<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </div>
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></div>
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman"><A href="mailto:mbevir@socrates.berkeley.edu"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></div>
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Hello Fellow Interpretationistas!<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Lately I have been reading essays written, in whole or in part, by Mark Bevir.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I am very impressed by his understanding, and practice, of interpretive social science.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, I do have a couple of concerns.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> <br>
<br>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>One is that his approach seems to dissolve all the traditional "boundaries" in the social sciences.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How can he, or any interpretive social scientist, distinguish between sociology, political science, or history?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>What is the methodological rationale, if any, for marking off these boundari
es?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Is it only a matter of self-identity?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>E.g., "I am employed in the Sociology Department, therefore whatever I do is 'sociology'"?<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Can anyone point out some literature where this problem has been resolved?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I don't think Bevir has even addressed this issue.<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Secondly, Bevir's idea of being "critical" also leaves me unsatisfied.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He seems to think that being critical is limited to such things as: </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>a) </FONT></SPAN><FONT size=3>exposing the actual relativity of claims to know what is true or right with universal intent; </FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>b) </FONT></SPAN><FONT size=3>revealing the internal contradictions in an ideology, or claim to know; </FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>c) </FONT></SPAN><FONT size=3>finding distortions of fact; or, </FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>d)</FONT></SPAN><FONT size=3>unmasking deceptions.<br>
<br>
</FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>These are all "critical" tactics from the neopositivist "logical-empirical" point of view, but this very point of view seems to me to be a self-contradiction within the interpretation framework.<SP AN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In my understanding, there cannot be a "neopositivist" value-neutral interpretive social science.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Its an oxymoron!<br>
</FONT><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><br>
Bevir says that he is committed to the view that people generally act for reasons, and that it is his job to interpret those reasons from the human behavior.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But his theory of human rationality seems to me overly technocratic; that is, lacking in any feeling for the respect that is implicit in the major part of human behavior.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He sees people as creatively responding to dilemmas as their traditional ways of acting and thinking are challenged.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But he seems unable to account for the way people generally shape those responses with some element of concern for their impact on others.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He appears to distinguish between capitalist ideologies and socialist ideologies, only by their logical properties.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He doesn’t explain why or how humans are valued differently within either belief system. In the technocratic view, humans have no more value than any of the other <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">things</I> in the world.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> <br>
<br>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>For reasons stated in my prior posts, I would like to ask Bevir how a=2
0human could be "rational" without being respectful of others?<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Consistent with this technocratic theory of rationality, Bevir's method fails to acknowledge any part played by feelings of respect for those whose meanings he sets out to interpret.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>And this seems to me to be a methodological self-contradiction.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> <br>
<br>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">To interpret the meanings of another, one person must engage the other with a substantial degree of mutuality.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is a requirement of empathy.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The other is regarded as a person in fundamental ways like oneself; that is, sentient, full of meanings, and acting for reasons.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As Polanyi points out, this relationship is a form of companionship.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Even if the other is one of those dead white guys they study in history, to understand him requires a relationship of human mutuality.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> <br>
<br>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>So, how can anyone have such a relationship without feeling some respect for the other?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That does not mean one must approve of the other’s behavior, but to know someone person-to-person is to have a respectful relationship.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There
is no such thing as an objective interpretation, and Bevir has recognized that.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>So, to interpret requires that one person engage the other as a fellow person.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Polanyi calls it an I-Thou relationship.<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Therefore, the professional conduct of interpretive social science requires having respect for the human subject.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But Bevir's approach seems overly intellectualized and perhaps alienated from the other.<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I am sure he actually does respect people, but he factors this out of his social science.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But is that intellectually honest, or fully truthful?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If you respect people as you are interpreting their meanings, isn't that a part of your methodology?<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I think it is, and we Interpretationistas ought to say it.<br>
<br>
</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Bill Kelleher</FONT></div>
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></div>
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></div>
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></div>
0A
<div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></div>
<div id='u8CAB5BC11F4ACF7-9B4-4736' class='aol_ad_footer'><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. <A title="http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014" href="http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014" target="_blank">Get the TMZ Toolbar Now</A>!</FONT> </div>