This review does a nice job of summing up the state of social sciences today, and it ain't pretty. In sum, we've tried more or less everything we know about and haven't gotten much satisfaction.Found myself agreeing with everything, EXCEPT this paragraph
Ever idealistic, the young have turned to an array of voluntary organizations, many with transnational ambitions, mirroring the efflorescence of philanthropic activity in a Victorian era equally skeptical about the capacities of states. Some good will come of this. But a thousand points of light are no substitute for the concerted power that states can bring to bear on social problems or for the political movements that rouse them to action.Yes, but no. It is certainly true that civil society cannot and will not replace the state. But what is interesting, perhaps even fruitful, is the way the line between civil society and the state is blurring into a continuum of governance. Political science needs to explain this fuzziness, not deny it.
Still, as the article makes very clear, after 30 years of rational choice the social sciences find themselves flailing about for a methodology capable of explaining that or any other social puzzle. So the big question remains: what next?
5 comments:
shhhh... kitty fairies... shhhh... nothing to worry about... kitty... shhh... fairies...
Not sure I'm with you on the desirability of "the line between civil society and the state ... blurring into a continuum of governance". Seems to me that civil society ought to be a(nother) bulwark against overweaning state power and, therefore, should be seen as being in opposition to, rather than an agent of, government.
It's another reason why I'm unhappy about the co-option of civil society by British & other governments as state delivery agents, let alone the enthusiasm with which those bodies seem to sign up to get tax-payers' cash and then "professionalise" themselves.
To take an example: less than 5% of the total number of registered charities in England employ any staff at all but, as the larger charities have become more part of the state delivery apparatus, legislation and regulation is increasingly geared to this small number of very much larger bodies.
This has led to an almost intolerable burden of regulation on charities which do not employ staff, forcing them either to accept unreasonable liabilities or to give up. I fail to see how forcing citizens to give up engagement through voluntary charities is contributing to the development of a resilient society, or is desirable in any way unless you are a government seeking to extend yet further your power.
Then again, I'm a huge fan of Marcuse...
Back on the article, while he mentions psychology in passing it's interesting that he has chosen to ignore psychoanalytic approaches (which Marcuse, of course, was influenced by). All social sciences use hermeneutic systems and are not necessarily the worse for doing that. It doesn't mean they are less valuable than "real" sciences, just different.
One of the biggest problems in these disciplines is the sense of inadequacy felt by most social scientists -- a sort of modern-day equivalent of Australians' "cultural cringe".
Blah blah
I’m not sure I see the blurring of government and civil society as inherently positive or negative, but simply inevitable in an increasingly complex society where 20th-century-style mass politics is simply unworkable. For me the pressing question is how to make this shift effective and democratic, especially since I doubt it is possible to turn back the clock on this trend. Also, barring an authoritarian shift, I think there is room on the continuum for both collaborators and watchdogs. Laws that regulate small charities in the same way as large ones certainly seem dumb for the reasons you describe (same for firms).
As for social science, I very much agree that the inferiority complex is silly, and it is naïve to think that we can finds laws that govern social relations as precisely and parsimoniously as the laws of physics. But you don’t need comparisons to ‘successful’ sciences to be frustrated by the weakness of social analysis. Just pick up a recent edition of any political science journal!
Ah, it’s refreshing to see more on this blog than bawdy pictures, inside jokes, and sexual innuendo!
BOO social sciences. Your devoted readers demand more sexual innuendo!
bit of light reading i see...
just printed this out and am going to tuck in now...
Post a Comment