Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Critical Sociology Dialectical

    Uploaded by

    The Engineer of Albion
    5 views17 pages
    Critical Sociology Dialectical

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Critical Sociology Dialectical

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views17 pages

    Critical Sociology Dialectical

    Uploaded by

    The Engineer of Albion
    Critical Sociology Dialectical

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 17
    ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DIALECTICAL METHOD Pact, Paowucer Eastern Kentucky University Abst [Jurn confusions. Mary aso considered chat his science compared well meeting Introduction One fimdamental problem coloring the history of interpretations of Marx's work is rooted in his lack of expositional clarity in making explicit his dialectical methodological procedures. This has been compounded by an additional problem in conceptual practice: What is the relation- ship becwcen hhis yeuctal sociology viz. historical materialism—and his study of capitalist society specifically—viz. the critical analysis of the capitalist mode of production? And, to complicate matters further, these two problems are often conflated with Marx's contribution to the his tory of the socialist/communist political-evolutionary project. Clearly then, within Marx’s work there exists divergent, though often overlap- ping, goals, foci, and interests that are not always clearly related. In his social scientific moments, nevertheless, the common thread that exists is his use of the dialectical method. Before Marx had even died signs of trouble in interpreting Cepital had already begun to appear. The number and quality of prefaces added to the first volume testify « te Fact that they continued despite his attempts to answer critics and quell problems in understanding—not to mention, as he points out, to correct errors. He seemed to recognize that one of the central difficulties in Capital was a lack of clarity over shat brand af science informed it what instfied his nresentation of a, ASSIIMPTIONS OF THE DIALECTICAL METHOD 7 data, and his drawing of conclusions. Today, the justifiable and uni- versally agreed upon opinion is that Marx’s method is dialectical. But, what is meant by the term? There is scarcely little agreement. Should one trace it back to Aristotle or Hegel? Should one trace out the series of debates and presentations surrounding Marv’s use of dialectics in the literature? If so, should one focus on the philosophers of science or the methodalogists of sociology? Should an explicit setting of debates be a goal, or a fair presentation of the overall method? Across them, all sicutific snciliuds are organized by at least three things—central assumptions, sets of attendant concepts, and basic research procedures. The more closely these three realms fit each other, the more clegant the science. When Mars reported that he would like to make his method clear to the average reader, he would have had to at least address these topies. After over 120 years of subsequent Marxist schol- arship perhaps an outline is ready to come into clearer view. A possi- bly logical place to hegin wonld he a presentation of the social scientific assumptions with which Marx worked. A next fruitful step would be to present the language and concepts central to his analysis uf collected data, Finally, the actual research and analytical procedures that animate the assumptions and constructs could be examined as a way to round out an overall view of the general approach. This chapter is the first of these three investigations. Marx's First Assumptions In Marx’s work, the investigation of any social phenomena does not begin arbitrarily or haphazardly, as may an abstract art, a eross-word puzzle, ordinary guesswork, or carefree fishing. Nor does his work begin in the fashion of most other social seiences—with set of propositions to be accepted or rejected, leading to subsequent hypotheses deduced Weretiom, followed by data measurement and conclusions. Nor did Marx begin with preconceived political goals being the litmus test by which a sociological analysis of modern society could be established. He begins, however, neither just anywhere in space or time, nor does his investigation tacitly accept what is given, apparent, or the common sense explanation of things. ‘The establishment of a social science has its warnings and dangers It ig Mare’s view that—“All science would be ouperfluous if the fous of appearance of things coincided with their essence” (Marx 1967: 797). Appearances can be deceiving. Matx’s entire scientific program is based lis PAUL PAOLUCCE recuuise to methodologies that err by accepting the level of appear rinoes—what society says about itself, what strikes immediate percep~ tion. Subsequently, he fist conceived of society as a social wholes is basic unit is itself as it appears as a whole. Anything that occurs within it is caused by it. Marx, therefore, assumes much of social science as fan exercise in tautology to the extent it remains on this level of appear~ ances, Social reality is, in this sense, a tautology as well: society creates seeiety and social facts explain other social facts. For Marx, an authen= tig science should not and would not remain satished with suelt & tau tological approach. One attempts not to negate this tautological nature Of social life, but to reflexively acknowledge it and attempt to create Gbstractions which efficiently match up with the social processes one investigates and attempts to explain. For Marx, the scientist’ job is to construct a series of related abstract concepts that reflect observe €On- crete, regular social practices, The concepts must be bot logically com gguent with the way social phenomena funtion and develop, and logically related to each other. The Assumption of Totaly Totality has been a controversial and often dered ie farx’s analysis and this has spilled over into social science general Ofer, a Deen interpreted ‘rif all of a social formation i explained or thought explainable, The most common and most probicaath: form of this approach isthe assumption that a cota socal formation, oF at thing and everything that appens within i, can be reduced c0 the economy or technology ar materialism. Totality, on the contrary, refers thot to the assumption that there is some whole entire society or phe- yhomena that can, eventually, be completely explained in all its nuances and trajectories. Nor i his concept meant 10 es e pean Tmplete picture of all social fats forced into a dereriptive framework,

    You might also like