Cederman/Wagner
This paper discusses various viewpoints between postmodernism and social theorists and critics. They believe that the role of science and society today, in a wider discussion, is a western social significance. In essence, this is the scientific significance and wisdom of the debate.
Modern challenges
Social scientists have never had their own identity and role, sociality, stability and luxury. They were questioned because they accepted the influence of social science. The debate on epistemology, politics and morality of social science has never stopped. Is social science a science? Or are they just part of the humanities? From the perspective of natural science and social science, the formation and interpretation of concepts are different? Not necessarily related to the ideological nature of social science? Or does its moral and political characteristics just mean that it is still wet behind the ears? These problems have aroused people's serious concern about social science knowledge and the legitimacy of the system.
60? 70 years old is an important period, and the social influence of science is struggling. Positivism in the dominant social science has been criticized by people. A series of philosophical movements, the most prominent of which is the orthodoxy dominated by hermeneutics, daily language philosophy, post-empirical science philosophy, post-structuralism and attacking positivism. Critics believe that these propositions are in favor, involving the experience of natural science and social science and the true interpretation of philosophy, aesthetics and ethics. They have played an important role in resisting empirical parameters, scientific and literary interpretations in all empirical investigations. Apart from some basic ideas of these criticisms, other equally important issues are different. For example, the post-empirical analysis of general hermeneutic-oriented social scientists shows that more attention should be paid to the background and description path.
The focus of debate has shifted from empirical criticism to these consequences. On the one hand, the current debate mainly focuses on various hermeneutic paradigms, short-term and long-term empiricism and criticism in social sciences. In other words, the positivist social science model refuses to accept these theoretical arguments, but the epistemological privilege of science has not been challenged. Therefore, hermeneutics, post-positivism and critical theory of social scientists are regarded as an alternative social science foundation. On the other hand, the criticism of positivism, especially post-structuralism, challenges the critics of positivism and scientism. Many people have begun to emphasize that any social and historical research will fail, and its basic moral and political nature and its efforts to provide a unified social science paradigm are really unqualified for Italy. Therefore, a new department: on the one hand, it needs to insist on the possibility and desirability of obtaining reliable analysis, that is, "modernism", on the other hand, it criticizes this idea. Postmodernism Modernism tries to lay a foundation in social science and social science, and introduces a comprehensive method to criticize it. Postmodernism criticizes modernist social science, thinking about the relationship between scientific knowledge, power and society, and the relationship between science, criticism and narration.
Enlightenment thinkers and modernist enlightenment thinkers who pursue scientific knowledge and social progress criticize metaphysics and religion, but they never give up the idea that they must be universal, based on real knowledge and have some form of meta-discourse. Therefore, as an intermediary of scientific truth, it replaces theological doctrine. Under the background of the original scientific paradigm of studying nature, it is extended to the development of humanities and society. By the end of18th century, social sciences had sprung up.
From the founding period of social science to the classical period, the banner of modernist design has not fallen. Recognized classical masters-Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Plato, Shaw or Ward-actually spread the privileged position of scientific epistemology and pursued the universal principles of scientific discovery, unified knowledge and scientific practical value. For example, although Comte and Marx have differences in the conceptual framework and interpretation principles of social science, they are different from the opponents of the older generation and contemporaries in scientific practice or pure "thinking". In addition, two classical masters contributed to the progress of scientific society. Comte hoped that his "positive philosophy" and "positive political will" could guide the French Revolution after social reconstruction. Marx thinks that the working class has become the political motive and material force of the revolution, which will help his political economy to criticize the liberation of mankind.
However, to some extent, the classical master deviated from its pioneer. On the basis of the previous meta-discourse of social science philosophy, more and more people hope that social theory can provide a basic revolution. Discourse on the horizon is a concept based on social theory in the19th century, and its goal is to establish the basic premise of social science concepts and problems. Ruling, empirical and theoretical disputes, interpretation system, including conceptual framework, to unify various studies.
It has experienced the process of social science, culture and institutional legitimacy in the 20th century, and is a unique way to shape social science. Social science discipline, strengthen its scientific requirements. In the process of trying to obtain the legitimacy and material resources of institutions, contemporary social scientists are often forced to suppress the role of scientific moral practice and the political role they play. The purpose of logical positivism is to provide a basic principle of knowledge priority. At the same time, they try to develop their own analysis and research agenda in the field of social sciences. The debate about knowledge is usually regarded as a purely methodological issue. Therefore, as a meta-discourse of social theory-its purpose is to determine the extension of disciplinary disputes-today, role theory, especially sociological theory, is usually defined as a unique professional field of "professionals", which pays attention to its own "independent" epistemological analysis and methodological issues, and the discourse based on social theory gradually becomes monism.
The key to modernization
Ironically, the success of the social science system here led to the criticism of modernist design. For example, private and publicly funded institutions in social sciences-which will inevitably affect social sciences-are increasingly dependent, which raises doubts about the value neutrality of claims. Stephen Turner proved that the shortcomings and contradictions of basic concepts in the 20th century were realized by sociologists. However, these ideas often bring rich research topics, but also produce meta-theoretical discourse. The only reference point sometimes seems to be other texts or other studies in this article to discuss rebuilding society as a pure analytical model, combining their practical, moral and political intentions, and enhancing the public's vague sense of social science. The discovery mode of social theory laid the foundation of social research, and thus fell into a chaotic meta-theoretical network, especially so. Part of postmodernism seems to be a rational conflict against the above situation. The purpose of social science is only empiricism or procrastination, or social science is dragged to aimlessness. On one level, the characteristics of postmodernism, as a kind of dynamic knowledge, have regained their vitality.
Of course, postmodernism is not the first attempt to regenerate intellectuals through criticism and reconstruction. A few times, like reading a freshman drama in the history of social sciences. From Comte's criticism of enlightenment thinkers, or Marx's criticism of Comte, to Durkheim's and Weber's criticism of Marx, until Parsons tried to synthesize the classic tradition, replacing the structural function of theory and structure in new Marxism and sociology with the effort to supplement desire through social analysis and critical reconstruction, which became an enduring theme. Criticism of postmodernism may be unique. All competitive schools have launched a challenging ideological confrontation or the concept of social science is actually a model of * * *. Postmodernism criticizes the following concepts: modernity, science itself-not a theory and paradigm or another-the rational form of license or truth medium, refutes science, and claims that only scientific knowledge is accurate and reliable based on a statement. The scientific agenda based on unity and consensus raised objections. Questioning the belief of modernism, the main function of social science is to provide a solid conceptual foundation for social research. Postmodernism criticizes modernism: it is science, or it should be value-neutral. Postmodernism emphasizes scientific practice and moral significance.
The central theme of postmodernism criticism is that scientific knowledge is universal and can be proved by context. The standard setting context of declaring postmodern truth. Social science knowledge in Europe and America inevitably conforms to the specific standards of western modern culture by default, such as the separation of cognitive truth from moral and aesthetic knowledge, the knowledge that cognitive truth takes precedence over propositions in fact, and all basic principles, which can be regarded as evidence or facts and are the consistency of Chinese and western cultural traditions. In addition, in various disciplines of social science, there are conflicting evaluation criteria that can be regarded as effective research or theory. For some social scientists, some social scientists emphasize predictability, systematic concepts, simple quantifiable main standards and comprehensive explanations, which describe rich reasoning neutrality or emphasize moral, political and aesthetic standards. These different values seem to have reached a reasonable understanding and can be avoided.
Modernity criticism transcends the general history of science. In this case. Cederman's approval of radical science center (eccentric). The social science knowledge he put forward not only has a wide range of civilizations, but also a part of national culture, trademarks, and their production is more specific to class, race, gender or sexual orientation. Therefore, any attempt to establish a general theory advocates being deconstructed, or revealing basic concepts and explanations to reveal specific social status and purport.
A decentralized concept of social science, emphasizing the practice of social science-moral and political significance. LEMO(C.Lemert) pointed out that he believed that social science, political science and epistemology were intertwined. The scope and interpretation of social science emphasize the constraints and authority of certain social processes in order to construct the social reality and social agenda of specific groups. In fact, post-modern social science knowledge is implicit in realistic design. It is not a scientific problem and knowledge of practical functions, but is regarded as a strategy to adopt individuals and groups to promote their interests, seek social agenda, or grasp the relationship between political power. Science and power beyond ideology and politics. Therefore, from the perspective of social science, postmodern science, as an important social and political force, economy, family and country may all become important forces in modern society. The church stands shoulder to shoulder.
Postmodernists tend to agree with the following forms of social research, which are constrained by their actual intentions and moral intentions, their changing fields and their concerns (local themes need to take precedence over general themes). They are general theories of narration rather than expression.
Therefore, the narration of practical and moral interests is conducive to integrating into the general theory of society. Cederman's Lemo promotes the deconstruction of social investigation mode, which will reveal false concepts, close the theoretical level of social constructivism and make us focus on discourse. However, Nicholson became an inclusive cross-cultural postmodern theory, embracing strategic defense. The concept of post-modernism does not necessarily refuse to be refined by the careful analysis of social analysis methods, but provokes the problem of social investigation and can establish the voice of follow-up, which makes it give in on the basis of epistemological status to some extent. Similarly, postmodernism does not necessarily exclude the general analysis steps of reaction, but it is an all-encompassing theory or a way to seek a unified social science paradigm. Postmodernism, as a whole of modernism, should be deconstruction theory and pedigree analysis, not theoretical construction, and then introduce a theme centered on moral and political issues.
Criticism of postmodernism: the challenge of defending one's own postmodernism, and the criticism of scientific theories of various disciplines. Many modernists do not admit that it is impossible to establish the foundation of social science. Therefore, many efforts have been made to rebuild the foundation of theoretical discourse, which is the most obvious work of Habermas and Giddens. Others are the consequences of postmodern criticism and near-moral doubt. What are post-modernism, relativism and nihilism?
Will the radical center doubt the standard of any rational discourse? The general theory of rejection gives a clear analytical theory and critical program. People have questioned whether design means radical deconstruction, and whether postmodernism means that all fields are problematic or illegal. Radical history will lead to criticism and lack of in-depth analysis of impulse description theory.
Some critics believe that the most fundamental flaw is postmodernism: it does not rely on relativism in the theoretical framework of sociology and knowledge of applied architecture to distinguish it. However, if you think that it is an exclusive choice to study social phenomena through a certain frame of reference and then use real social phenomena as a framework, it is easy to be deconstructed by the incited postmodernism. Not taking an exclusive attitude is one of his theories. Critics believe that solipsism will be deconstructed at this level.
Critics believe that postmodernism is the sociological criticism that easily ignores the possibility of science in sociological theory, and it may reach a certain type of general theory (generality), which is worth pursuing. Some people even think that the basic social process has accumulated a lot of knowledge.
R Collins obviously holds this view. He thinks that at the abstract level, we should focus on the basic social process. He claims that a lot of knowledge has been accumulated in this type of process, but this success is due to the confusion of practice and thought (that is, evaluation) of architecture and building science and the fact that a practical framework can only be applied to closed physical systems. Ideological framework (when the attitude of imperialism), so what we see is only what we want to see. On the contrary, the inclusiveness and connectivity of other scientific frameworks can surpass them on the one hand and produce the universality of knowledge on the other. Therefore, despite postmodernism, Collins' sociological theory of critical optimism laid the foundation.
Others have said similar things, even naturally, with very different design concepts. D'Amico briefly analyzed the concepts of relativism, Carnap and Popper's world (the state of natural objects and the world), and then extended them to the framework of world trends (the world of mental state and behavior) and the world (the ideological content of the objective world). In his view, as a form of social science, these concepts can absorb all post-modernist criticisms without the concession of particularism.
D Wagner tried to understand the role of framework in the theoretical nature of sociology. By absorbing many people (especially supporters), Robert Merton and the theoretical research and empirical research of obstacle sociology have not been successful. Wagner decided to try several kinds of education. For example, you can't promote the integration of development theory with general framework or theory. However, if the general theory is to play a comprehensive and guiding role, it must be carefully considered.
J Turner's clarification position may be closer to modernism than any other critic, although he made important amendments to this position. Experience prospect, Turner defends the rigor and predictability of deduction, and the importance of verifiability of evaluation standard theory. However, his theory that the application of these standards is easy to deduce is not necessarily an accurate prediction, but it is difficult to work according to axioms; The final inspection is impossible. In addition, he flatly rejected the neutral observation of the inductive process of the theory. Turner and Collins questioned phenomenological solipsism and historical particularity, which led to criticism of this form of positivism. He pointed out that these criticisms are based on a naive social theory that considers the nature of science, so they do not hinder empirical research.
Modernism and post-modernism: social theory moving towards context, post-modernism and scientific theory may not be opposite poles, but they are really eye-catching and reflect the characteristics and target images of two different sociological theories, especially when it involves political ideology. Some researchers try to explore the middle ground between these two contradictory images. Generally speaking, these researchers believe that it is a part of the steps to establish postmodernism, but they also try to transcend such criticism in order to restore some more common social theoretical concepts.
Between modernism and post-modernism, the acceptance of modernism depends on the middle zone between them, and one of them has a special nature. For example, in Social Science and Social Discourse: A General Theory of Civil Sociology in Support of Pluralism, Richard Harvey Brown (although he talks about this issue from one of the points in Wa Dogana). Brown believes that the general theories of social science discourse reveal diversity: these theories are internally consistent and have different metaphors and ideological themes. Therefore, the general positivism theory is an organic and mechanical metaphor, and its ideological purport focuses on the stability and maintenance of social order. However, this theory is not enough to deal with the social world with the characteristics of individual reflection.
In order to make use of this function, Brown put forward another theory, that is, the communicative behavior that constitutes society. As a language structure, phonetic events create a series of social structures. For example, in economic analysis, the value of monetary structure (which means) does not mean any other value. For Brown, this research direction has the following advantages: it contains micro, meso and macro analysis, dares to reflect on itself, realizes its moral and political functions, and helps to break arbitrary political boundaries.
The general theory put forward by S.Aronowitz replaced a different theory. He believes that Frankfurt School has established a powerful and critical social theory. Its focus comes from the criticism of technical rationality, popular culture and consumerism political economy. The substitute of critical theory positivism is considered to be helpful to the rule of society.
Their point of view became "The Tension of Theory: A panacea for denying dialectics"? The text, Arnold Weitz, needs to be reconstructed now. In essence, critical theory holds that social change is impossible because of its social analysis. A one-dimensional, rhetorical thing is purely negative. Arnold Schwartz called for the reconstruction of critical theory to clarify social conflicts, but he was also critical in general.
Choose materials to create a more flexible general theoretical concept and compromise some other middle positions. C.Calhoun's general theory, as a traditional reflection of concern, is widely used (universal) and also expresses the expression law of concern, such as the available formulas of SQL statements. "The particularity of culture, history and social science" Craig pointed out that there is something that can be used as a substitute for this traditional concern.
He agrees with a cultural sensitivity (regardless of value or difference in value? The difference between general theory and historical particularity is very sensitive). In his view, the emergence of theory is a historical phenomenon, which can only produce fields and specific time and theoretical discourse fields as substitutes. However, in this work, continuous efforts in cross-cultural and historical description can create a more general theoretical basis.
According to calhoun's postmodernism, it is actually the internal product of modernity. It has two disadvantages: it is a more general research-oriented challenge. First of all, it can be based on the normative judgment of postmodern criticism. Secondly, its difference rises to an absolute height, but it tramples on the concept of intersubjectivity. Therefore, although postmodern criticism has many contributions, it is only one of the contributions of sociology of knowledge in the end.
In addition, it may be very important, and the behavior of seeking knowledge is a central goal. Alexander believes that even the concept of interpretation is based on the following concepts: the objectivity of the life world and the universal understanding of its form. Therefore, it is very important to try to create a normative theory of the binding force of sociological research activities on the basis of exploration. Alexander concluded that if social theories have a solid foundation, they may be forgotten and cannot be ignored. Ironically, however, it is precisely because it lacks a real foundation that we need to actively explore it.
It is an integral part of today's scientific significance and social function to continue the dialogue with modern social theory and its critics and discuss western society more widely. Optimistic thinkers of the Enlightenment and their descendants (science will produce good social facts) made some criticisms. The scientific connection between happiness and Nazism, the public's dissatisfaction with medical science and psychiatry, and the scientific attacks of blacks, women and gay movements, in order to reach a naive understanding belief that will soon become the Enlightenment. However, science still has a sacred aura. Entrepreneurs, politicians and scholars often help cultural circulation. Recently, it has been pointed out that there is no doubt that this is the social and political tendency implicated by the scientific left and right, as well as the advanced scientific significance and social role in today's parameters.
Within the discipline, this kind of discussion usually appears in the form of epistemological problems. Is science the exclusive privilege of knowledge? What kind of knowledge is scientific? How to understand science and social work? The development of internal medicine inquiry has been strengthened. Scientifically improve the system refinement and become a powerful social force of different social systems and national organizations. From another point of view, people who have been excluded from universities so far-skin color, feminists, homosexuals/lesbians, as well as scientific problems of ability and the open social role of the elderly-have also emerged. For some people, disciplinary measures are closely related to the scientific exclusiveness of social affairs. We believe that the interrelated scientific and social significance-how science requires it, and how objective knowledge, discourse and social forces form a social identity and normative institutional order-exists on the basis of post-modernist critics and constant debates. Finally, in the scientific sense of the debate, scholars are late (Weber).
upstairs