- Brian Fay and J. Donald Moon
-Professors at Wesleyan University: Fay (Philosophy), Moon (Government)
Those Who are Wrong: No one really
Position Defended: A middle ground between Humanist and Naturalist Social Philosophy
Work Discussed: What Would and Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like?
Is That Really Them on the Bicycles?: No
-FayMoon's work addresses the central problem that was discussed in Taylor's Interpretation and the Sciences of Man, that is, how should the human situation be considered with respect to science? Taylor believed we should find a new interpretive science that utilizes hermeneutics to address the meaning behind human interactions. FayMoon, without proposing what the new science will exactly look like, propose that the dogmatic one-sidedness of the Naturalists and the Humanists should be bridged to include important aspects of each in a better social science.
Definitions
Intentionality - That actions in a social setting carry with them an inherent aspect of will that necessarily includes meaning.
Naturalism - Doctrine that all reality is based on laws of nature, usually explaining humans through genetic/biological/environmental terms
Humanism - In this case, describing the human condition in a unique way, like through hermeneutics, usually stressing the meaning and holism behind actions.
-FayMoon begin by categorizing the ways to philosophically think about human actions; they are split into 3 groups:
1. Understand them in a science of intentionalism (Humanism/Taylor)
2. Analyze all aspects of social life in behavioral and observational way (Naturalist/ Wilson)
3. Realize that mental states inherently include beliefs and meaning, so seek to create a new science on behavior through instituting new terminology (Eliminative Materialists)
-This third alternative strives to make a new extensional language in which to understand intentional actions in a scientific way. FayMoon set aside the this possibility since it is outside their field of inquiry and really isn't practiced and can't be effectively realized. If you wish to learn more about this, read Quine. He's super fun.
Humanist vs. the Naturalist
Lets take the following example:
Our man here just asked his lady friend whether she "Spits or Swallows".
-Our Humanist would consider all the aspects of meaning and underlying systems that are incorporated in this question. For instance, the idea of "Spits or Swallows" must be understood by both parties, the inter-office social system must be understood, the culture of sexual proposition must be taken into account, his and her psyche must be taken into account. But this would be considered a singular situation. The hermeneutic discussion of this proposal would be discussed as a singular event, done in a certain time and place and by certain people. Thus, it could not and should not be extrapolated to be relevant for all sexual propositions.
-Our Naturalist would understand this question as a natural advance by a member of the male species towards the female. This type of coy question could get a laugh or a giggly shock out of his counterpart and could propel him into a new status in her eyes, as a no-nonsense character who knows what he wants. A strong, direct male, something females look for. It is in his socio-biological framework to play this type of mating game and his beliefs behind it are only based on this inherent aspect to him. Though the situation is complex, its ultimate aim is towards reproduction and/or the fulfilling of an animalistic sexual need
Not all that different from this sexual need.
Problems With Both Sides
-FayMoon propose that neither extreme of thought is completely correct.
-Unsurprisingly, the main problem with the Naturalist account is that it doesn't take intentionality into account nearly enough. Each situation is very intricate in the meanings it implies and there is no way to get away from intentionality. In order to correctly evaluate the situation, you must have a better understanding of the participants and situation than just male/female/sex. They basically use the same tactic to defeat the Naturalists as Taylor. Holism and interpretation are necessary tools to use when studying the extremely complex and meaning-filled world of human interaction.
-The fault with the hermeneutic Humanistic approach is, in effect, its inability to draw conclusions. If we are going to trouble ourselves with studying human behavior in any way, we should be able to draw broader conclusions from the study. For it is necessary to have human social theories in order to explain some human phenomena.
"From the humanist perspective, there is neither a need for theories nor a place for them in the study of society. (At least this is true if we understood "theory" to refer to the systematic, unified explanations of a diverse range of social phenomena.) There is no place for theories in the humanist position because its cardinal point is that social science is simply interpretive: it seeks to provide us with an understanding of the meanings of particular actions or practices of a given society...such understanding may require that we grasp the worldview of the society or culture in question, and elaborate and sophisticated intellectual structures may be necessary to do so."
If we are to study our inappropriate question, there is a necessity to have theories for the complex systems that apply to it. To just understand Jimmy and Diane here would be to ignore the helpfulness and explanatory power of social theories. For instance, her response, "Go Fuck Yourself", doesn't just imply that Diane doesn't take that type of talk, but might be reasoned to be an example of a more overarching theory of male/female relations that women are not supposed to adhere to such direct advances, and answering strongly in response emphasizes that theory.
"It may be a matter of establishing that different behaviors have the same or similar meanings, as when aspects of American Halloween customs are shown to be similar in meaning to the myths and rituals of the Kayapo, a people living in the Amazon basin. Once again, because social theories are theories of intentional objects, they pose problems for analysis which cannot be grasped merely from an understanding of physical things."
On the same line of reasoning, we could determine that she doesn't take overt sexual advances lightly either.
-Taylor writes, "With changes in his self-definition go changes in what man is, such that he has to be understood in different terms. But the conceptual mutations in human history can and frequently do produce conceptual webs which are incommensurable, that is, where terms cannot be defined in relation to a common stratum of expressions."
-FayMoon support Taylor in that humans are self-defining and that an interpretive method of understanding human social behavior is necessary. Where they differ with him is that they hold that you can place system-wide theories onto social science. Taylor holds that people are too fleeting, too dynamic to place common tags over their actions; they all must be considered anew in a hermeneutic way. FayMoon think this is ignoring an important aspect of study, finding theories that hold, a reductionism of human actions, in a way.
-Furthermore, sometimes actions that agents take don't make sense, or they are not aware of their real intentions.
Sometimes people act for reasons even they cannot explain, or their "actual" reasons are not what they have convinced themselves their motives are. So how can a hermeneutic discussion of the person's actions be relevant when their motives are so hidden that not even they are aware of them?
"How is it possible for people to be so ignorant and confused about their own needs and motives, thereby leading them to engage in destructive and frustrating activities? To answer this question we must have an account of what causes people to mistake some purpose or object (wealth, God, sex), for what they really want (social distinction, happiness, eternal life), and how these delusions are maintained. Freud's notions of sublimation and repression, and Marx's notions of alienation and ideology, are examples of concepts created in order to explain the process by which an acquires symbolic import and with it causal power"
Conclusion
-FayMoon attempted to show how both Naturalism and Humanism are too extreme in their stances on the social science. Neither is completely wrong (the theory of Naturalism and the interpretation of Humanism are on the right track) but both adhere too strongly to dogmas.
-FayMoon do not, however, give the over-riding answer to what the correct social science should look like. They are trying to bring to the surface problems in both methods so that a better common ground can be found in the middle.
"This does not mean, however, that we reject both of these traditions of thought entirely. On the contrary, these philosophical metatheories are partial realizations of the task of giving an account of social science. What is wrong with them is not that they are false, but that they are one-sided. Indeed, as we have suggested throughout our analysis, these two positions can be reformulated in such a way as to render them compatible, and their insights complementary."
-FayMoon leave that reformulation to somebody else.
