Everything about Antipositivism totally explained
Antipositivism is the view in
sociology that
social sciences need to create and use different
scientific methods than those used in the field of
natural sciences.
Evolution of the concept
Antipositivism evolved in the
19th century, when
sociological positivism and
sociological naturalism began to be questioned by scientists like
Wilhelm Dilthey and
Heinrich Rickert, who argued that the world of
nature isn't the same as the world of
society, as human societies have unique aspects like meanings,
symbols, s,
norms, and
values—all that can be described as the
culture.
This view was further developed by
Max Weber, who introduced the term antipositivism (also known as
Humanistic Sociology). According to this view, closely related to
antinaturalism, sociological research must use specific tools and methods and concentrate on humans and their cultural values. This has led to some controversy on how one can draw the line between
subjective and
objective research, much less draw an artificial line between environment and human organization (see
environmental sociology), and influenced the study of
hermeneutics.
The base concepts of antipositivism have expanded beyond the scope of
social science, in fact,
phenomenology has the same basic principles at its core. Lately, Chilean biologists
Humberto Maturana and
Francisco Varela applied these notions to the world of
biology, developing a type of relativist science.
Critique of positivism
Antipositivism criticises many of the positivistic assumptions and principles. First, they argue that there's no methodological unity of science, for example, that we can't use the same tools to study natural and social sciences. Antipositivists then add that positivism is restricted to phenomena that can be constrained within an analytical and verifiable fragment of the reality, for example, that it's impossible to study freedom, irrationality and various unpredictable actions that are common in individual human behaviour. They also argue that knowledge can never be neutral, as it directly translates into power and that positivists attempt to draw an artificial line between observer and the subject. Finally, antipositivists argue that positivism's three goals - description, control, and prediction - are incomplete, since they lack the goal of understanding.
Some argue that, even if positivism were correct, it would be dangerous. Science aims at understanding causality so that control can be exerted. If this succeeded in sociology, those with knowledge would be able to control the ignorant and this could lead to
social engineering. This critique is common amongst
postmodernists like
Derrida and
Rorty.
Overview of non-positivistic approaches
There are several approaches in social sciences that are opposing the positivistic view. They are:
Further Information
Get more info on 'Antipositivism'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://antipositivism.totallyexplained.com">Antipositivism Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
