Sociology and Social Actors Essay Example
Interpretivism
Three Forms of Interpretivism
Interpretivism has formed many of the above critiques of naturalism. Interpretivism rests upon idealism. Idealism holds the view that the world is the creation of mind; the world is interpreted through the mind; e.g., classificatory schemes (such as the classificatory scheme of species into mammals, insects, birds, etc., or of the human population into caucasians, negroids and mongoloids). Given this, we cannot know the ‘true’ nature of the object world, separate from our perception of it.
Weber believed that things that exist in space are merely appearances, and have no independent existence from our thoughts. The social world cannot be described without investigating how individuals use language and symbols to construct what social practices and experiences mean for them. For only when we come to understand the individual experience and its subjective interpretation that we begin to understand why social actors behave in particular ways. For example, Weber argued that the emergence of capitalism could partially be explained by the ‘doctrine of predestination’. Weber stated that only when we understood social actors’ meanings and their interpretations that we could explain why Protestant countries were first to develop capitalist relations and practices. It is irrelevant whether the Calvinists were correct in their beliefs about predestination, what is important is that their beliefs made them act in a particular manner. The social world becomes the creation of the purposeful actions of conscious agents. For Weber, no social explanation was complete unless it could adequately describe the role of meanings in human actions.
In the interpretivist’s methodology, the key is to understand (or verstehen), not to explain and predict as in the naturalist’ methodology. As a method, understanding must begin from the presupposition that there is at least some common ground between the researcher and the researched.
Three Forms of Interpretivism
Interpretivism has formed many of the above critiques of naturalism. Interpretivism rests upon idealism. Idealism holds the view that the world is the creation of mind; the world is interpreted through the mind; e.g., classificatory schemes (such as the classificatory scheme of species into mammals, insects, birds, etc., or of the human population into caucasians, negroids and mongoloids). Given this, we cannot know the ‘true’ nature of the object world, separate from our perception of it.
Weber believed that things that exist in space are merely appearances, and have no independent existence from our thoughts. The social world cannot be described without investigating how individuals use language and symbols to construct what social practices and experiences mean for them. For only when we come to understand the individual experience and its subjective interpretation that we begin to understand why social actors behave in particular ways. For example, Weber argued that the emergence of capitalism could partially be explained by the ‘doctrine of predestination’. Weber stated that only when we understood social actors’ meanings and their interpretations that we could explain why Protestant countries were first to develop capitalist relations and practices. It is irrelevant whether the Calvinists were correct in their beliefs about predestination, what is important is that their beliefs made them act in a particular manner. The social world becomes the creation of the purposeful actions of conscious agents. For Weber, no social explanation was complete unless it could adequately describe the role of meanings in human actions.
In the interpretivist’s methodology, the key is to understand (or verstehen), not to explain and predict as in the naturalist’ methodology. As a method, understanding must begin from the presupposition that there is at least some common ground between the researcher and the researched.