The sociological position of "Erklären" and "Verstehen" is viewed in two perspectives according to the meaning and interpretation of each concept. The philosophy of "Verstehen" is interpretative understanding and "Erklären" is concerned with the law-governed explanation, and these are two ways to make scientifically respectable sense of a phenomenon in social research. The scientist, who engages in "Erklären", tries to make explanatory sense of the phenomenon by finding the laws that govern it, whereas the scientist, who engages in "Verstehen", tries to make empathetic sense of the phenomenon by looking for the perspective from which the phenomenon appears to be meaningful and appropriate (interpretism).
The originally German tradition of "Verstehen" insists that the social sciences are unlike the natural sciences, in that making merely explanatory sense of social phenomena can never lead to comprehensive knowledge of these phenomena, even if explanation would be enough, and indeed being all there is to comprehensive knowledge of natural phenomena. The reasons for this claim have been critically analysed in this paper.
The first set of reasons as discussed in this paper, derives from an investigation of the differences between natural and social phenomena based on sociological point of view. The second set discussed derives from a survey of a number of controversies that are high on the agenda of those who assume that "Erklären" and "Verstehen" are incompatible methods, only one of which can be the proper method of the social sciences.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Concept of Verstehen (Interpretative Understanding)
Concept of Erklären (Law-Governed Explanation)
Purposiveness
Essential relationality (holism)
Verstehen and Erklären as Two ways to do social science Research
Unity of science
Intentional Explanations
Subjective Meanings
Discussion
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper explores the methodological dualism in social sciences, specifically focusing on the tension and potential synergy between the German concepts of "Erklären" (law-governed explanation) and "Verstehen" (interpretative understanding) to determine the most effective approach for sociologically researching human behavior.
- The distinction between natural phenomena and mental/social phenomena.
- The application of "Verstehen" as a method for grasping subjective meaning.
- Critique of logical positivism and the pursuit of unified science.
- The role of purposiveness and holism in analyzing human action.
- The necessity of balancing explanatory and interpretative paradigms.
Excerpt from the Book
Essential relationality (holism)
According to adherents of the Verstehen (Davidson 1980, Taylor 1964, Malcolm 1968, Wright 1971, Dennett 1973), tradition, we pick out natural and mental phenomena in very different ways. They can pick out, or individuate, natural phenomena without engaging in an attempt to make explanatory sense of them. That is precisely what creates the demand for natural science: here is a natural event (say the collapse of a bridge) and we can identify it in such a way that we know we are talking about this event, even though we have not the faintest idea of what caused it to happen. Thus, they can fail to understand a phenomenon we can describe quite accurately, and this is what motivates us to engage in erklären, i.e. to look for causal and law-governed explanations (Werber, 1947).
We cannot, however, pick out mental phenomena in a similar way. Because their meaning is crucial to their identity, it is impossible to individuate a mental phenomenon without, by the same token, engaging quite seriously in an attempt to make empathetic sense of it (Taylor 1964, Wright 1971, Dennett 1973) That is, the atomism that seems possible with respect to natural phenomena (each of which can be described in total isolation from the others) is completely foreign to the realm of mental phenomena. Getting acquainted with these phenomena requires holistic assumptions. In order to pick out such a mental phenomenon as a vote, for example, we need a tremendous amount of detailed knowledge about a whole background in which events could count as votes. This entails knowledge of institutions, of means to justify authority, of decision procedures, etc. This semantic background contains more than just the conceptual relations that make it possible for something to be a vote. It also contains the intentional relations that make it true that some bodily behaviour constitutes a particular vote; the intentional relations that determine, for example, that this arm being raised at this particular moment counts as a vote for X, a vote that could also have been expressed by this particular option box being ticked, or by this name written down on this particular slip of paper, etc (Morris, 1977).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the historical and philosophical development of the "Verstehen" concept by Dilthey and introduces the distinction between natural and mental phenomena.
Concept of Verstehen (Interpretative Understanding): Explains how "Verstehen" functions as a method to capture meaning, highlighting the challenges of meaning ascriptions and double hermeneutics.
Concept of Erklären (Law-Governed Explanation): Discusses the positivist approach that seeks to explain human actions through causal laws rather than empathetic understanding.
Purposiveness: Analyzes goal-directedness as a distinct feature of human action, arguing that teleology is essential for understanding behavior beyond mere functionality.
Essential relationality (holism): Argues that mental phenomena cannot be understood in isolation and require a holistic background to be correctly identified and interpreted.
Verstehen and Erklären as Two ways to do social science Research: Provides a historical overview of the methodological controversies surrounding the use of these two approaches in social research.
Unity of science: Addresses the positivist demand for a unified scientific method and the subsequent criticism regarding the exclusion of empathetic interpretation.
Intentional Explanations: Critiques the positivist view on intentional actions, emphasizing that reasons function differently than causal laws in explaining human behavior.
Subjective Meanings: Explores the paradox of acquiring objective scientific knowledge while accounting for the subjective meanings inherent in social life.
Discussion: Evaluates rational choice theory as an attempt to bridge normativity and objective science, ultimately suggesting a need for both interpretative and explanatory methods.
Conclusion: Summarizes the necessity of a two-step sociological process that combines individual motive analysis with an understanding of the broader social context.
Keywords
Erklären, Verstehen, Interpretative Understanding, Law-Governed Explanation, Social Science, Sociology, Positivism, Hermeneutics, Purposiveness, Holism, Intentional Explanations, Rational Choice Theory, Subjective Meanings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the methodological dichotomy between "Erklären" (explanation through laws) and "Verstehen" (interpretation of meaning) in the context of sociological and social science research.
What are the core themes addressed in the text?
The core themes include the philosophical roots of social science, the critique of logical positivism, the role of human agency, intentionality, and the epistemological necessity of incorporating both objective explanation and subjective interpretation.
What is the central research question?
The research explores whether the social sciences should adopt the law-governed methods of the natural sciences or if they require a unique approach based on the interpretative understanding of human action.
What scientific method does the author advocate for?
The author argues that a completed social science cannot rely on "Erklären" alone; it must strike a balance by incorporating the "Verstehen" approach to account for meaning, motive, and social context.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body critically analyzes key concepts like purposiveness and holism, reviews historical debates between neo-Kantians and positivists, and evaluates the limitations of rational choice theory in explaining human deliberation.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Erklären, Verstehen, Interpretative Understanding, Social Science, Hermeneutics, and Holistic methodology.
How does the author define the "double hermeneutics" within Verstehen?
The author describes it as the process where grasping the meaning of a phenomenon involves interpreting an already pre-interpreted phenomenon, requiring researchers to navigate various meaning ascriptions.
Why does the author argue that human actions are like "texts"?
The author suggests that just as texts carry meaningful content, human actions are defined by the meanings ascribed to them by the agents involved, making them more similar to mental phenomena than to physical events like falling leaves.
- Quote paper
- Dr. Newman Enyioko (Author), 2015, The Sociological Position of "Erklären" and "Verstehen". Meaning and Interpretation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1034552
