Sociological Theory Positivistic Interpretative And Critical Essay

new beginning and acted as a right of passage for the young children.

Both conclusions are correct, the results are vastly different.The positivist

looks at the exterior of society, while the interpretivist looks at the

interior.It is the difference between examining the electrical synapses in the

brain and knowing what someone is thinking.Both inquiries have there value, but

in the end, they are looking at different aspects of the same subject.The

positivist examines the exterior, while the interpretivist examines the interior.

Critics of interpretivism and positivists attack interpretive theory for being

subjective and therfore being unreliable.This is not an accurate critique. Just

as there can be poor positivistic theories, there can be poor interpretive

theories. Likewise, there can be good positivistic and interpretive theories.

An analogy to literary critique is the best illustration.Literary critique is

always interpretive.A positivistic critique ofHamlet would amount to nothing

more than a catalog of the number of times each word is used, the amount of ink

and the number of pages in the story.It would tell us nothing about the power

and strength of the play. Interpretive approaches of Hamlet can be either good

or bad. An interpretation that it is a play about “being happy” would be a bad

interpretation, while a critique on revenge would be more accurate.The common

experience of people who have seen or read the play helps determine the quality

of an interpretation.While it is subjective, a reasonable determination can be

made as to its value.

Positivism also has some inherent difficulties in maintaing the objectivist view

when doing sociological research.Unlike physical science which can measure

equations like Force equals Mass times Acceleration, human institutions are

replete with human subjectivity.Positivistic science is a tool which only works

for external examinations. Biesta and Miedema describe the problem in this way:

The point here is, that the scientific study of human subjectivity

has aims that differ radically from the aims of physical science.

Physical science aims at control of a (human) subject over a (non-

human) object.The relationship between the two can be characterized

as an external relationship, firstly because the object is controlled

by the subject, and secondly becasue the knoweldge acquired by the

subject in order to explain the behavings of the object does not

influence the behavings of the object.

While effective for the external analysis,positivism is lacking in explaining

social behavior.

Probably, the biggest problem in utilizing positivism in a sociological setting

is the difficulty with language.Language, by its very nature, defies

establishing empirical truth. Positivism relies on empirical facts derived from

observation, yet “[t]here is no absolute way to isolate the analytic, necessary

truths from the merely empirical.”

Because of the inherent problems positivism has been modified in the

postpositivism movement.The ontology is that of the critical realist.The

objectivity is modified to recognize that it can only be approximated. The

methodology is a modified experimental which tries to conduct the research in

more natural settings with more qualitative components.This postpositivism

remains an ideal methodology for examining external components of the society.

POSITIVISTIC AND INTERPRETIVE VERSUS CRITICAL THEORY

The objective requirements of positivism are directly antagonistic to subjective

critical theory.Critical theory approaches sociology as a means to facilitate

societal change.A positivist would rather observe from behind a thick glass and

stand removed from the observation.

The stated purpose of critical theory is to transform society into a better

reality. Positivism merely wants to define reality, not redefine.Positivism will

be reductionsitic, while critical theory will tend to be holistic.The two

theories could not be farther apart. The goals and objectives are

antithetical.Balaban summarizes the conflict as follows:

Positivism and Critical Theory offer us a positivistic account of a

fetishistic society. The first accepts it (evaluates it positively);

the second rejects it (evaluates it negatively).Positivism praises

society, Critical Theory blames society.Meanwhile the human sciences

await a true critical explanation of society.

Likewise, interpretive theory and critical theory differ.Interpretive theory is

looking at the inside to understand why.Critical theory is trying to change the

society.The difference is between trying to understand and trying to

change.Thomas R. Schwandt described the difference betweeen the two theories as

follows:

If constructivism [interpretivism]can be characterized by its

concern with a hermeneutic consciousness — capturing the lived

experiences of participants — then critical theory can by

characterized by its critical consciousness — systematically

investigating the manner in which that lived experience may be

distorted by false consciousness and ideology. . . . If the

constructivist [interpretivist] methodologies are preoccupied

with the restoration of the meaning of human experience, then

critical science methodologies are preoccupied with reduction

of illusions in the human experience.

CONCLUSION

All three methodological approaches involve safeguards to regulate objectivity.

This is not the same as objectivism.Each has its own “norms for proceeding with

a particular form of inquiry in a rational manner.”However, because of the

orientation of each theory, the end results will vary.

Based upon these difference, critical theory does not seem to be a theory that

should be adopted by sociologists.It belongs more in the realm of politics and

legislation.Critical theory in that context could take advantage of scientific

inquiry by both positivistic and interpretive sociologists to make

determinations about social change.If indeed critical theorist are to be

involved in sociological study, full disclosure of prejudices and objectives

would be needed for any inquiry to be beneficial and trustworthy.

Postpositivism remains the best approach for observing the exteriors of

society.Coupled with the interpretivist’s view of the interior culture, the two

theories working hand in hand would be most beneficial for the sociologist in

examining society.Utilizing a dual approach would be the most comprehensive and

give the scientific inquiry both depth and span in evaluating our societies and

creating a useable body of sociological research.