Critical and Philosophical Issues in the Social Sciences - Essay Example

? Exploring the Dogma of Critical Thinking in Social Sciences By: Presented Sociology [Name] City/State: [Name] Date Introduction: Social science, after a prolonged period of relative dormancy, emerged as an equally inquisitive, exciting and analytics oriented field of study as others such as Medical Science. The notion that social science only informs about the role of an individual in society and documents the way changing circumstances affect people is no longer applicable. This has become possible with the incorporation of “critical thinking” in every sub-category of social science including sociology, political science, anthropology and philosophy. Critical thinking has made its scope vast and diverse since instead of employing the traditional approach of documenting the information, it now aims at changing it altogether by integrating and utilizing information from all its sub-categories. However, there has been an unending debate and confusion over the role of critical thinking in social sciences and the core concept that it envisages. Furthermore, the need and necessity of this sort of an approach and the way it can prove beneficial for humanity and society in a broader spectrum is also often argued and deliberated. This paper sheds light on the concept of critical thinking in social sciences and its scope with reference to various influential schools of thoughts in this regard. The paper will focus on explaining the aspect of critical thinking in social science with help from definitions and relative fragmentations found in concepts from prominent theorists. Understanding Critical Thinking: To analyse what critical stands for in social science, it is important to gain an understanding about critical thinking or the element of critique in a study. The concept of critical thinking as an approach has been developing for probably hundreds of years and still the exact outline and jurisdiction that it embodies is yet to be determined precisely. (Dahms, 2011, p.5) Various theorists explain it differently. For instance, Harvey Siegal explained Critical Thinking as a direction that “is appropriately moved by reason” (Cited in Caver, 1999, p.2). Robert Ennis, on the other hand, stated that “it is a rational reflective thinking concerned with what to do or believe” (Cited in Caver, 1999, p.2). Kathleen Caver (1999, p.2) is of the opinion that Ennis’ definition is more widely applicable and relatable to the concept of critique in social science because it “can be readily applied to all disciplines and the day-to-day conduct of personal affairs.” Therefore, in its simplest form critical thinking can be defined as a process of applying principles in an order that such judgments could be derived which bring forth a positive and productive change in the society. (Seiler, 2013) Paradigm in this context is of paramount importance because critical thinking requires model in all sorts of forms, that is, theoretical, observational and transcendental. Thomas Kuhn in his scientific cult like masterpiece “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” informed that a Paradigm in critical thinking is an open-end prototype that is found in ‘great works’ such as Newton’s Principia. (Cited in Forster, 1998) Kuhn argued that critical thinking requires analysing beyond expectations, observations and logic and therefore great works were left by scientists’ for their predecessors to dig deeper and resolve the dilemma (Cited in Forster, 1998). According to Kuhn, to employ a critical approach into a study, theories, principles and values offered by previous researches may be utilized as a paradigm of normal science however; critical analysis is not completely dependent upon these forms of information. Kuhn stated: “A paradigm (though resisting change) is playing an essential role in allowing a scientist to recognize something as anomalous, as contrary to expectation, and this is an important precondition for discovery.” (Cited in Forster, 1998) Critical thinking is governed by two aspects. One, it is a set of various processing skills. Second, it is the effective use of those processing skills directed towards a particular behaviour. Matthew Lippman explained that critical thinking as a tool should rely on criteria that ensure self-correction without compromising on the sensitivity of the context. (Van Eemeren et al., 2013, p.186) Critical thinking is not a universal tool. It differs from person to person and this diversity in opinion formation has encouraged a more modernised approach towards critical thinking in recent times. Today, according to D’Angelo (cited in Valetutti and Dummett, 1992, p.110) critical thinking is defined as a process that evaluates statements, experiences and arguments simultaneously. Edward Glaser approved D’Angelo’s views and stated that this type of thinking helps to identify the problems and critically analyse it, searching for its cause and its solution (Criticalthinking.org, 2013). Thus, critique in social sciences can be understood as a tool for evaluating the society and the relationships between individual with a purpose of pointing out the deficiencies and proposing solutions by involving numerous disciplines and elements including theoretic, scientific and transcendental. Understanding the vast scope of Critical Theory: Critical theory, when strictly enclosed within the jurisdiction of social science, is a type of social theory that aims at ridding society off social evils and salient threats to humanity without utilizing a fixed set of rules, institutional arrangement or system of thought. (Bronner, 2011, p.1) Critical theory acts as an exclusive philosophy in itself that not just questions the competing theories’ purposes and assumptions but also the existing practices. It provides information on how things should be instead of the traditional approach that informed about how things were. It is sceptical as far as absolute claims are concerned and stresses on studying society as a science that is always evolving. Its chief purpose is to dig deeper into the surface of society and provide something unique that helps people understand a particular aspect or circumstance from a new perspective. Critical theory according to Ronjon Datta (2009, p.133) “Is pertinent to the present and the future; it does so by attending to conceptions of the link between normative claims and explanatory social science as found in Kant, Adorno, Benjamin, Freud, Franz Neumann, Alexander Mitscherlich, and Albrecht Wellmer” Perennial philosophy is irrelevant for critical theorists since the entire concept of critical theory is based upon the fact that science, ideas, reasoning and principles should and must evolve with the changing circumstances. (Datta, 2009, p.134) Since human behaviour is not autonomous and is subjected to change according to the societal norms and situations, therefore, analytical approach needs to be accommodative and flexible. In critical theory, there is no use of rigid ideas and ideals for analysing human behaviour. It aims at transforming the understanding of society by providing a new set of assumptions and regulations. It fuses theory and actions; which implies that it borrows the best of both worlds. (Seiler, 2013) It studies real behaviour and compares it with reasoning from various intellectuals along with understanding the unforeseeable to come to a definite analysis. Another phenomenon to be understood here is literary criticism and aesthetics. (Roe, 1992, p.556) Scholars, thinkers, authors and readers have contemplated for centuries over questions of how, why and what they have read. In today’s world, almost every literary criticism and theory come under the heading of either aesthetics or politics. An example of aesthetic criticism is formalism. It explores and gives a detailed analysis of the inherent qualities under a literary text while reducing its cultural, political and historical contexts. Likewise, New Criticism is that type of critical theory which inspects literary texts as independent works that differ from anything or power of the world that can bring effect, including its author. (Roe, 1992, p.557) After the end of World War II the decades that followed brought about a revolution in the thinking pattern of social scientists. The efforts from social scientists “to make valuable contributions to improving conditions for more and more people nationally and globally” gained momentum (Dahms, 2011, p.6). This daunting objective was deemed achievable through incorporating critical approach into social science because in contemporary era it was becoming more tasks oriented than merely general. For this purpose analysis was derived from various schools of thoughts. The following section will discuss the different set of perceptions from prominent theorists in order to dig deeper in to the realm of critical thinking in social science. The Utterly Influential Marxism: Karl Marx is the father of critical theory and his two familiar critical philosophies serve as influential models of critical thinking namely Marxism and Capitalism as Bronner (2011, p.2) stated, “critical theory was conceived within the intellectual crucible of Marxism.” Marxism is based on the concept of class struggle; the oppressors and the oppressed and the theory was formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1884 (Seiler, 2013). Glossop asserts that Marx and Engels explained their views as “scientific socialism” because the earlier socialist views in their opinion were unrealistic and utopian in characteristic (1983, p.117). In Materialistic Interpretation of History they claimed that social change is only possible if historical forces are allowed to operate inexorably and inevitably. These historical forces does not refer to divine intervention or to Hegel’s endorsed dogma of philosophical thought but actually the way goods are produced in a society since material or economic factors are highly dominant aspects (Dillon, 2010, p.68). The mode of production and its subsequent social relations, according to Marxists, will later determine the overall structure of a society from religion to governmental and philosophical to art (Dillon, 2010, p.68). Marx believed that social conflicts arise when ruling class extends its authority and does not willingly pass on control to other ruling class for the new production modes. As Marx stated, “you cannot give to one class without taking from another” (Dillon, 2010, p.69). In Marx’s time, the oppressors (the bourgeoisie) were the ones who owned the factors of production (land, labour, capital, and enterprise) while the oppressed were the workers (the proletariat). (Jones et al., 2013, p.39) The bourgeoisie strived to keep the labour costs as low as possible while the proletariats wanted to achieve the maximum price possible. These reasons were the major causes of conflict in the society. The bourgeoisie enjoyed the upper hand because capitalist societies had many unemployed workers who were anxious to get work at any price offered to them, thus lowering the cost of labour. (Jones et al., 2013, p.39) Marx, therefore, suggested that it is important to judgementally and analytically examine the correlation between the “laws of motion” that dominates the political economy and the essential conditions responsible for objectifying the asserted codes of bourgeoisie society. (Morrison, 2006, p.119) According to Marx, all these conditions help in determining their belief, values and behaviour. Marxism entails that the prevailing beliefs, ideas, and/or values in class-oriented society does not exist by-default and has been created in the form of ideologies. These ideas get transmitted over the course of time through socialization. This can be understood from the example of the influential role played by institutions like family, academic institutes and the media industry in contemporary society. These formulate views and continuously reinforce them to retain the power and supremacy of the dominant classes. However, after World War II, Marxist theory was criticised for being too restrictive and presented all other non-economic aspects of a society such as culture, religion, race, etc., in a passive form by inducing great power in economic factor. Critics found his views too “dogmatic, mechanical, narrowly reductionist and unidirectional” (Resnick and Wolff, 2006, p.12). It was criticized also for undermining the human aspect in a society and it was stated that there are certain other non-economic factors that largely help in shaping history. The Frankfurt connection that truly signified Critical in social sciences: The most dominating concept of critical thinking was the one formulated by theorists from the Institut fur Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research) at Frankfurter Schule (Frankfurt school). (Berendzen, 2009) Established by Carl Grunberg in 1924, this institute can be termed as the place where critical theory emerged as a complete dominion and its guidelines developed comprehensively. Grunberg’s motive behind establishing the Frankfurt Institute was to provide a detailed structure of future socialist society along with its overall functioning and to think beyond the “intellectual crucible of Karl Marx” (Wiggershaus, 1994, p.27). In 1930, Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), an esteemed philosopher, became the director of Frankfurt Institute. His works during the 1930s and his powerful Dialectic of Enlightenment (1940), which he wrote with Theodor Adorno are extremely significant in altering the practical and epistemological orientation of critical theory for future researchers. (Berendzen, 2009) The key representatives of critical theory were Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. John Abromeit wrote that “Horkheimer was deeply dissatisfied with the philosophical schools that dominated German universities in 1920s.” (2011, p.141) His primary goal was to “provide a socio-historical explanation” against the social scientists who limited their work to the specific aspects of social life and neglected the framework and organisation of the society in the big picture such as neo-Kantianism. (Abromeit, 2011, p.141) He was critical about the leading philosophical trends of that era and believed in opposition to limiting ones philosophy to the observable facts. For him, involving the overall view of the society including the explicit, detailed and particular studies of the social world are fundamental to philosophy. The German critical theory group persuaded that social theory must play a vital role in bringing forth some productive change in the world. In the supra-disciplinary method of the critical theory, Horkheimer saw the theory as a concept and course that could canvass not only the large obvious forces but all aspects of social life including all those indefinite and ambiguous forces in mankind’s view. The supra-disciplinary approach to the study of the social life of people hoped to overcome all barriers of traditional approaches and schools of thought by accumulating studies of various writers and blending them into one. Seen notably in the natural sciences and infiltrated in other fields as well, according to theorist Max Horkheimer, is the traditional theory. It focuses on harmonising all of the basic bits from a complex systematic whole. It gets rid of rather than focuses on conflicts. Traditional theory is a theory of existing conditions and aims to increase the productivity and functioning of the world in its present state of affairs. Colleen Flewelling stated that “Horkheimer advocated a supradisciplinary approach to answering philosophical questions, incorporating fields such as psychology, literary criticism, history and sociology to help understand philosophical phenomena” (2005, p.68). For example, psychology can help in examining the limitations of political system. Similarly, in a socialist society, literature can help in understanding how mutual consciousness can be altered. However, despite this approach, Horkheimer declared that critical theory should be understood as philosophical. Roy Bhaskar’s Critical Realism: Roy Bhaskar provided the benchmark for critique in Social Science’s modernised approach towards analytics. Critical thinking has certainly evolved from taking inspiration from perennial, idealistic, static and unquestionable approach to a formative and continuously progressing one due to the efforts of influential thinkers like Roy Bhaskar. Prior to World War II there was no concept of questionable attribute in a discipline. People used to view, narrate and accept things as they appeared without judging or questioning it. Only the observable events and situations were thought to be real. However, a British philosopher Roy Bhaskar (born 1944) developed a new concept on analysing the world through scientific lens but without relying on pre-formulated rules. His theory evolved from being “Transcendental Realism” to “Critical Naturalism” and finally it is now known as Critical Realism. (Sayer, 2000) Roy Bhaskar, was not just the initiator of critical realism but the strongest propagator of innovation and novelty in critical social sciences. Critical Realism proposes the point that theory of knowledge is different from the theory of being so no particular set of rules can provide substantial answers to a problem. Critical Realism supporters believe that there are some unnoticeable events which cause the noticeable events. (Sayer 2000) For example, the world of human interaction can be understood when people know the unconscious behaviour and the unobservable events which cause this. This theory states that when an individual conducts an experiment he/she creates a control group where changes can be made but he/she is unaware that the cause is also the unnoticeable events. “The central idea of Critical realism is that natural and social reality should be understood as an open stratified system of objects with causal powers” (Morton, 2006, p.3). This theory can be applied both in natural and social science. However, its applications in social and natural science are quite different from each other. This theory requires an in-depth understanding and evaluation of the events, analysing the unseen events occurring in the background. Bhaskar was of the opinion that if it has been determined that science does exist and manipulates the structure and events of a society, then it is important to combine the mystical or unforeseeable occurrences with naturally occurring and established phenomenon to retrieve a credible analysis. (Sayer 2000) Science, for Bhaskar, is an imperative yet a continuously evolving process and it is a highly inappropriate approach to think the dynamics of society as already been understood. It is prone to change and therefore, any experiment or study should not be made on the grounds of postulating the relationship between an object and an event or the impact of a direct variable on an indirect one (Bhaskar, 2008, p.10). Justin Cruickshank explained that “Bhaskar sees society as governed by laws that operate at a multiplicity of emergent strata, rooted in but irreducible to natural strata” (2004, p.96). Bhaskar not only opposed irrationalism but also rejected the inclusion of reductionist rationalism through presenting dialectical reasoning phenomenon. (Bhaskar, 2008, p.8) “Bhaskar views dialectics as a real process which results in the removal of causally efficacious obstacles to human flourishing” (Criticalrealism.com, 2013). He believed in scientific inquiry but at the same time he insisted on freedom and objectivity of the result. He merged the traditional yet productive aspects of idealism, and empiricism into realism as classical empiricism, transcendental idealism and transcendental realism (Shipway, 2010 p.67). To summarise, it can be stated that critical realism acts as a significant construct in forming the modern approach towards critique in social sciences. It stresses on the point that non-observable can impact observable and the element of nature and social reality should be considered simultaneously in order to conduct an experiment and derive conclusions for social world. The naivety of Structural Aspect in Critical Thinking: In the context of critical theory, structuralism serves as an abstract paradigm which put forwards the idea of studying the human culture as a comprehensive system rather than separately understanding the elements of human behaviour. (Marxists.org, 2013) This theory originated before World War I and worked to unfold how humans think, feel and perceive by stating that the acts of humans can only be understood according to the relationship they share with a larger structure, that is, a supreme system such as culture. (Marxists.org, 2013) It basically adheres to the theme of rationalism and presents society as a structure. Rationalism is different from realism because the former depends upon a pre-existing source of knowledge to derive a conclusion whereas the latter incorporates a transcendental approach (Outhwaite, 1987, p.36). Roland Barthes explained it as “A structuralist will not teach us what meaning must definitely be attributed to a work; it will not provide or even discover a meaning but will describe the logic according to which meanings are engendered.” (Cited in Culler, 2007, p.32) Although Structuralism received several interpretation and variations over time however, it originated as a full-fledged theory during Ferdinand de Saussure’s study of comparative linguistics. (Marxists.org, 2013) Saussure, an early 20th century Swiss linguist, realised that Positivism, the then dominating theology of understanding the dynamics of humans in a society, relied on “use of individual phonemes, their various meanings and phonic form” which hugely undermined the subject matter of human and social science. (Marxists.org, 2013) He considered humans as Arbitrary and insisted that the meanings should be understood by relating the similarities and differences in a language (Culler 2007, p.33). Structuralism as a theory got deterred by new perspectives in various separate domains of linguistics, investigation, sociology, political economy, psychology and anthropology. (Outhwaite, 1987, p.37) In critical social sciences, the relationship between the world and humanity is of great importance and this relation is regarded as “intrinsic to the development of human properties, all of which exist in Potentia” yet are extremely crucial for social life itself (Cruickshank, 2004, p.19). The methods of structuralism although firmly established its roots in physics and mechanics which proved fatal for positivism. However, in modern times considering society’s structure as an established and determined one is considered an unreasonable and unfavourable approach. Especially after the theory presented by Roy Bhaskar Structuralism saw its decline and therefore, as a theory it does not come across as a landmark concept as far as critical thinking in social science is concerned. Conclusion: It can be concluded that in social science, critical thinking varies with critical thinkers however, in its current form critical thinking or the element of critique in social science aims at finding ways for bettering society. These ways involve numerous tangible and intangible elements such as theory, fusion and opposition. While formulating crucial decisions a short comparison between traditional and contemporary critical theories should be considered to overcome issues of society. Per contra, critical theory's core is the conflicts and tension present within every individual in the world. Critical theorists see two worlds. The first is the one that mankind has made for itself. It is the world in which reasons and wills construct the view of the world, its laws, economy, state and basically the entirety of life and humanity. The second world, as opposed to this, is the world of capital, where the simple processes and pure mechanisms of the traditional theory are halted and infringed by conflicts and tension. As an outcome of these thoughts, critical theorists are critical of branches of philosophy, sociology and other social sciences for being inadequately pivotal and having partial analyses. Therefore, the element of critique supplies those facts, figures, details and circumstances that are unavailable in texts, intellectual offerings from the past and explains the society and human behaviour beyond predetermined enlightenment. Reference List Abromeit, J. (2011). Max Horkheimer and the foundations of the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berendzen, J. (2009). Max Horkheimer. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/horkheimer/ [Accessed: 14 Dec 2013]. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Taylor & Francis. Bronner, S. (2011). Critical theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Craver, K. (1999). Using Internet primary sources to teach critical thinking skills in history. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Criticalrealism.com. (2013). The Web Site for Critical Realism | Dialectics. [online] Available at: http://www.criticalrealism.com/?sitesig=WSCR&page=WSCR_060_WSCR_Glossary&subpage=WSCR_080_Dialectics [Accessed: 14 Dec 2013]. Criticalthinking.org. (2013). Defining Critical Thinking. [online] Available at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 [Accessed: 14 Dec 2013]. Cruickshank, J. (2004). Critical Realism. London: Routledge. Culler, J. (2011). Literary theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dahms, H. 2011. The vitality of critical theory. Bingley UK: Emerald. Datta, R. (2009). Critical Theory and Social Justice: Review of Honneth's Pathologies of Reason: On The Legacy of Critical Theory. Studies in Social Justice, 3 (1), pp. 133--143. Dillon, M. (2010). Introduction to sociological theory. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Flewelling, C. (2005). The social relevance of philosophy. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. Forster, M. (2013). Guide to Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. [online] Available at: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/kuhn.htm [Accessed: 14 Dec 2013]. Glossop, R. (1983). Confronting war. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. Jones, P., Bradbury, L. and Leboutillier, S. (2013). Introducing Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: Polity. Marxists.org. (2013). Sociology before the Russian Revolution. [online] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/structur.htm [Accessed: 13 Dec 2013]. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. 11th ed. SAGE. Morton, P. (2006). Using critical realism to explain strategic information systems planning. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 8 (1), p. 3. Outhwaite, W. (1987). New philosophies of social science. New York: St. Martin's Press. Resnick, S. and Wolff, R. (2006). New departures in Marxian theory. London: Routledge. Roe, E. (1992). Applied narrative analysis: the tangency of literary criticism, social science and policy analysis. New literary history, 23 (3), pp. 555--581. Sayer, R. 2000. Realism and social science. London: Sage. Seiler, M. (2013). Critical Theory. [online] Available at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm [Accessed: 13 Dec 2013]. Shipway, B. (2010). A critical realist perspective of education. New York: Routledge Valletutti, P. and Dummett, L. (1992). Cognitive Development: A Functional Approach. California: Singular Publishing Group Corporation. Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., Johnson, R., Plantin, C. and Willard, C. (2013). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt School. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Read More