Re: Social Science, Science, and Empirical Study

I wrote:

<Yet, if we look at the use of the term ‘materialist’ as it’s used in public (which, at more of a defined scholarly level I agree, is a model that posits a universe of objective, static-state matter {set against another view of the cosmos as being one of fluid-dynamism with layer upon layer of matter-force-energy relationships within itself}) there’s a level of meaning that’s not in the definitions; a level of meaning having more to do with what I call normalism, manifest objects, ‘what you see is what you get’, and the idea that matter is “just stuff” (as I’ve explained in earlier posts here on WSN). 

The ‘materialism’ of the “Material Girl” (Madonna) is a very different materialism from the ‘materialism’ [and thus the empirically-focused materialism] of scientists.  And its different even from the materialism of social scientists: among whom, of the more pragmatic., utilitarian., domestically-oriented social science variety – which is itself almost indistinguishable from social work and human services – there’s the most similarity to this media-driven materialism of the public sphere. 

Even Professor Andre Gunder Frank is a [historical] materialist; and nowhere do I really see in his works even this other kind of materialism I’ve mentioned.  For all intensive purposes, it’s not there because this other (consumerist, commercialized) materialism is really not the materialism of scientists and social scientists.  It’s a cheap, superficial substitute (which, if social scientists ever thought of embracing or have done so already out of pragmatic, utilitarian concerns involving a commitment to concrete, ‘relevant’ social issues), they should abandon it for a less shallow model.>

Thinking about this again, I wanted to make an important qualification.  There’s probably a perfectly valid argument to be made along the lines that the consumerist, commercialized materialism of the public (‘Public Materialism’ => PM) is the same materialism as “historical materialism” (where “”economics”” becomes the driving force of human history).  I may be wrong on this matter  though [if I am please do inform me …]; but I am still not convinced yet that HM = PM.

One big reason ||è PM (which is a consumerist, commercialized materialism) is far too much of a media-driven ethos/pathos to constitute the same paradigm as “historical (economic) materialism.”  It’s related more to advertising, news, and entertainment [and how particular corporate & sometimes non corporate organizations use such means to influence the public][= “behaviorism”] than to the basic laws and processes and principles of [naturally-occurring], behaviorally-framed human economic activity [= “behavioralism” or “behavioral-culture”]. 

{{And, even if social and economic behavior is learned – & not innate – it is not completely a socioeconomic social convention/social construction.  As soon as the said behavioral pattern becomes more crystallized over generations and internalized in peoples psyches and longstanding actions over time, then “nature” is shaped & habits formed.  The “learned behavior” becomes “natural” and is by this point no longer is either artificial or synthetic; it becomes part of the person himself/herself and thus part of one’s – albeit ‘situated’ - identity}}

If there’s to be no distinction between HM and PM in the social sciences - and no difference in the real world between the two materialisms - then empirically we run into problems (as well as theoretically, factually, & ethically).  No difference [along with the premises that techne/praxis are on principle the driving features of Science beside scientia & noesis] means that human behavior can be somewhat defined also (at least according to the ideas and content used by advertising agencies, entertainment media, and to a lesser extent certain ‘news’ organizations) in a loosely, but still, deterministic fashion [as a host of extrinsic behaviors and emotions in people are hit upon via slick ad campaigns, glossy photos, catchy slogans, and whatever else -> in magazines, in newspapers, tv, radio, movies and online.][For, without a clear set of distinctions between PM and HM (and between true social science and this pseudo [social] science which fixates on the never-ending soap opera of the contemporary, the subject matter of our economics, psychology, sociology, political science, and organizational behavior all ends up becoming equivalent to the ‘outward structure’ as well as the driving, underlying basis of ,( i.e., the ‘soul’) of our current “mass culture” in the modern world (esp. in the US and the West)] … And, once that happens, then there is no way of differentiating between what we do as social scientists and the framework which others employ, that model which is more commonly known as “social engineering.”

 

We are not social engineers; but without a good set of distinctions and concepts to drive that point home to the public and our critics, we will be mistaken for being such.  That is why it’s utterly crucial to maintain this special distinction – most importantly in social science – between scientia/noesis (episteme) and praxis/techne.  If we don’t make such distinctions, showing how our praxis/techne is even different from that of both social workers on a more localized level and those who engage in “social engineering” on a more regionally-based level, then we an injustice to our field and academia as a whole.

 

Having said that, I’ve a question.  Does anyone on the List have a good well-conceived idea of how “Fundamental Indeterminacy” (+ chaos and complexity) would work in regards to human behavior and the study of the social sciences? …

 

Luke R.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes