RECONCILING THE GENERAL AND THE UNIQUE AREA STUDIES, CASE STUDIES, AND HISTORY VERSUS THEORETICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE
https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2015-6-2(19)-5-14
Abstract
The article examines the problem of relations between the General and the Unique in the social and political sciences. The author highlights the different views on this perspective: some scientists explain specifi c cases by bringing them under general theories and laws while others researchers emphasize that each case, each phenomenon is unique and shouldn’t be generalization. The author theorizes that there is a methodological bridge between the generalizing spirit of social science and uniqueness of events and cases.
About the Author
F. Eidlin
University of Tartu
Estonia
Estonia
PhD in Political Science (University of Toronto), Visiting Professor, Euro College
References
1. Ward, Robert E. 1975. Political Science and Area Studies. Pye, Lucien, (ed). 1975. Political Science and Area Studies: Rivals or Partners? Bloomington, IN, and London: Indiana University Press, p. 27.
2. The Confrontation between Discipline and Area Studies. Lucien Pye (ed) Political Science and Area Studies: Rivals or Partners? Bloomington, IN, and London: Indiana University Press, 6.
3. Ibid, p. 18.
4. Johnson, Chalmers. 1975. Political Science and East Asian Area Studies. Pye, Lucien, (ed). 1975. Political Science and Area Studies: Rivals or Partners? Bloomington, IN, and London: Indiana University Press: pp. 78-97.; Beer, Samuel H. 1963. Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-Enactment. History and Theory. 3(1) 1963: pp. 6-29; Merton, Robert K. 1968. On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. Robert K. Merton (ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure. London: The Free Press: pp. 39-72.
5. Beer, Samuel H. 1963. Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-Enactment. History and Theory. 3(1) 1963: p. 39.
6. Ibid.
7. Johnson, Chalmers. 1975. Political Science and East Asian Area Studies. Pye, Lucien, (ed). 1975. Political Science and Area Studies: Rivals or Partners? Bloomington, IN, and London: Indiana University Press: pp. 78-97.
8. Beer, Samuel H. 1963. Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-Enactment. History and Theory. 3(1) 1963: pp. 6-29
9. Jarvie. 1964a. Explanation in Social Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 15, no. 57 (1964)
10. Jarvie. 1964a. Explanation in Social Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 15, no. 57 (1964)
11. Popper, Karl R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 191.
12. Popper, Karl R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 191.
13. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man. Boston: Little, Brown, 1973. pp. 240-241.
14. Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. II, The High Tide of Prophesy: Hegel and Marx. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 93.
15. Ibid, p. 94.
16. Ibid, p.95.
17. Popper, Karl R. La rationalite et le Statut du principe de rationalite. Emil M. Claasen, ed., Les fondements philosophiques des systиmes йconomiques. Paris: Payot. p. 143.
18. Jarvie. Revolution in Anthropology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 18.
19. Jarvie. Concepts and Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p.5.
20. Ibid, p. 4
21. Popper, Karl R. The Logic of the Social Sciences. Theodor W. Adorno et al., The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, trans. by Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Heinemann. p. 103.
22. Watkins, J. W. N.. Ideal Types and Historical Explanation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3 . In John O’Neill (ed.), Modes of Individualism and Collectivism. London: Heinemann: 1976, pp. 167-168..
23. Agassi, Joseph. Methodological Individualism. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 2 ,1976. In O’Neill: pp. 188.
24. Ibid, pp. 186.
25. Ibid, pp. 188.
26. Popper, Karl R. Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientifi c Knowledge. New York: Hamer & Row. Ch. 4. 1965
27. Popper, Karl R. Logic of the Social Sciences. Theodor W. Adorno et al., The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, trans. by Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Heinemann. 1976. p. 103.
28. Popper, Karl R. La rationalite et le Statut du principe de rationalite. Emil M. Claasen, ed., Les fondements philosophiques des systиmes йconomiques. Paris: Payot, 1967. p. 144-145; Popper, Karl R. Logic of the Social Sciences. Theodor W. Adorno et al., The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, trans. by Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Heinemann. 1976. p. 103.
29. Popper, Karl R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. p. 179.
30. Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. II, The High Tide of Prophesy: Hegel and Marx. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1966, p. 270.
Review
For citations:
Eidlin F. RECONCILING THE GENERAL AND THE UNIQUE AREA STUDIES, CASE STUDIES, AND HISTORY VERSUS THEORETICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE. Comparative Politics Russia. 2015;6(2(19)):5-14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2015-6-2(19)-5-14
Views:
928
Email this article 