Abstract
James Bohman has succeeded in reinvigorating the old debate over explanation and understanding by situating it within contemporary discussions about sociological indeterminacy and complexity. I argue that Bohman's preference for a paradigm based on Habermas's theory of communicative action is justifiable given the explanatory deficiencies of ethnomethodological, rational choice, rule-based, and functionalist methodologies. Yet I do not share his belief that the paradigm is preferable to less formalized models of interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Apel, K. (1984). Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective. Trans. G. Warnke. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Becker, G. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bernstein, R. (1978). The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bloor, D. and Barnes, B. (1982). Relativism, Rationalism, and the Sociology of Knowledge. In M. Hollis and S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bohman, J. (1992). The Limits of Rational Choice Theory. In J. Coleman and T. Fararo (Eds.), Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Criticism. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bohman, J. (1991). New Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braybrooke, D. (1987). Philosophy of Social Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. London: Hutchinson.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Trans. T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1988). On the Logic of the Social Sciences. Trans. S.W. Nicholsen and J.A. Stark. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ingram, D. (1992). Review of J. Bohman's New Philosophy of Social Science. The Modern Schoolman, vol. LXX, pp. 63–66.
Ingram, D. (1995). Reason, History, and Politics: The Communitarian Grounds of Legitimation in the Modern Age. Albany: SUNY Press.
Lewis, D. (1969). Conventions: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, C. (1985). Understanding and Ethnocentricity. In Collected Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walzer, M. (1986). Interpretation and Social Criticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge and Paul.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ingram, D. Explanation and Understanding Revisited: Bohman and the New Philosophy of Social Science. Human Studies 20, 413–428 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005305607064
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005305607064