Lecture 5

Question 1

Hermeneutics

Answer 1

there is always a role for ‘perspectives’/ situatedness’
Not the same as interpretivism, hermeneutics at its basis with a subjective approach.
In hermeneutics:
- Emphasis on representation in social scientific research
- The influence of one’s perspective requires consideration of historical development
and one’s own experience -> allows room for holistic perspective.
- In L2-L3, it has mainly been described as a ‘problem’: can hermeneutics
(interpretivism) be considered ‘scientific’?
- L5 it can provide a positive approach: the use of one’s own perspective can make a
significant contribution to social scientific research.

Question 2

René Descartes (1596-1650)

Answer 2

“We can doubt, for example, about the reliability of transmitted knowledge or sensory
perception. Does the world (including my body) actually exist?“ But that I think about these
things and thus have a spirit –there is no doubt about these facts.”
➢ Result: There is certain knowledge about the existence of the mind, a ‘thinking ego’
(non-spatial, spiritual entity: res cogitans)
➢ Problem: how does the ‘thinking ego’ acquire knowledge of the world (spatial matter
including the body: res extensa) outside of us?

Question 3

Hermeneutics: subject-object distinction

Answer 3

• The subject-object distinction of the empirical-analytical method emerges from
  Descartes’ dualism (mind and matter/ subject and object etc.)
• The empirical-analytical method presupposes a ‘gap’ between:
  o The researcher (the subject).
  o The reality being investigated (the object)

The S-O distinction may apply in the natural sciences, but can it apply to the social sciences?
Recall the comparison between astrophysics and social psychology:
➢ The ‘method’ of interpretation (hermeneutics) is not based on subjects investigating
objects, but on the mutual penetration of worlds (important)
Take -away message: subjective view of the world as a starting points:

Question 4

A comparison (objectivistic attitude vs hermeneutic attitude)

Answer 4

Objectivistic attitude:
- The subjective interpretation of reality must be replaced by the objective, scientific
image of reality
- The objectivistic attitude distinguishes subjective observations from objective reality
This objectivistic attitude is problematic according to hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics (or hermeneutic attitude)
- The subjectively interpreted world is the only reality, and this reality gives rise to
scientific objectification (and not vice versa).
- So, subjective experience is primary. There is no non-subjective view of reality (at
least in the social sciences…)

Question 5

Schütz–two ways of understanding social reality:

Answer 5

• Common-sense thinking (of the subjects at group level)
• Social scientific models of motivations, feelings, meanings
• These levels must be consistent / brought together.
  Postulate of adequacy:
• Social actors must understand the concepts constructed by social scientists (related
  to the perspective of the ‘stranger’).
  Hermeneutics:
• Social scientists must define concepts in such way that they match the meaning that
  actors themselves give to these concepts.

Question 6

Dilthey and Gadamer

Answer 6

Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911
“Social reality is not ‘natural’ but ‘spiritual’ and ‘historical’ and must therefore be
approached in its own way.”
Q: What could be a specific approach for the social sciences?
- Motives and intentions are different from causes (natural science).
- E.g., the difference in the ratinale‘explain –predict’.
- Yet, according to Dilthey, we can predict people’s behavior without using causal
relationships

Question 7

Essential for Dilthey:

Answer 7

Essential for Dilthey:

• In social science you therefore also start with ‘experience’.
• Basic thought of all scientific disciplines: focus on observations.
• This means entering the world that you are observing.
  o Interview (several kinds)
  o Focus groups
  o Participant observation
• But, if you conduct research through an interview, focus groups or participatory
  research, you must (as a scientist) take an insider’s perspective

Question 8

Dilthey navigates between two views

Answer 8

➢ Through insider’s perspective and imagination (shared humanity, starting from own
life experiences) trying to understand motives and intentions (subjective).
But he also wants to make a claim about objectivity. Interpretations must therefore also be
based on the cultural context (legal texts, works of art, speeches, etc.) in which the motives
and intentions are expressed and are ‘perceptible’ to everyone.
- This reveals that Diltehy was similar to Schütz in thinking that there can be an
‘objective’ way to do social science.

Question 9

Enter Gadamer

Answer 9

Hans-Georg Gadamer criticizes Dilthey’s principles.
- Empathy with others is too much based on ‘(folk) psychology’.
- Dilthey must abandon the ideal of objectivity.
For Gadamer: drop the ideal of objectivity:
- You always approach reality from your own perspective and experiences, and you
must use them to be able to understand.
- In the interpretation, ‘the horizon’ of the author’s work merges with that of the
interpreter.
- Progress in understanding through dialogue and the hermeneutical circle
o e.g., understanding of a novel

Question 10

Artikel Dooremalen (Dilthey) Hermeneutics

Answer 10

‘to interpret’, from the point of
view of hermeneutics the methods of the natural
sciences are highly inappropriate for the study of
humans.
- According to Dilthey the point of social science
must be observation, not speculation
- “All science, all philosophy is experiential”
- To experience and understand the human world: we must not step out of that
worlds, but be part of it.
- From one’s own subjectivity one can imaginatively recreate the mental states of
others

Question 11

As Dilthey puts it:

Answer 11

I myself who experience and know myself from within, am a constituent of this social body and .. the other constituents are similar to me and are thus for me likewise comprehensible in their inner being. I understand the life of society.
In the context of social sciences: it’s not the business of erklaren (=seeking explanations
through general laws) but of verstehen (=interpretative understanding)

Question 12

Verstehen

Answer 12

the imaginative or dramatic skill to project oneself imaginatively in other
people’s shoes and relive their experiences.
- Compared to the interpretation of a text: to understand it we must read it again and
again in a process that is now usually referred to as the hermeneutic circle.
- We can only understand another human begin by moving back and forth between
the individual, his expressions and the particular slice of history of which these are a
part.

Question 13

Social science have a whole different foundation and structure than the natural science:

Answer 13

• Natural science are nomothetic = pursue general, even universal knowledge
• Social science are idiographic = they seek to describe historically unique events, for
  instance in biographies. With its methodology of verstehen, Hermeneutics thus
  provides the foundation of the social science.

Dilthey failed to see that interpreters will never be able to shake off their own
preconceptions and presuppositions.

Question 14

Chapter 4 book – Interpretive Methodology

Interpretations are testable to a certain extent and can thus be tested to a certain degree.
An interpretation is reliable if:

Answer 14

There is evidence to support the interpretation
- There is no evidence that contradicts the interpretation
The illusion of authority and authenticity
- Researcher ‘claims to have been there’, ‘creates a text’ and ‘writes himself out.’

• Is the text a ‘pure representation’ of reality (realism)?
• Or rather a product that looks like fiction (constructivism)

Question 15

Question:
- To what extent does a researcher shape the results or provide a personally
favourable interpretation?
- To what extent does a researcher consciously or unconsciously project their own
beliefs on the results of research?

Answer 15

A possible solution: Take a reflexive stance?
“The claim is that if the interpreter can (somehow) recognize and reflect on these
background conditions of the research, the research will be more epistemologically robust.”
(Risjord, p.62)

Question 16

Two forms of reflexive stance:

Answer 16

1. Bracketing: ignoring your own views, values, beliefs.

2. Full disclosure: Describe your own position as well as possible

Question 17

Problems for bracketing

Answer 17

1. Why should social scientists be able to do what everyone finds difficult, i.e.to
   understand and describe their own biases?
2. Do one’s own views form a sort of veil that interferes with the understanding of
   others? Isn’t one’s own perspective a prerequisite to understanding?

Question 18

Problems for disclosure:

Answer 18

1. But how authentic is this representation of one’s own position or how authentic can
   it be? Can authenticity be an illusion?
2. One might still be biased / unconsciously selective about what they disclose

Question 19

Looking for a new interpretation of ‘reflexivity’.

So:

Answer 19

it is naive to think that,
o (i) researchers know their own biases without any doubt, and
o (ii) then simply write them down.
We need a more nuanced understanding of the way in which qualitative evidence is
produced.

Question 20

Q: How can you actually understand someone from a completely different culture or, for
instance, a totally different political system?

Answer 20

• Problem of relativism
• Problem of (ir)rationality
  E.g., Azande witchcraft
• Asymmetry thesis
• Relativism
• Principle of charity
• This all relates back to interpretivisim!

Question 21

Evidence for interpretation

Answer 21

Qualitative Research Methods
- Interviews
o Structured vs. Semi-Structured vs. Non-Structured
o Provides access to the participants understanding of the world and their
experiences. → Perspectives and interpretations
o Risk: clumsiness (e.g. clothing, location, the questions asked, etc.)
- Focus groups
o Creates group interaction among the subjects
o Look at product of the group, the process and the (perhaps) consensus
o Risk: may be one-sided (e.g. because of one dominant participant)
- Participant observation
o the investigator engages with the subjects across a broad range of everyday
behavior
o The investigator may or may not take a role within the group
o Risk: not seeing non-verbal and natural interaction (inaccessible)
→ Goal of all three: uncover the meaning, experience and values implicit in society culture.
An interpreter’s authority is one of his strongest epistemic credentials.
→ number of authors argued that the common view of the interpreter’s authority is naïve
- Recognizing the interpreter’s hand in the creation of the text to be inter- preted
leads us toward a more nuanced view of qualitative methods.
Another sort of response to the critique of authenticity is to look more carefully at the
notion of “experience”
- The goal of interpretation is to characterize social relationships, and the interpreter’s
encounter is evidence for that characterization.

Question 22

Reflexivity

Answer 22

= a response to the recognition that, in the social sciences, the researchers are
subject to the very same social forces they are studying
- Form of reflexivity technique = Bracketing
o Qualitative researchers are advised to identify their beliefs, values, interests,
feelings, and social roles relevant to the subject of study
o Means by which researchers endeavor not to allow their assumptions to
shape the data collection process and the persistent effort not to impose
their own understanding and constructions on the data

Question 23

Rationality, Explanation and Interpretive Charity

Answer 23

The problem of Apparent Irrationality
Understanding beliefs and practices that are profoundly different from one’s own is one of
the deepest challenges of the social sciences

• E.g. Azande Witchcraft
  o The failure to conform to empirical common sense was an indication that
  another sort of explanation was required.
  Evans-Pritchard was committed to what later came to be called the asymmetry thesis:
  False belief and illogical inference need explanation, while true and logical beliefs do not.

Question 24

Cultural relativism (Winch):

Answer 24

rationaliteit is relatief in de context van een cultuur (en zijn dus
verschillende vormen van rationaliteit en irrationaliteit)

Question 25

Relativism and Rationality

Answer 25

Peter Winch → Asymmetrical treatment of true and false belief
- Asymmetry presupposes that truth and rationality are language- or culture
independent standards against which interpretation can be judged
- Interpreter needs to add local criteria of reality and rationality to the thick
description. Doing so treats true and false belief, and rational and irrational
inference, as symmetrical in the sense that all stand in equal need of interpretation.
Peter Winch → Relativism
- Any form of relativism must claim a dependence relation: X is relative to Y
- incommensurability: There is no common standard or independent arbiter of what is
real, rational, right, or whatever it is that is said to be relative
An interpeter is bound to seek out and apply local criteria

Question 26

The Principle of Charity

Answer 26

“Winch makes interpretation impossible”
→ Necessity of principle of charity
- Interpret so that your interlocutors have mostly true beliefs
- Beliefs and sentences have content insofar as they are about something, and a belief
can be about some- thing only insofar as it is truly described.
- Interpreter and subjects must agree and also have similar criteria of good reasoning
- Should not be understood as making disagreement impossible, but understanding it
- Tries to re-establish the asymmetry between true and false, rational and irrational
- Ceases to be a substantive constraint on translation

Question 27

Cognition, Evolution and Interpretation

Answer 27

Bounded and Unbounded Rationality
Wason Selection Task Experiment
- Shown these four cards
- Proposition: if a card has a circle on one side, then it is black on the other side?
- (Footnote to proposition) Answer is in the end note of this sentence (No peeking)
- Most get it wrong and accept the explanation
→ Humans tend to systematically and reliably fail to conform the simplest norm of
deductive and inductive inference

Question 28

Logic is the study of how we ought to reason, not how we do, in fact, think.
Distinction between bounded and unbounded

Answer 28

• Unbounded
  o Treat reason as an ideal system, and reasoners as if they were not subject to
  limitations of time, memory, or ability to calculate
• Bounded
  o Understands human reasoning as having limited resources and as being
  robustly prone to systematic mistakes
  o Aim to provide a realistic presentation of human reasoning or decisionmaking processes

Question 29

Cognitive Roots of Culture

Answer 29

Content makes a difference → e.g. Wason Selection task, presented in different way
When problems get presented in social terms, performance increases
Interpretation and Explanation
The ongoing challenge, for both philosophers and social scientists, is to blend interpretation
and explanation in ways that are conceptually sound and empirically fertile.