Re: Re1: constructive typology

Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:43:18 +0600
Nikolai S. Rozov (rozov@adm.nsu.nsk.su)

I am very grateful to Jack Owens for detailed comments to the
"Constructive Typology of Societal Systems" which was posted on 25
January 1995 by me (Nikolai S. Rozov) and I would like now to clear
some questions of the 1st part of Jack's message.

Jack: It seems to me that the test of the value of a societal
typology should be the degree it assists in the analysis of human
action, where adequate account is taken both of the relatively stable
factors and of change...

Nikolai: I doubt that it is the unique or main test. The major role of
human action analysis belongs to rather old sociological tradition
(M.Weber, P.Sorokin, T.Parsons). My position is more close to the
modern sociology (f.e. by A.Giddens) and integrated social-historical
sciences (I.Wallerstein) which deal also with macrosocial events,
structures and processes, long-term trends, political, military and
economic blocks, international conflicts and wars, hegemonies, etc.
I don't think that issues of this kind can be reduced to human
actions problematique (although they surely include human actions).
Namely for macrosociological problems and problems of theoretical
history (von Bertalanffy) we need a clear taxonomy (typology) of societal
systems (w-s, societies, civilizations, etc.)

Nikolai Jan 25: The taxons in typology should not differ
essentially in volume and meaning from their correspondent
concepts.
(The task is not a terminological revolution but
conceptual clarification and systematization.)

Jack: Nikolai, could you explain what you mean here?

Nikolai: I tried again but it occured too long. This point is not very
principal and I will send an answer directly to Jack and
anybody else who is interested.

Nikolai Jan 25. R3. The criteria of "essential" must be flexible
because of development of our thought, research interests and values.

Jack: I wonder if it would not be useful to recognize the need for
flexibility also exists because a group we study may have developed
in such a way that the "essential" changes.

Nikolai: I agree but I would like to emphasize the significance of OUR
more or less voluntary EPISTEMOLOGICAL DECISIONS of what features of
group (societal system) in definite historical period we consider as
essential in given study.

Nikolai Jan 25: R4. The typology should be provided with the
criteria and methods for empirical identification of s-systems.

Jack: My assumption here is that the ultimate goal is comparison.
Is this an accurate conclusion, Nikolai?

Nikolai: It's a pity I cannot agree with you here, Jack. I have
nothing agains comparison method and tradition in history but why
should be comparison an ultimate goal for typology or any
other mean of analysis?
To be honest I suppose that the comparative approach is one of
the primary empirical stages in research process. Really, when we lack
a system of general concepts and theories what else can we do as to
make comparison descriptions? I think that comparison is one
of euristic ways (means, methods, research techniques) for
distillating and creation of general concepts, paradigms and
theories.
The interest to comparing world-systems (f.e. writings of
Chris Chase-Dann) tells me that w-s analysis is still a young
discipline. I appreciate very much that Chris and other
scholars pay more attention not to details of comparison but
to invention of new conceptual tools of analysis.
After the elaboration of sufficient conceptual
apparatus new research tasks will be more actual.
My own version of ultimate goal of research is rather traditional
(see f.e. K.Popper or I.Lakatos) - to invent a complex of flexible
deductive theories that can be applied for setting and solving of
explanation, prediction and practical problems.
Surely it's only my private position and this question is
open for discussion.
Nikolai
##################################################################
Moderator of the e-list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory)
Nikolai S. Rozov,
Ph.D., Dr.Sc.(Social Philosophy)
Dept.Philosophy, Novosibirsk State University
ADDRESS: 630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, Russia
FAX: 7/3832/35 52 37
E-MAIL: rozov@adm.nsu.nsk.su
##################################################################