Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:00:48 -0500 From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> Marsh, You got me! But I have a confession to make. I am less interested in what Marx really meant (or even in what Bhaskar really meant/means) than in what the people on this list make of their words. These posts are helping me to figure out what I really think. Do I sound incurably narcissistic? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Marshall Feldman [mailto:marsh-AT-uri.edu] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:43 PM To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science Dick, I just can't resist pointing out: and look at you now, an active participant on the Bhaskar List (where we debate what Marx really meant by materialism. fetishism, etc.) Marsh P.S. I dropped out of SDS soon after some people told me I shouldn't go to Woodstock because it was counter-revolutionary hip capitalism. I didn't go and have always regretted it. Hell, I don't want a revolution that I can't dance to. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of Moodey, > Richard W > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:21 PM > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science > > > Hi Marsh, > > You're right, there is a goat. I don't disagree with you that Geertz > is not the last word on description. The question to which I was > responding was about some treatments of description in social science, > and I think that Geertz makes some good points about description. One > is that there is always interpretation involved in social science > descriptions, and the second is that events and situations are > interpreted differently by different participants. So if a social > scientist seeks to describe such an event or situation, he would do > well to recognize that there are both multiple standpoints, and that > the descriptions given from these different standpoints are "layered," > in that participants understand, if only partially, the perspectives > of others and interpret the interpretations of those others. The > ethnographer becomes a participant in the events and situations he > describes, and the others interpret his interpretations, as well. In > this sense he is not privileged. > > Social scientists often seek to transcend the differences in > interpretations, and the relativism that results from the assertion > that no perspective if privileged. I think that this comes from > moving from description to explanation, and from subjecting tentative > explanations to verification and falsification. > > As you point out, social scientists submit to their disciplines, and > this involves not only a special vocabulary, but also a willingness to > subject their propositions about this event/situation to evaluation by > the criteria of judgment that are accepted by their scientific > communities. I do think this sets social science apart from common > sense. > > An aside about the 60s -- I went to some SDS meetings at the > University of Chicago, where I was a grad student in the 60s, but was > driven away by the heated discussions of what Marx actually meant in > one place or another. For one who felt relief from having left > training to become a Jesuit priest, this seemed too much like the > theological discussions of the Bible that I had come to regard as > fruitless. > > Best regards, > > Dick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Feldman [mailto:marsh-AT-uri.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:02 AM > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science > > > Dick, > > I'm familiar with Geertz's work, particularly his essay on thick > descriptions (if it's the one I'm thinking of -- does he talk about a > goat?). It seems to me that Giddens and Geertz are talking about two > rather separate things. Geertz is talking about the multiple meanings > and fluid overlaps in everyday life; Giddens, about two very separate > linguistic communities. We all exist in multiple communities, but the > boundaries between them are not firm. For instance, here in the small > town where I live, I have a friend who went to the same college and > high school as I did. He even went to parties in my apartment in > college and remembers my roommates, but we don't remember knowing each > other when we were in college (If you remember the 60s you weren't > part of them). Moreover, even though he's a professional story teller > (how ironic), he's interested in lots of the same intellectual > stuff as I am. So we share a great deal more with each other in > this regard than we do with most other > people in this town. But these common overlaps are part of the > randomness of life with no institutional barriers separating us. > There are other people in our town who share parts of this > experience (going to high school in New York, belonging to SDS, > not remembering the 60s, etc.). So rather than belonging to a > distinct linguistic community, they share parts of our > understanding of the past with us and not others. On the other > hand, social science is a very distinct linguistic community that > requires discipline to join. I don't think the difference between > it and the things it studies are fortuitous or matters of degree. > There's something distinct about this difference that sets it > apart from some of the other differences I mentioned. > > As for privilege, I think social science should be privileged in some > ways, just as the meanings of the actors being studied should be > privileged in other ways. > > Marsh Feldman > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of > > Moodey, Richard W > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:41 AM > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science > > > > > > Marsh, > > > > Yes, the term is Giddens'. Geertz's notion of thick description > > includes, but goes beyond the two perspectives of the double > > hermeneutic to a multi-layered perspective, in which the > > interpretation of any particular social scientist is just one more > > layer, without being "privileged." It is one interpretation added > > to the other layers, and it enters into the fabric of social reality > > being interpreted by the other participants. My understanding of > > Giddens' notion is that he also includes the community's > > interpretation of the social scientists' descriptions and > > explanations of them. > > > > Dick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marshall Feldman [mailto:marsh-AT-uri.edu] > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:04 PM > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science > > > > > > Dick, > > > > I think the term "double hermeneutic" is Giddens'. He uses it to > > distinguish between the community under study and the social > > scientists doing the studying. It nonetheless is true that in daily > > parlance, meaning is multi-layered. However, I think this obscures > > Giddens' point, which is that there are fundamentally two > > hermeneutics in social science: that of the scientific community > > (class, social structure, surplus value) and that of the community > > under study. This compares with most natural sciences, in which the > > thing under study (stars, chemicals, > > atoms) have no hermeneutic and therefore the sciences have a single > > hermeneutic. However, some natural sciences, zoology, may actually > > have a double hermeneutic too. For example, I remember hearing that > > scientists have identified at least 25 different "words" that > > elephants use. I don't suppose they know yet if the elephants can be > > sarcastic or ironic in their usage, or if perhaps a word has certain > > connotations to an Indian eleph ant but different ones to an > > African elephant. > > > > Marsh Feldman > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of > > > Moodey, Richard W > > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 7:44 PM > > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > > Subject: RE: BHA: Description in social science > > > > > > > > > Steve and Karl, > > > > > > Clifford Geertz in "The Interpretation of Culture" (1973) develop > > > the notion of "thick description," which he argued is the > > > essential task of the ethnographer. It involves taking the > > > viewpoint of all the participants in an event, including their > > > viewpoints on the viewpoints of the others. Such description is > > > thick, because it is multi-layered. It is not a "double > > > hermeneutic," but a "multiple hermeneutic." > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: karl.maton [mailto:karl.maton-AT-ntlworld.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 1:34 PM > > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > > Subject: Re: BHA: Description in social science > > > > > > > > > Fleetwood, Steve wrote: > > > > > > >Dear all > > > > > > > >I am trying to think through the idea that the provision of an > > > >adequate explanation requires an adequate description. Whilst > > > >there is plenty of literature on explanation in social science, > > > >there seems to be little on description. Can anyone help me out > > > >here? > > > > > > > >Regards > > > > > > > >Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm being a bit behind here ... but I was going through some > > > emails and thought you might be interested in a non-philosophical > > > discussion of description. Basil Bernstein writes about two > > > languages of description, an internal and an external one, when > > > discussing theories and knowledge structures. He then relates this > > > to how theories should provide principles of description to enable > > > empirical research. There's lots more ... he talks about these > > > things specifically in relation to his own conceptual framework > > > and empirical research, so it might be an interestingly concrete > > > discussion. I'll stop now in case it's not and because someone > > > seems to be beating my head in, if this headache is to be > > > believed. (Or maybe it's a mirage). > > > > > > -- > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Karl > > > > > > Karl Maton > > > > > > Email: karl.maton-AT-ntlworld.com > > > Email: karlmaton-AT-hotmail.com > > > URL: http://www.KarlMaton.com > > > > > > This is your life and its ending one minute at a time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005