finished reading The Explanation of Social Action 🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕
毋庸置疑的tour de force,比第一本书又上了一个台阶。我很喜欢第五章,非常有启发性(佛洛伊德-涂尔干/皮亚杰-维谷斯基/格式塔/杜威),值得反复体会。其它章节也对当代社会科学哲学/方法论有深刻的见解。基本上所有当代的方法论争论他都涉及到了。JLM的写作风格对新手很不友好(爱掉书袋,自己想法多,喜欢一句话没写完用括号继续平行第二句)。我的一个感觉是这本书,在没有对其中某个领域有一定经验之前,没法单独看。JLM不把自己跟某个学派捆绑,既有优点(正反都能写给读者看)也让人觉得有点遗憾(掰开之后怎么办?)。在前言里还藏了个梗,未免搞笑心思太重!
Book
The Explanation of Social Action
Douban
John Levi Martin
publishing house:
Oxford University Press, USA
2011
- 8
Conventional understanding of what it means to "explain" something in the social sciences provokes unnecessary confusion and conflict, and indeed is often based more on analysts' imaginations than actors' realities. The Explanation of Social Action lays out a sustained critique of this understanding, pointing out that the root of the problem is an attempt to counterpose two radically different types of answers to the question of why someone did a certain thing--first person responses and third person ones. John Levi Martin illustrates how this tendency is epitomized in attempts to explain human action in "causal" terms. He shows how this causality has little to do with the real world, but instead involves the creation of imaginary worlds, stemming from an intellectual history whereby social scientists began to distrust the self-understanding of actors and accepted fundamentally anti-democratic epistemologies, due to an epistemic hiatus in social knowledge and the adoption of practices in the intensely hierarchic setting of forced incarceral institutions for the insane. Martin moves on to highlight other traditions that do not assume that the cognitive schemes of actors are fundamentally arbitrary. These traditions in turn suggest that the analytic problems that now arise require attention to the nature of judgment, implying the need for an understanding of the process whereby actors intuit intersubjectively valid qualities of complex social objects. Tackling the very way in which social scientists analyze why people do things, The Explanation of Social Action is a novel and essential take on the evidence on which their explanations are based.