Back to the future? From pragmatic approaches in the social sciences to the development of the patchwork theory

Abstract

The debate on the function of the social sciences in complex societies, and more generally of the role of knowledge, leads necessarily to a discussion on pragmatism. The gap between theoretical approaches and empirical research still exists and has even widened, in part as a result of the use and abuse of social science knowledge in politics and by the media. However, the academic system is equally to blame for this. Mutual ignorance and scholastic fights are barriers against openness, creative and imaginary thinking. The structures and the practices of the academic system reinforce this trend. Pragmatism aims at overcoming these cleavages by looking at commonalities between different approaches rather than by disputing their validity. It aims at a comprehensive understanding of the process of knowledge production and at the productive use of results. Defining itself in this tradition, the patchwork theory goes beyond the traditional pragmatic approaches: it catches part of the reality of social phenomena from a certain perspective that allows for an overview without having the full picture. Methodologicall, the approach guided by patchwork theory emphasizes the relevance of stakeholders’ knowledge and citizen science, and calls for public participation and democratic access to the production and use of knowledge in a discursive manner.

Keywords:

• role of the social sciences
• pragmatism
• legitimacy crisis
• patchwork theory
• knowledge and democracy

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to all my colleagues at the ICCR and its predecessor, the Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences. In more than 30 years the ICCR has employed more than 100 researchers, of which around 10 researchers could be seen as core staff. Without their research and the continuous discussions with them the development of the patchwork theory would have been impossible.

My particular gratitude is owed to Liana Giorgi. She has run the institute with me over a long time, nearly from its beginning onwards till 2011, when she left the institute for starting a new career as psychoanalyst. Although she is still working as a social scientist as well her new orientation does not allow anymore a full-time engagement in a research institute. Although she never referred to patchwork theories explicitly her research contributed a lot to my own thinking. She has also contributed to the improvement of the manuscript of this article.

Finally, I extend my gratitude to Professor emeritus Henrik Kreutz. Although his later thinking has led to a separation in dispute I admit that my academic work is influenced by his approach. He insisted in the necessity of creative thinking and respecting science ethics, which in turn requires independence of researchers from institutional pressures.

Notes

1. My pragmatic approach did not come from the academic teaching at the university. Nearly from the beginning of my studies I had the chance to work at a private research institute of the research-oriented assistant professor (and thereafter professor at the Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg) Henrik Kreutz who was developing his own approach in the tradition of pragmatism. Pragmatism was at that time not part of the dominant curricula in the social sciences (Pohoryles 1988).

2. It should be noted here that I leave it up to the reader whether he or she understands patchwork theory as theoretical approach in its own right, or whether one should rather speak about a patchwork approach within the pragmatist tradition. In agreement with Merton I hold that such a discussion would create a “mock problem” ((Merton 1949).

3. Walter Lippmann”s writing was of great importance for the European social liberalism. To discuss his famous book “The Good Society” French sociologists invited liberals from across Europe to Paris to discuss his ideas (N.N. 1939). Interestingly enough this meeting was dominated by scholars from the “Freiburg School”, a liberal group of intellectuals, of which most of the members joined the resistance against Hitler. During this event the group coined the term “neo-liberalism” to distinguish itself from the then in liberal circles dominant free-market ideology. Interestingly enough, the mainstream contemporary sociology has appropriated the term and use it in the precisely opposite direction (Pohoryles 2015).

4. “Erkenntnis” in German means rather the process of gaining knowledge and the results of this process, whereas “Wissen” is the knowledge itself. “Erkenntnis” is related to epistemology and not to the knowledge as such.

5. It is quite interesting to note that the divide in the social sciences is a global phenomenon, however in different cultural contexts. In the USA Collins and Collins refer to four different traditions in the social sciences (1994). Whilst Habermas deplores the cleavages in the social sciences he contributed to the famous German “Positivismusstreit” and started himself a controversy between Niklas Luhmann and himself (Habermas and Luhmann 1971; Maciejewski and Eder 1973).

6. Actutally, Max Weber is more complex than often represented in the social science literature. In his view, social actions are motivated by four elements, or in his term “Idealtypen” (idealized types) of rationality, “Zweckrationalität” (purposeful rationality), and “Wertrationalität” (value-orientated rationality). Furthermore, social action can be motivated “traditionell” (based on traditions), or “affekiv” (emotional motivation). Note that in Weber”s view the elements do not exclude each other: rather, most social actions are motivated by all of the motivations, or at least on some of them (Weber 1971).

7. The definition of the status of “expert” is not trivial. In a discussion the relation between research and political decision I proposed to define experts straight away as “people who are paid by a third party for their opinions”, by which I did not mean that they are corrupt in any sense, but that their status was rather ascribed than achieved in Parsons’ terms (Parsons [1951] 1991). Of course, experts are chosen based on their achievements; the assessment of the value of their achievement is, however, assessed by those who appoint the experts. Based on empirical research Vadrot has coined the term “epistemic selectivity” to describe the process of gaining recognition as expert (Vadrot 2014).

8. Unlike most scholars refer to sustainability as triangle I rather prefer to add a fourth dimension to ecological, economic and social aspects, which is public participation. Public participation does not only raise the awareness of the citizens, but allow the inclusion of their local knowledge (Pohoryles 2007b).