Charles Tilly Interview: social science "paradigm"

Summary

The transcript discusses the distinction between paradigms in natural sciences and social sciences, highlighting the lack of a unified body of knowledge in the latter. It delves into the impact of consciousness in social sciences, the contested nature of these fields, and the challenges of formulating laws for large-scale social processes like war and revolution. The speaker advocates for methodological localism, emphasizing the importance of understanding individual interactions within institutions to build a coherent picture of social structures and processes.

Takeaways

• 🔬 Paradigms in natural sciences are more structured with established research methods and theories compared to social sciences which remain a contested terrain.
• 🌐 The social sciences lack a unified body of knowledge and procedures for verifying knowledge, leading to a more fluid and open field of study.
• 💡 The difference between social and natural sciences is often attributed to the consciousness of the social scientists, but this view is not universally accepted as creating a fundamental difference.
• 🌿 There's an argument that the social world is 'artificial' in the sense that its structures are created through human actions and interactions, unlike the natural world's given architecture.
• 🤔 The speaker suggests that the search for overarching laws in large social processes and structures has largely been unsuccessful.
• 🔍 A more fruitful approach might be to focus on understanding the mechanisms of interpersonal processes, which can then be compounded to understand larger social phenomena.
• 🌱 Drawing an analogy to evolutionary biology, the speaker implies that understanding small-scale interactions can lead to insights about larger patterns and processes.
• 🏛 The architecture of social institutions is not fixed by necessity but arises from historical events and interactions leading to specific configurations.
• 🛑 The speaker is skeptical about the existence of laws governing complex social phenomena like war or revolution, due to their contingent nature.
• 🔄 Methodological localism is proposed as a way to understand social structures and processes by starting from the individual level and building up.
• 🌟 Creativity and the ability to create complex arrangements are highlighted as distinctive human traits, setting us apart in the natural world.

Q & A

What is a paradigm in the context of natural science?

A paradigm in natural science refers to a framework containing a set of practices that includes specific research methods, theoretical concepts, and experimental procedures that the scientific community generally agrees upon and uses to guide inquiry.

Why is the social sciences' body of knowledge considered less connected than that of natural sciences?

The social sciences lack a unified and integrated body of knowledge with a set of procedures for verifying that knowledge, making it a more contested terrain with less consensus on methods and theories compared to natural sciences.

What is the common misconception about the difference between social sciences and natural sciences?

A common misconception is that the difference lies in consciousness, with social scientists being part of the processes they study. However, the speaker argues that this does not create a fundamental difference in the situation of knowledge.

How does the speaker view the role of consciousness in social sciences?

The speaker acknowledges that social scientists share consciousness with the processes they study, but they do not believe this produces a fundamental difference in knowledge, though it does allow moral and political concerns to influence the field.

What is the 'science of the artificial' as mentioned by Herbert Simon?

The 'science of the artificial' refers to the study of constructs and environments created by humans, distinguishing it from the natural sciences which study the naturally occurring world. It suggests that social sciences deal with man-made structures and systems.

What does the speaker suggest as a distinguishing factor between social and natural sciences?

The speaker suggests that the architecture of the social world is created by humans through actions and interactions, unlike the natural world's architecture, which is given, making the social sciences more about the 'artificial' rather than the 'natural'.

Why does the speaker believe that looking for laws of large social processes and structures has been largely unsuccessful?

The speaker believes that the complexity and contingency of social processes make it difficult to formulate universal laws. The social sciences deal with human interactions that are highly variable and less predictable than natural phenomena.

What is the concept of 'methodological localism' mentioned by the speaker?

Methodological localism is the idea of starting with the understanding of interpersonal processes and then building up to a larger understanding of social structures and processes, as opposed to trying to find overarching laws.

How does the analogy of evolutionary change in the natural world relate to social processes?

The analogy suggests that by focusing on the mechanisms of how individuals or smaller units respond to their environment, we can better understand and compound these observations into a more coherent picture of larger social processes and structures.

What does the speaker imply about the potential for understanding social processes through the study of interpersonal interactions?

The speaker implies that by studying interpersonal interactions, we may be able to build a more complex and accurate understanding of social processes, similar to how molecular biologists have developed a detailed understanding of biological processes.

How does the speaker view the role of political contestation in the social sciences?

The speaker views political contestation as an inherent part of the social sciences, as these fields often deal with issues that are open to political and moral debate, making them a contested terrain where new questions and perspectives continually emerge.

Outlines

00:00

🔬 Paradigms in Natural and Social Sciences

The speaker discusses the concept of paradigms, particularly in the context of natural sciences versus social sciences. They highlight the structured and interconnected nature of knowledge in astronomy, where a new paradigm can be established with a defined set of research methods and theoretical concepts. In contrast, social sciences lack this cohesion and remain a contested field, often influenced by moral and political concerns. The speaker also touches on the idea that social sciences deal with human consciousness and intervention, which is distinct from the natural sciences but does not create a fundamental difference in knowledge acquisition. They suggest that the artificial versus natural dichotomy might better distinguish social from natural sciences, as social structures are created through human actions and interactions.

05:01

🤔 The Complexity of Social Processes and Analogies to Evolution

This paragraph delves into the complexity of social processes and the difficulty of establishing universal laws for large-scale social phenomena like war or revolution. The speaker expresses skepticism about the existence of such laws, citing the historical failures of such attempts. They advocate for a 'methodological localism' approach, which involves understanding social processes by examining interpersonal interactions and then building up to larger structures and processes. Drawing an analogy to evolutionary biology, the speaker suggests that by focusing on individual organisms or genes and their responses to the environment, a more coherent and complex understanding of social evolution can be developed. The emphasis is on the importance of specifying mechanisms at the individual level to gain insight into broader social dynamics.

Keywords

💡Paradigm

A paradigm refers to a framework containing established theories, practices, and standards that shape the approach to a scientific discipline. In the script, it is discussed in the context of the natural sciences, where a paradigm shift in astronomy could involve changing the understanding of black holes. The concept is central to the theme of how knowledge and scientific inquiry evolve within different fields.

💡Social Sciences

Social sciences encompass the study of human society, social relationships, and institutions. The script contrasts social sciences with natural sciences, highlighting the lack of a unified body of knowledge and procedures in the former, which makes it a contested terrain. This keyword is integral to the video's exploration of the complexities and differences between studying human society versus natural phenomena.

💡Natural Sciences

Natural sciences are disciplines that study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, and biology. The script discusses the relative stability and established procedures within natural sciences, contrasting them with the fluidity of social sciences. This term is used to illustrate the more structured approach to understanding the physical universe compared to the social constructs.

💡Consciousness

In the script, consciousness is mentioned as a factor that differentiates social sciences from natural sciences, as social scientists are part of the processes they study. The term is used to highlight the subjective involvement of researchers in social science research, which contrasts with the more objective study of non-conscious natural phenomena.

💡Intervention

Intervention in the script refers to the act of researchers in social sciences engaging with the subjects of their study, either through conducting research or through advocacy. This keyword is significant as it underscores the active role of social scientists in influencing the social realities they study, unlike the more passive observation in natural sciences.

💡Moral and Political Concerns

The script discusses how moral and political concerns can influence social science research, making it a contested field. This keyword is essential for understanding the video's argument that social sciences are inherently intertwined with the values and power dynamics of society, unlike the more value-neutral pursuit of knowledge in natural sciences.

💡Artificial

The term 'artificial' is used in the script to contrast with 'natural,' suggesting that social constructs like states and institutions are created by human actions, unlike the natural world's inherent structures. This keyword helps to frame the discussion on the distinction between the social and natural sciences, emphasizing the human-made nature of social systems.

💡Contingency

Contingency refers to the dependence of an event or situation on conditions that could have been different. In the script, it is used to discuss the unpredictability and variability in social and natural processes, such as evolution or social revolutions. This keyword is key to understanding the video's argument against the existence of universal laws governing complex systems.

💡Evolution

Evolution in the script is used as an analogy to discuss the complexity and unpredictability of natural processes, which can be compared to social processes. The term is important for illustrating the video's point that understanding complex systems requires focusing on smaller, more manageable units of analysis, such as genes or individual organisms.

💡Methodological Localism

Methodological localism is the approach of studying social phenomena by focusing on local interactions and then building up to understand larger structures and processes. The script uses this term to advocate for a bottom-up approach in social science research, starting with individual interactions within institutions to understand broader social dynamics.

💡Laws of Large Processes

Laws of large processes refer to the search for universal principles governing complex and large-scale phenomena, such as war or social revolutions. The script critiques this approach, suggesting that it has not been empirically successful. This keyword is central to the video's skepticism about the existence of overarching laws in social sciences.

Highlights

The concept of paradigms in natural sciences versus social sciences and the challenges in articulating a paradigm in the latter.

The idea that social sciences have not developed a connected body of knowledge like natural sciences.

The social sciences as a contested terrain due to the intervention of consciousness in the processes being studied.

The argument that the difference between social and natural sciences is not fundamentally about consciousness.

The social sciences' engagement in intervention through research and speech, influencing the field's contested nature.

The concept of 'the artificial' in social sciences, contrasting with the 'natural' in natural sciences.

The social world's architecture as created by human actions and interactions, unlike the natural world's given architecture.

The comparison between the creativity in natural and social sciences, with a focus on human ingenuity.

The discussion on the contingency in evolution and its relation to social processes.

The skepticism towards discovering laws of large social structures or processes, citing a history of failure.

The positive case for understanding social processes by focusing on interpersonal mechanisms.

The analogy between evolutionary change in natural sciences and understanding social processes.

The importance of methodological localism in building a coherent picture of social structures and processes.

The critique of rational choice theory and the call for empirical validation of its claims.

The potential for social sciences to develop a more nuanced understanding through focusing on individual interactions within institutions.

The notion that social sciences are open to new questions and political contestation, unlike the more bounded natural sciences.

Transcripts

now let me ask you this people often

talk about paradigms and a paradigm you

know in the kind of standard Natural

Science version is a fairly specific

thing with some research methods some

theoretical Concepts experimental

procedures the kind of Workshop that

you're describing um I'm I guess I'm

kind of wondering would you uh would you

be willing to describe it as kind of

articulating a paradigm or is it more

Loosely interconnected no well I mean I

think you've actually forecast the

answer to the question

because you can in astronomy you can

build a new

Paradise there's

already a sufficiently connected body of

knowledge and procedures that you can

say all right we're going to break with

this view of how black holes operate and

we're going to substitute a new

view for reasons that we could talk

about for days

the social sciences have never developed

as connected a scent of body of

knowledge integrated with a set of

procedures for verifying that knowledge

and the social sciences has have

remained a contested terrain and

that's something that people often try

to articulate incorrectly from my point

of

view uh we may disagree about this but

anyway a common view is that the

difference between the social sciences

and the Natural

Sciences is consciousness that is to say

that the social scientists are

intervening in processes with which they

share

Consciousness well I'm not so

sympathetic to that point of view I mean

it's true uh but I don't think that that

produces a fundamental

difference in the situation of knowledge

nevertheless it does provide an opening

for the moral and political

concerns of the rest of the world to

enter that the relative bounding of much

of physical

science Natural Science makes more

difficult it does make it impossible OB

viously uh environmental warming is a

case where there's uh the boundaries are

poorest and there are a series of other

issues uh biodiversity there are a whole

series of biological issues that are

open to political contestation in some

of the same ways

nonetheless the social sciences by and

large all

have one portion of their personnel it's

primarily engaged in intervention and

they're engaged in intervention in at

least two ways one by doing research

research on inequality in Dearborn or

Detroit or something of that sort

intervention by speech and so on and so

the social sciences remain a contested

terrain precisely open to new questions

about the tyranny of the current

Administration the possibility of

entering War the promotion of democracy

and so on you can't enter these issues

without touching on contested political

and moral positions I wonder if you've

um ever been struck by the title that

Herbert Simon used for one of his books

uh the science of the artificial M my

thought is a way of distinguishing the

social sciences from the Natural

Sciences is that the architecture of the

natural world is given but the

architecture of the social world is

essentially created we create States we

create institutions not necessarily by

deliberate design but by the actions and

interactions and there's you know

nothing that says the feudal state must

have this structure it's rather it has

this structure because of a series of

events that preceded which led to a

particular configuration of Institutions

so the the IDE idea of the artificial

versus the natural seems to me maybe a

better way of of distinguishing the

social from the natural well I think

there I think there's a lot to that

although you uh you're attributing less

contingency to what Steph J Gould for

example talked about as the process of

evolution then I would I mean in a gan

spirit I would

say there is a way in which organisms

are creating unexpected patterns through

their interaction so let's not let's not

exaggerate this nevertheless it's true

that humans are so far the most

ingenious organisms we have in this

regard and human brains are instruments

of enormous

plasticity in the relations and

Arrangements that people create so in

that sense there's a that at there's a

degree of difference even though some

forms of very interesting creativity go

on in the Natural Science sciences and

the the more you move away from physics

into the life sciences the clearer that

becomes you made a point to me a little

earlier about war that um you don't

think or possibly it was Revolution you

don't expect you don't look for you

don't um think it reasonable to imagine

that there would be laws of war or laws

of Revolution um which does have to do

with contingency it certainly does I

wonder if you could amplify on that a

little bit well there's a negative

version of it in a positive version the

negative version runs there are a lot of

people who have thought they have

discovered the law of fill in the blank

and the blank is either a large

structure or a large

process and we now have a pretty long

experience of failure of that particular

construction so in that

sense I'm in sympathy with the sorts of

people who look at rational choice and

they say well wa a minute it's a very

interesting program but let's look at

the results let's see actually what the

empirical accomplishments are and the

empirical accomplishments of looking for

laws of large processes and structures

to my view are close to nil right okay

so that's the negative the negative case

the positive case

is that it's imp

plausible that the regularities operate

at that level uh that here here I think

you can cautiously draw on analogies

with evolutionary uh with evolutionary

change in the in the natural world and

say

look there there are few things we can

say about diversity or about the

complexity of environments and so forth

but the truth is that if we want to

understand evolutionary processes what

we do is close in on how an organism or

even a

gene responds to its

environment then we

compound from that

observation into how a species evolves

and so forth and there are lots of

analogies in medical analysis which are

quite similar to this where you know if

you try to work on theories of the

humors or something of this kind as the

Ancients and not so ancients frequently

did where you have a a law of the

organism or something of the sort you

don't get very far but when you can

specify the mechanisms by which a

disease

moves from one organism to another or

from one part of the body to another you

actually begin to be able to build up a

more coherent and complex picture of

what that process is and I have a

similar hope for social processes not

that I imagine that we have the kind of

knowledge that the molecular biologists

have at this point but that the analogy

will hold to to the extent that if we

can get interpersonal processes right we

can compound them into something like

the pictures of structures and processes

that people were trying to formulate

laws for and this is the concept that I

was explaining to you earlier about

methodological localism compounding up

from the socially situated individual

within a set of institutions