Social Science - Is/Ought - Problem of Ought

(Final installment of the "is"/"ought" essay)(Luke Rondinaro)

____________________________________________

Social Science and the Problem of  “Is”/”Ought” ---

 

**********

 

In the last segment of this essay, I discussed the problem of “Is.”  I related the concepts of (“sociological overlay”/”underlying substrate”) to the framework of social constructs & activities of our modern world.  This occurs via the legal system that defines modern organizations (with their activities) into being through the strictures of law and through the media that continually keeps the public focused on those selfsame organizations.  Thus the memial notion of there being a real organizational social entity called McDonald’s is transmitted, picked up on, and bought by the public (who, by perceiving or seeing it in the media, actually imagines it into being as a real social entity, even though at most it’s no more than a news headline and/or a reality on paper)(i.e., a social-economic structure that is defined almost entirely through a media-based and legal setting).

 

Now, it’s time to move onto the problem of “Ought.”  There are a number of different ways to approach the overall idea of (ethics/values/normative concerns) in the social sciences.  On the one hand, we’re referring to what individuals should do on the local, regional, and global level of a more universalized social reality of human affairs.  On the other hand, we’re talking about the “ought” of large-scale social groups and institutions (what social groups of varying sizes should do).  We’re discussing the obligations of such groups to -> individuals, other groups, and humanity as a whole.  The individual obviously has obligations to larger human communities; but in a similar way, social groups themselves have a duty to help both individuals and other groups of people (including the whole of the human race, both now and in the future).  The essence of the social scientist’s work (in this sense) – like that of the public official and the social worker - is to help make life better for people in our world & not merely to maintain the social-political-economic context of the status-quo in human affairs.

 

Yet another way of framing the “ought” question is to consider whether the object of one’s investigation is either a social structural system/unit that needs to be changed in some way (“The healthcare system in the United States needs to be fixed …”)(i.e., the “ought” of bringing about a new “is” in a structural-operative sense) or else a value or set of values that’s needs to be inculcated within a given population (e.g., “the American people need to learn the virtue of a collective ethos …”).  In other words, the one model of “ought” is based in social construction and re-structuring (i.e., social mechanics) while the other is a values-oriented model based in ethical principles and values.  Working for an end to “poverty” is a very different thing from socializing the healthcare industry in America.  Obviously something’s being changed in both instances, but in the latter case the object in mind is the reworking of (or “tinkering” with) social structures rather than the alleviation of a socially and economically-based problem.  The first objective is value-based; it’s rooted in the arousal of empathy/sympathy in the public so that, both they, and their representatives act to alleviate and end such poverty at its structural & behavioral roots.  The second objective is structurally based and rooted in the creation/ manipulation/restructuring of social constructs.  It seeks a level of change based more in social mechanics (& the re-working of structural units) rather than actually penetrating down to the depths of human behavior or to the roots of human social activity in any sort of organic, dynamic, (evolution-based) way over time.  Plain and simple:  it’s tinkering with social structures without any reference to the behavioral roots of human activity in world history; it seeks its end not in social dynamics & the organic, evolutionary roots of human behavior over the ages but in the applied principles of social mechanics.  Instead of considering the real behavioral dynamics behind the Microsoft Corporation and its organizational system (i.e., the flowchart, bylaws, etc.), this model of normative/ pragmatic and structurally oriented social science devotes itself solely to the mechanics of the “sociological overlay” and its constructs.  Instead of looking beyond the “issue” of healthcare in a socio-legal and media-based context – and examining the real behavioral roots of HMO troubles, the problem of medical specialization vs. general practice, nursing shortages, and so forth – this model focuses only on constructs in the overlay and the surface (structured) processes associated with such in the framework of the healthcare system.

 

Suffice it to say, social “tinkering” poses problems ethically, practically, structural-functionally, systematically, and organically/social dynamically in the sense of human evolution over time. 

 

Ethically and morally, social ‘engineering’ is wrong.  People aren’t like cattle to be herded.  And, while it is society’s responsibility to help people (as individuals or in groups) normatively or structurally-speaking to the best of its ability, society (along with its leaders)(in the same respect) does not have the right to lord it over people or consider them to mere cogs/ resources in the machinery of state-craft.  People as individuals and in groups have an inherent personal dignity that’s to be respected; but at the same time there are social responsibilities that must be respected as well (i.e., the establishment of a just, living wage, preferential option for the poor, etc.)  Social engineering (or “tinkering”) itself can’t secure these goods.  Only the instillation of correct ethical principles within the public-at-large can bring them about.

 

In a practical sense, too, social “tinkering” is problematic.  How can someone possibly expect there to be a quick fix to the social malaise of our world?  Did the creation of “Yugoslavia” dispel the tensions that existed for years among the Serbians and their neighbors? … It didn’t.  Did the creation of “Israel” with respect to Jews and Palestinians?/Will it happen with “Palestine?” … It didn’t and it won’t.  Did structural-constructionist attempts at solving the problem of ethnic strife between the Hutus and Tutsis work in Africa?  … Not really.  The point is:  brokering peace deals, solving problems of ethnic tension/conflict/strife through state creation, peace keeping military missions, and so on do not work by themselves.  These kinds of activities hardly ever get at the longstanding behavioral roots of such problems and worse yet – by trying to do these things metaphorically “overnight” – they actually exacerbate such troubles.  There are no quick fixes to social problems.  Period.  There are structural solutions that can be applied, I agree, but they take time to work (and more importantly, they must be grounded in the organic, evolutionary context of human behavior over generations).  Without such a context, our structural solutions to social problems fall apart much the same way our social constructs do.  Entropy consumes all of this (as really it does pretty much with everything in a physical sense)(and yet the more organically-derived things and fluid dynamics systems – biological systems, natural environments, social groups and communities that last more than a [generation/century/so forth] - tend to hold up better than either our social constructs in the modern sense or our material technology)(organic principles for some reason still rule the day).  So, even in this sense, without reference to fluid dynamics or organic social evolution in terms of deep-structured human behavior, the normative principle that I defined here a few paragraphs ago still holds.  Structural-functionally and systematically speaking, social “tinkering” still is problematic.

 

The only way of getting at a (structural-functionalist/systematic) set of solutions for our world’s social problems is by grounding those solutions in the organic-evolutionary/fluid dynamic context of human behavior over time.  This is a balanced approach between the ideal of social action on the one hand and the more laissez faire oriented ideal of letting a social system remain “as is” in its processes without outside intervention.  Yes, there is social action … and yes there can be structural-operative as well as normative solutions to social problems … but they must be framed in the organic, behavioral context of (naturally-social) human activities over time in world history.  If they are not, then these solutions will fail … (True solutions to social problems require time, an organic behavioral context, and perhaps most importantly an evolutionary frame of reference – a frame that inspires in us a sense that nature – over and above our paltry notions of “natural selection” – takes care of its own)(that nature itself and time provides us the basic tools for solving our world’s social problems)(that ultimately we too are part of our natural world and the cosmos)(citizens of our universe and players in that game we call “nature.”)  This is the essence of a true solution to our social problems.

 

**********

 

The term “problems” itself, in Social Science and Psychohistory, is problematic.  It reduces all social experience to pathology.  What are the social/economic problems of human social existence? … What are the psycho-historical problems of social existence? … What are the psychogenic/sociogenic dilemmas of human social experience and, in turn, are they reducible to demography, distribution of wealth, childhood traumas and sociological/emotional maladies (that only the likes of Weber, Marx, Durkheim, and Freud could diagnose and help to treat)?   These questions point to the contradiction

within social science between the highest aspirations of the discipline in terms of  one’s (theory/ method/content) and its pragmatic methodology to try & solve “social” problems.  But not all “problems” in the social sciences refer to human pathology or social maladies.  Studying the Market Crash that led to the Great Depression (though it certainly relates to the socioeconomic malaise of the period – and hence relates to how one should prepare for and handle future Depressions) is very different from a study of poverty in present-day Afghanistan; the end of such is different and the purpose is very different from the former to the latter example.  It’s a difference between the study of

“is-for-is” and the study of “is-for-ought” [i.e., the study of the economic causes of the Great Depression in a socio(economic)-behavioral sense versus the study of Afghan poverty for the purpose of alleviating that poverty through either aid programs and/or changing the social structure in Afghanistan whereby the problem itself will have been treated - in as much as it can or could be – cured.] 

 

To sum up, Social Reality isn’t just about social “problems” (in a pathological sense) and neither should social science be merely about that in terms of its case studies and practical issues.  We are more (much more!) than our social and psychological ills.  So, therefore, our social science should be more than that too.  True, we can and should work for a better “ought” in the world, but let us never forget our “is” is much more than a set of social problems that need to be fixed.

 

**********

**********

 

 

“Ought”, too, is multifaceted just as “is”, itself, is multi-dimensional.  In writing this essay, it’s been my intention to raise an issue and hopefully to bring up a few questions I thought needed to be asked.  Having gotten to this point, then, I open the matter up for discussion … What am I missing logically and conceptual in terms of my argument?  What sorts of examples don’t fit with (or disprove) my developing hypothesis?  (If anyone could provide me with some further suggestions/insights on this matter, I would be most greatful.  Thank you for all your assistance in this regard.  Best! ) (Luke R.)

 

 

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online at Yahoo! Greetings.