Beijing Normal University
Foundations of Educational Research:
Methodology, Epistemology and Ontology
Topic 4
Methodological & Epistemological Foundations of
theCritical Social Science
A.Traditions of Critical Theory: A Brief Account
1.Immanuel Kant’s critical theories intranscendental idealism
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) may be considered as the first critical theorist of the modern philosophy
a.In his famous essay on “What is Enlightenment?” (1784), Kant celebrates the human capacities of liberating from dogmatism and tutelage and to reason independently and self-reflectively.
"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapereaude (Dare to know)! 'Have courage to use your own reason!' - that is the motto of enlightenment." (Kant, 1996/1784)
b.Accordingly, Kant had produced a series of books to apply his formulation of critical reasoning to different domains of human intellectualities, namely theoretical reasons seeking truth, practical reasons seeking ethical-moral goods, and aesthetic-teleological reasons seeking judgment on beauty and substantive ends. Accordingly, he published three books respectively entitled
i.Critique of Pure Reason (1781)
ii.Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and
iii.Critique of Judgment (1790)
c.Taking together the three critiques, Kant attempts to elevate human reasons to the transcendental and universal level. That is to seek the transcendental principles guiding human reasons in epistemological enquiries, in ethic-moral practices, and aesthetic-teleological judgments. Kant’s critical project has been characterized in philosophy as transcendental idealism. That is because he has built his three critical projects on separate sets of transcendental ideas, which will not be explicated in details in this course.
2.Karl Marx’s critical theory in historical materialism
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is one of the prominent critical theorists of the nineteenth century. He directs his reflective and critical reason on one specific aspect of human society in the nineteenth century’s Europe, namely the capitalistic-industrial mode of production. As a result, Marx has produced a series of strong critique of the political-economy of capitalism in the nineteenth–century’s Western Europe. Most notably, his critiques on
a.The exploitative nature of the class relationship of capitalism
b.The alienating and reifying effects of the commodification process on human existence in the capitalistic mode of production
c.The ideological and hegemonic distortions on cultural context of capitalism
3.Max Weber’scritical theory on Rationalism:
Max Weber (1864-1920)is one of the founding father of sociology and a critical theorist of the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His critical theory is mostly built on his critique of the rationalization of Western European societies. For example, (To be expounded in details in Topic 6)
a.The domination or even hegemony of the instrumental rationality; and
b.The reified iron cage upon the existence of the modern man.
B.The Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School
1.Critical Theory of the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt School:
Critical Theory (in capital letter) is commonly designated to the theoretical and methodological orientations initiated by a group of scholars in the Institute of Social Research in the University of Frankfurt. The Institute was founded in 1923. As the Nazi assumed power in Germany in January 1933, the institute was forced to leave Germany and finally settled in New York and affiliated with ColumbiaUniversity in 1934. Work produced by the leading scholars of the Institute, such as Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse focused mainly on critical examination of human reason and its potentiality as well as fallibility.
For examples
a.Max Horkheimer’s distinction between Traditional Theory and Critical Theory:
Horkheimer, as the founding director of the Institute for Social Research, has explicitly laid down the methodological and epistemological differences between Critical Theory, the research orientation of which the Institute of Social Research has identified with, and what Horkheimerlabelled Traditional Theory, which dominates the intellectual scenery of Western Europe in the twentieth century. (Horkheimer, 1982, Pp. 188-252)
i.Traditional Theory: Horkheimer points out that according to the epistemological orientation of Traditional Theory, theory is a configuration of interconnected propositions stipulating a specific aspect of the world. The validity of the theory depends on whether the contents of its propositions finds correspondence and consonance with the actual facts in the external world. The methodological assumption of the Traditional Theory presuppose that the nomological regularities verified in empirical-analytical science are objectively existed and given. At the same time it is assumed that the interpretations and meanings revealed from historical-hermeneutic studies are necessary and authentic representations of the lifeworld. Hence, in Traditional Theory, knowledge is taken as ahistorical, decontextual and interest-neutral products of human reasons.
ii.Critical Theory: In opposite to the epistemological orientation of the Traditional Theory, Critical Theory views theory and its propositions as intellectual products embedded in particular historical and socio-economic contexts. “The critical theory of society…has for its object men as producers of their own historical way of life in its totality. The real situations which are the starting-point of science are not regarded simply as data to be verified and to be predicted according to the law of probability. Every datum depends not on nature alone but also on the power man has over it. Objects, the kind of perception, the questions asked, and the meaning of the answers all bear witness to human activities and the degree of man’s power.” (Horkheimer, 1982, P. 244) Accordingly, the social world to be studied is no longer assumed as given or fixed. “The critical theory in its concept formation and in all phases of its development very consciously makes its own that concern for the rational organization of human activities which it is its task to illumine and legitimate. For this theory is not concerned only with goals already imposed by the existent way of life, but with men and all their potentialities.” (Horkheimer, 1982, P. 245) Therefore, critical theory “never aims simply at an increase of knowledge. Its goal is man’s emancipation from slavery.” (Horkheimer, 1982, p. 246)
b.Max Horkheimer’s critique on pure reason and formal logic: Taking the assumption that human reasons are embedded in particular historical-social contexts and at the same time embodied in specific subjectivities, Horkheim accordingly wages his critiques on pure reason and formal logic
i.Max Horkheimer critique on Immanuel Kant's famous theses on “critique of reason” by asserting that the assumptions on "transcendental ego", “decontextualized self” and "pure reason" are spurious in the light of Critical Theory. He emphasizes that "it is the human being who thinks, not the Ego or Reason…. [And that] is not something abstract, such as the human essence, but always human beings living in a particular historical epoch." (Horkheimer, 1968, p.145; quoted in Hoy and McCarthy, 1995, p.9) Accordingly, critical theorists must strive to guard against the “impure reason” that may be spawned from particular historical and social contexts in which thinkers and researchers embedded
ii.By the same taken, Horkheimer also waged his critique on formal logic. He argued that human reason should not merely rely on formal logic but must include the part on substantive logic. “Horkhiemer wrote: ‘Logic is not independent of content.’ (Horkhiemer, 1934)…Formalism characteristic of …bourgeois logic, had once been progressive, but it is now served only to perpetuate the status quo. True logic, as well as true rationalism, must go beyond form to include substantive element as well.” (Jay, 1973, p. 55)
c.Dialectic of Enlightenment: One of the exemplar research of the Critical Theory is the study conducted by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno is to analyze how human reason has fallen into the Nazi rule. The research project commenced at the end of the WWII with its objective as follows:
“The dilemma that faced us in our work proves to be the first phenomenon for investigation: the self-destruction of the Enlightenment. ...The fallen nature of modern man cannot be separate from social progress. On the one hand the growth of economic productivity furnishes the conditions for greater justice; on the other hand it allows the technical apparatus and the social groups which administer it a disproportionate superiority to the rest of the population. The individual is wholly devalued in relation to the economic powers, which at the same time press the control of society over nature to hitherto unsuspected heights.” (Horkhiemer and Adorno, 1986/44, p.xiii-xv)
d.The project of “Studies in Prejudice”: Fronted by the “facts” produced by the Nazi’s project of Anti-Semitism, members of the FrankfurtSchool migrated to the US launched a large scale empirical project “Studies in Prejudice” to investigate how individual as well as social reasons are distorted and biased. The project had produced five publications.
i.Adorno, Theodor W., E. Frenkel-Burnswick, D.J. Levinson and R.N. Sanford (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & brothers.
ii.Bettelheim, Bruno and M. Janowitz (1950) Dynamics of Prejudice. New York: Harper & brothers.
iii.Ackerman and M. Jahoda (1950) Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder. New York: Harper & brothers.
iv.Massing, Paul (1949) Rehearsal for Destruction. New York: Harper & brothers.
v.Lowenthal, Leo and N. Guterman (1949) Prophets of Deceit. New York: Harper & brothers.
2.JurgenHabermas’ critical social science: As a prominent member of second generation of Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School, JurgenHabermas in his Frankfurt inaugural address in 1965 summarized the development of research projects of Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, which he renamed as the “critical social science” as follows.
“Critical social science …is concerned with going beyond this goal to determine when theoretical statements grasp invariant regularities of social action as such and when they express ideologically frozen relations of dependence that can in principle be transformed. To the extent that this is the case, the critique of ideology, as well, moreover, as psychoanalysis, take into account that information about lawlike connections sets off a process of reflection in the consciousness of those whom the law are about. Thus the level of unreflected consciousness, which is one of the initial conditions of such laws, can be transform. Of course, to this end a critically mediated knowledge of laws cannot through reflection alone render a law itself inoperative, but it can render it inapplicable.
“The methodological framework that determines the meaning of the validity of critical propositions of this category is established by concept of self-reflection. The latter releases the subject from dependence on hypostatized powers. Self-reflection is determined by an emancipatory cognitive interest.” (Habermas, 1971, P. 310)
3.The distinctiveness of the critical social science: With references of precedent discussion, we may conclude that the critical social science has developed into an independent methodological approach and epistemological perspective distinct itself from the analytical empirical science and historical hermeneutic traditions in numbers of significant ways.
a.In contrast with the analytical-empirical science on the research outcomes of finding nomological or probabilistic regularities of the social world, critical social scientists will not settle with these regularities as they are but will strive to reveal the possible power hypostatized within these regularities and social structure. Furthermore, they will try to reveal the possible social inequality, bias, distortion, and oppression, which have been institutionalized and legitimatized by these social regularities and structures.
b.Critical social science agree with historical-hermeneutic tradition on the research outcomes of retrieving the meanings encoded in different representations. Critical social scientists would even accept the existence of meaning configurations constituted in the forms of institutions, traditions, and cultures, which perpetuate resiliently and continuously. However, they will not settle within interpretations at this level, but will try to reveal the possible ideology and false consciousness underlying these meaning configurations. Furthermore, they will attempt to reveal the possible distortion, alienation and reification, which have been frozen and legitimatized in these meaning configurations.
c.Accordingly, critical social scientists will not satisfied with providing correct predictions about social regularities or rendering understanding about social practices, they will try to develop human potentialities, to emancipate them from slavery, and to seek possibility for social betterments.
4.The paradigm of the critical social science: Given the above explications of the methodological approach to critical social science, we may summarize the approach into the following research questions.
a.Critique of the impurity and fallibility of reason: One of the primary research questions confronting the critical social scientists is to go beyond the self-confident or even self-complacent belief in human’s own reason and rationality, and reflectively confront the fallibility or even detrimental effects of reason on humanity and the lifeworld.
Habermas has summarized the efforts of critical theorists’ reflections on human‘s own reason and rationality and especially its fallible and detrimental efforts as “rationalization as reificaion” (Habermas, 1987/1981, P. 379) They include
i.Karl Marx’s critique on rationalization of mode of production by the bourgeoisie, which led to the rise of capitalism and its reification of human labor and alienation of human production.
ii.Max Weber’s extended the critique on Occidental rationalization by not only examining its effects on production but reflecting on modern society at large. This is especially significant in Weber’s examine the reifying effects of bureaucratization of human organization in general, which Weber has characterized as the constitution of the “iron cage”.
iii.The first-generation critical theorists of the Frankfurt School have further developed this line of critique on rationalization in modern society by empirically inquiring into the detrimental effects of rationalization manifested during the two World Wars.
iv.JurgenHaberma, in his two-volume work The Theory of Communicative Action (1984 & 1987) has summarized the general effects of Occidental rationalization into the constitutions of the capitalist market and the modern state. He has further underlined the two imperatives that both the market and the state have imposed upon human existence and their communal lives (the Lifeworld), namely the money steering and power-steering imperatives. Habermasfinally stipulates that these two systemic imperatives have not only colonized the Lifeowrldbut have also reified the very communicative rationality that men possess.
b.Critique of human subjects and their subjectivity: Based on the assumption of the embeddedness of human reasons in their historical and social context, critical social scientists stipulate that one should turn theircritical examinations to the inquirers themselves. That is because “knowing and acting subjects are social and embodied beings, and the products of their thought and action bear ineradicable traces of their situations and interests.” (McCarthy, 1991, P. 44) Accordingly, one line of inquiry within the critical-theory tradition is to reflect and examine the reification of the subjectivity and consciousness of the “modern man”. Follow the lead of Freund’s psychoanalysis, the first generation of the critical theorists such as Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse have produced a series of work on the reification of subjectivity of the modern man
i.Eric Fromm (1941) Escape from Freedom, and
iiHerbert Marcuse (1964) One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society
c.Critique of transcendental truth and the emphasis on the practical truth: Under the epistemological assumption that both the knowers and their attained knowledge are historically and socially embedded, critical social scientists refute the concept of truth of transcendental idealism formulated by Kant. That is truths are no longer conceived as essences in human knowledge which universally, permanently and transcendentally exist. Instead, the reality of social world is conceived as the outcomes of human practices which have been vindicated, validated, accumulated and even legitimatized in daily social interactions across time and space with a “Lifeworld”. As a result, the truth claims of any knowledge about any aspects of a social world must be tested against the practical validity, which is to be found in the correspondent social interactions within the relevant aspects of a specific “Lifeworld”. Hence, truths are no longer to be sought after as something universal and transcendental, but must be revealed from social practices within particular historical and social contexts. The traditional oppositions between theory and practice, theoretical science and practical science, facts and values, and more specifically the primacy of theory over practice, are therefore valid demarcations to critical social scientists. (McCathy, 1991, Pp. 44-45)
d.Critique of prevailing social reality and emphasis on social possibilities and potentialities: For critical social scientists, social world is configuration produced by human efforts, therefore it is assumed that there may be “power hypostatized” and “ideology frozen” within this seemly permanent social structures and regularities. As a result, two of the major areas of inquiry of critical social sciences are
i.Critical inquiry of social power
ii.Critical inquiry of ideology and hegemony
Along these two lines of inquiry, one the primary objectives of critical social inquiries is to reveal the possible systemic distortions and biases prevailing in existing social structures and representations. Subsequently, critical social scientists are obliged to seek out possible way to emancipate human potentialities that are trapped and suppressed by these systemic distortions.
C.The Epistemological Foundation of the Critical Social Science: The Concept of Explanatory Critique
1.Models of explanation in social sciences: So far we have covered three methodological approaches and epistemological perspectives, it is revealed that each of them apply different modes of explanation to account for the social phenomena under study.
a.Nomological causal explanation: It refers to the explanatory models, which aim to provide law-like explanation in the form of antecedent cause and subsequent effect causation to the social phenomena under study. To a less extent, it substantiates at least probabilistic covariance connection between two variables under study.