend towards the construction of socio-legal states of post-war European democratic socialism.


2021 ◽  
pp. 159-173
Author(s):  
Rosa Sierra

AbstractThe chapter presents the design and content of a sustainability research project in the humanities and the social sciences, as well as some methodological and theoretical guidelines from two different transformational frameworks that were assessed in the project. It then outlines the tension that emerges when we consider transformation from the point of view of processes and try to integrate the role of agency, especially of actors that contest structures or processes rather than initiating or supporting them. It finally explores how this tension challenges the assessed frameworks and which aspects of them can be stressed in order to face the challenge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document