SANCTIMONIOUS SCIENTISM

- William Sheridan -

Mario Bunge
SOCIAL SCIENCE UNDER DEBATE
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1999

This is a provocative book for many reasons, amongst them the author's wide knowledge, philosophical depth, AND self-righteous attitude. Bunge neither respects interpretive approaches to science, nor the view that science incorporates values. In short, this is a combatative book, in which the author opposes everyone who disagrees with him, and denigrates their views just to make sure readers get the point (much as Alan Bloom did in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND -- in fact, this is Bunge's THE CONFRONTATION WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MIND). But if science is based upon a commitment to curiosity, discovery, and truth (as Bunge claims it is), then any authentic scientist must hold these values, so science can't be any more value-neutral than technology. And if the proper motive for public support of science is to raise the general cultural standard, debunk false philosophies, and reject misguided ideologies (as Bunge claims it should be), then authentic public support for science will also be value-based. [Human action, whether individual or social, is controlled by valuation...]

In order to get glean useful concepts from this book, it is necessary to discount the author's sanctimonious scientism. I found this quite a challenge, but it did occasionally pay off because there is actually some good food for thought here. In Sociology, Bunge's concept of CLASS is much superior to prevailing notions, and represents a real advance beyond fruitless arguments about class positions and class conflicts. As Bunge defines it, wherever one group dominates another so that the dominants are advantaged and the dominated are disadvantaged, this is a situation of class structure. But these classes can be cross-cutting, with individuals simultaneously occupying different ranks in different classes (someone high in an Intellegensia class can be much lower in an Economic class, for instance).

The chapter on Economics savages its practitioners, by showing how and why microeconomics has attained the status of theology rather than science. Veblen's writings alluded to this many years ago, and Bunge's survey shows that the situation has deteriorated even more over the 20th century. Political Science gets a curious treatment. This is where the role of ideas, beliefs, and values is conceded, but primarily with reference to their social impact rather than their conceptual content. My own sense of idealism is based on the social role of signification, but Bunge uses the Platonic prototype, all the better to denounce it.

What's Missing Here?

Instead of Anthropology, Bunge prefers the term Culturology, in what he claims is deference to Leslie White's reasoning. But I too am a fan of White's, and except for the name, Bunge ignores most of what White argues in his work (for instance, for White the SYMBOL is the unit of analysis in Culturology, but you would never know that from Bunge's account). Anthropologist Ashley-Montagu defined culture as "the learned part of the environment" and this has far more explanatory power than Bunge's materialist approach. Nor does Bunge even mention Edward T. Hall's THE SILENT LANGUAGE, containing the best systemization of cultural systems yet produced. However, Bunge's suggestion to expand the concept of nationalism to include 64 different varieties would be a big advance over the stereotype currently in use. Both History and historians get off more lightly than other social scientists, but not by much. So Toynbee is mentioned only in passing, and McNeill not at all. Neither is Ester Bosrup's POPULATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, nor Norbert Elias' THE CIVILIZING PROCESS, nor Reinhard Bendix's KINGS AND PEOPLES, nor… Well, I think you get the point - this looks suspiciously like a philosopher's version of the selective use of evidence!

The last 1/3rd of the book is devoted to sociotechnology (using social science insights to design policies and programs). The irony about this second section arises because of references Bunge makes to Robert Merton in the Culturology chapter of the book's first section. According to Bunge, the only way to restore productivity to the Sociology of Science is to have it return to Merton's realist program. Well, just as Merton set the standard for the Sociology of Science, Merton's personal friend and colleague, Sociologist Adam Podgorecki set the standard for Sociotechnics. But alas, reference to neither Podgorecki's work in law nor his book on PRACTICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES can be found in Bunge's Debate.

Bunge accepts no one's version of Action Theory except his own (what a surprise!). His system of sociotechnical knowledge is quite impressive, but his persuasiveness amongst sociotechnical practitioners is not. Of course, Bunge would rather be correct than convincing - but unless his paradigm achieves acceptance, it won't facilitate any more ACTION than its rivals. This is the crux of Bunge's dilemma; it can be resolved into two dimensions, a logical one and a psycho-logical one. Logically, all partial remedies are only tinkering, but all comprehensive remedies are totalitarian - he keeps insisting on a "third way" but it displays a very high proportion of exactly the kind of idealism that he condemns in others. Psychologically, he recognizes the need for an enlightened and popular leadership capable of 'selling' the project, but his rejection of every other approach but his own precludes the epistemic communality that Merton's findings indicate are needed for such a role. Has the author out-smarted himself as a result of his intellectual one-upmanship?

This book is available through Amazon.com Bookstore.

Social Science Under Debate

cypher@sympatico.ca

COPYRIGHTED © with the Right to Copy: The HTML Author declares the moral right to share this material provided: (1) authorship is properly accredited; (2) the conceptual integrity of the content is respected; and (3) any and all remunerative use is preceeded by a negotiated agreement with the author. No liability for the implications or consequences of its use may be attributed to the author.