jacob levy: i still luv u, man
A few days ago, I wrote a ranking of research and listed “history of social thought” as last. Jacob Levy wrote:
Dude. I thought we were friends.
What makes you think that philosophical or intellectual-historical work doesn’t have problems or solutions and is categorically different from everything else?
First, Jacob, you will always have a special place in my heart. You know that. Second, a little context is in order. The context of the original post was “social science,” not philosophy. The purpose of social science is to come up with well supported explanations of the social world. In some cases, there genuinely needs to be a philosophical or conceptual side to the project. For example, conceptually, social capital research is a bit of a mess. Also, it can help to consult classic texts. I’ve done so many times.
That being said, philosophical and historical work *usually* doesn’t do the heavy lifting in social science. If you take any serious advance in social science, it usually doesn’t rely too much on history of social thought or philosophy. Depending on the discipline, progress often always relies on better model building, data collection, or re-analysis – activities that philosophers would certainly say is not philosophy. Honestly, it’s hard to learn about the Black-White test score gap by rereading John Rawls or even social science classics like Max Weber.
Regarding your last statement, I said nothing about philosophy or intellectual history. I’d hazard that the ranking of what constitutes important research would likely be reversed. A dazzling solution to an empirical problem might be irrelevant in philosophical terms. Do political philosophers care at all about the current identification craze in economics and political science? I don’t think they should.
Bottom line: Jacob Levy and I are still friends.
Fabio: You are coming off as one of those ‘just theory’ guys. ;) Or — ‘philosophy, what is it good for?’ I think we swim in both.
(And, to get nit-picky, I don’t know where the boundaries are here between theory, philosophy, concepts, models, etc.)
teppo
October 21, 2010 at 5:27 am
“That being said, philosophical and historical work *usually* doesn’t do the heavy lifting in social science.”
Phenomenology. Historical materialism. The Annals School. Pragmatism. Postmodernism. The work of Deleuze. All these have done heavy-duty work in the advancement of social science.
Guillermo
October 21, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Oh, and World-Systems Theory.
Guillermo
October 21, 2010 at 1:22 pm
@Teppo: I am not sure if I am “just theory,” but I do believe in a division of labor. Most social science is simply not terribly philosophical and that’s ok. Let’s be honest, how many articles in AMJ or AMR would have anything that resembles philosophy (aside from the most honorable work emenating from Finland)?
@Guillermo: Let’s stop throwing names and start getting specific. Here is a list of extremely important social science problems. Explain to me how pragmatism or Deleuze (who I like,actually) can help me understand these issues:
- the expansion of income inequality in America
- do early childhood interventions cause improvements later in life?
- why have China and India suddenly increased their wealth?
- has the Internet changed the way we associate with other?
I am not counting world systems theory because it is not philosophy or history of thought. It’s actually regular social science with a lot of arguments about facts and just a little about philosophy. Same with Annales history. Tons of facts, some philosophy. Also, I bet more philosophers wouldn’t consider WST or Annales to be philosophical.
fabiorojas
October 21, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Fabio, I think you will find that many sociological theories contribute zip to your mentioned issues.
The way you frame your question is not balanced at all (which is actually a point originating in philosophy (logic)).
Anonymous
October 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Anon: This is not a fair or balanced blog. I decide!
fabiorojas
October 21, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Fair enough, inconsistency has always been an academic virtue. Or, wait…
Anonymous
October 21, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Fabio: you’re moving the goalposts. Your original statement was:
“That being said, philosophical and historical work *usually* doesn’t do the heavy lifting in social science.”
I think it would be very hard to answer three of your questions without resorting heavily to history, and the fourth one without some insights gained from philosophy, but that’s beside my point. Of course philosophy cannot by itself explain China’s economic growth, because by its very nature, that discipline is concerned with more general truths. However, philosophers have offered attempts to answer the following questions, among others: what is social action? What is causation in the social sciences? What is a social structure? What is the relationship between structure and agency? What is the relationship between subject and object in the social world? To me, those endeavours constitute “heavy lifting work in social science”. You clearly see it in a different way.
Guillermo
October 22, 2010 at 1:48 am
[...] writings on any problem” and “History of social thought.” The second clarified to the effect of, “No, we don’t hate theorists at all–but just look at [...]
Theoria › Ranking Sociology?
October 22, 2010 at 6:32 pm
I admit that I do not know Deleuze’s work well – read some in college, and know a bit more because a friend here at UNC studies him in greater depth. But the broader question of sort of “what can philosophy tell me about big sociological questions, e.g.:
the expansion of income inequality in America
do early childhood interventions cause improvements later in life?
why have China and India suddenly increased their wealth?
has the Internet changed the way we associate with other?
”
strikes me as really myopic, for reasons Guillermo outlines in his response.
To ask about the expansion of income inequality, you need to understand what income is, what’s important about it–and why we think about it vis-a-vis, say, wealth, assets, etc. To know whether early childhood interventions cause improvements later in life, you need to know what it means to “cause,” how and why to exclude other potential causes, and (probably the most loaded term) what “improvement” means and why.
Ditto down the line. To suggest that these questions don’t rely on the philosophical or pseudophilosophical decisions they entail is foolish – rather like saying that aerodynamics isn’t important to my plane flight, it’s really the thrust the engines put out!
andrewperrin
October 23, 2010 at 3:07 am