There_is_No_Such_Thing_as_a_Social_Science

7/29/2019 There_is_No_Such_Thing_as_a_Social_Science

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thereisnosuchthingasasocialscience 1/28

intdtn

T lndy Pt Wn nd t

Myt f ‘s sn’

Rejecting the Very Idea of a Social Science

J.l. atn (1962, p. 2), n mkd tt n ppy n ftn bv tt

t t bt w t’ d nd t bt w t’ tkn bk. W, w v ttdt bk, mwt bdy, m mt y by, bt tny ntntny

pvtvy, There is No Such thing as Social Science. Tt w w y t. W

w nw bn tkn t bk? W, f t nw t tt qtn w dpnd

n t t w w pttn t wd ‘n’ n tt, n mn t

n tn n. i t t w w pt tt tm nnnt

wt dny en w, n m n, vn v pn t

f ymndn by mpyn mn, pd ntnt

f ‘n’ tt w mt m y y tt t n tn

n?T m t t fm nt vnt pnt, t tt wt w nt nt

nd wt w nt yn t n pbty f. W nt nt nyt

; , f , t mt md f nqy. N

w nt pmm f nqy w d d f mptn t t

vn f t m n t f ft (vnt) bvtn f v knd; t ,

f , nqy nd nt t pdtn nd dfn f dtn tt pttn

n t td ndtkn.

indd, w wd b wn t ft. W w vn w tt t pt

f nqy n (nd d) n n n fm t pt ndtknn t md f nqy nd n n t mt b t md f nqy

knwn t nt n.

on mt b nnd t tt tt n t , vn wt w v jt d, w

mt nd tt t is tn n; tt w v jt fnd

d wt ‘t bt w w tk t bk’. W, n f tn

nn fw. r, pnn t vn n’ m vd n

t f ft tdy nd pnn t nn1 fm t md f nqy nt

1 of , t dv wy n w nn n tk p. on n f

ntn n fm t (nt) n n nqy by ny, wtt n t

slightest being committed to regarding one’s own inquiry as itself scientic. An intriguing

xmp f y t, n dn, Tm Kn’ bwn fm Dwn nd

t nt ntt, n t btn f wn ppn. s sk nd rd

(2002).



There is No Such Thing as a Social Science2

n f t w m t b dfnd f t d f n nt

t wm ty tk t b t ppnnt. anyt pre-eminent mk

f en-pkn ppy; bt, n Wttntnn nd w wd w

to contest strenuously any claim that such philosophy is itself scientic. ‘Openness

t vn n’ m vd n t f ft tdy’ p-qt f bnn tn—dy tby mkn ty n. ‘opnn t nn fm

t md f nqy’ nt f pymt nd pt k nd …

en d.2 N; t wy ft m, f n knd nt, md n

order to justify labelling one’s inquiries ‘scientic’. It is this further claim in all its

vnt t w w bjt. T ft m mt b mtd:

There is an identiable scientic method and this ought to be employed if one

intends to make a claim to do something scientic.

Or it might be substantive (or, sometimes, more specically ‘ontological’):

Social scientic ndings are reducible to the ndings of the natural sciences.

Put another way one might say the following. The term ‘science’ and ‘scientic’

n b mpyd n n wy t d n m tn t dnt tn pt f nqy.

Alternatively those terms might be employed in such a way as to invoke a specic

mtd ( f mtd) f nqy. and, mtm t tm mpyd

invoked such that it denotes a set of specic substantive claims made by practitionersin certain domains of scientic enquiry (e.g. physics, biology, neuroscience

nd n), t w t m f n’ wn nqy (ntpy, y,

pyy, t.), db.3 T tt f t t nd t nd f t tw

vt f dtnm ftn fd t nt dtnm. W

t btntv dtnm; w pf t tm ‘btntv dtnm’ t

‘nt dtnm’ n t pnt ntxt t w f bd tn

f nt, t w. T m dtnt w, w bn dtnt

n t btntv n wd nt bvy b nt dtnt. T

w k t d m t vtny py m, f xmp, nt my mtd dtnt, mpy n f wt ty

take to be legitimate scientic methods (as does, for example, McIntyre 1996 and

2006), bt btntv dtnt, n tt ty d t t t

2 T f m, n ft, d b d . F ntn: t ny f t

pmmt, n-pn nt f ‘ n’ tt n t d t mnfty f

t fy p (nt) n—f () n dvpd nt t pn t

n, bt t t mp t. tdy tt vnty d, t nmy,crisis and revolution, in paradigms that gave birth to more unied or at least novel research

tdtn. In the very act f ttmptn t py (nt) n, ‘ n’ nvdt

its own scientic pretensions—for science did not and does not proceed by such copying. (For

dtd xptn f t mnt, sk nd rd 2002, passim.)

There are, of course, many uses of the words ‘science’ and ‘scientic’. We make no

ttmpt t txnmy.

•

•



Introduction 3

vtny py:4 t m f t fm, f vd, w wy b mpy

t m f t tt. T d, ty nt ny mmttd t nt

dtnm.

W mt tf xp t bv n t fm f qtn t wt mnn

n tt t t tm ‘ n’,

Is one talking of social science as scientic in terms of it being conducted

in the scientic spirit: its practitioners acting in accordance with certain

ntt vt?

Is one talking of social science being scientic in terms of its method being

n tt d wt t ( m f t) nt n, db n tm

f mtd mpyd? o

Is one talking of social science as scientic in terms of it being reducible to

n t f t nt n, db n tm f t btn f t m?

W btntv dtnm (dy) bt mmn nd pmnnt n nt

pp wk n nn, f xmp (.. Pt cnd’ (1989)

nd P cnd’ (1988) ndtnm), t , tvy pkn, -

n t n. hwv, t pnt, vn nn d f pmnn.

evtny pyy wd b n xmp; vt f mtm wd

b t.5 F, vtny pyy’ mnm nt wttndn, t d

py m (nd n, w t t) t vtny by.6 hwv, tt—t w v n mnd n ttn bk w

d— t mtd dtnt.

on mt tn pp tt t t mwt nppy, t pn

t mndtndn, ‘T n tn n n t md f t

mtd btntv dtnm.’ Wy w t n

tn? W t qtn wt w k t nw n t pt tt fw; bt,

n t, t n tn n n t md f mtd

btntv dtnm, b t b mmttd t mtd btntv

dtnm t b mmttd t a priorism; t t b mmttd t mtn—mtd t vnt xpnty ft n n’ xpntn f tn—p

t n’ nvttn. T t mtd, f n w t pk , d ff t

4 s, f xmp, Jn ak (2001).

5 s f ntn cn cmpb (1996); mp sk’ tm tf, nd

rd’ (bt n ct nd Wtn (d), 2008).

6 W nt dnyn tt ‘vtny pyy’ (by) nytn

n f t: t bv nd tv tt m pnmn v t n b

dpttn fm pv p. Wt w v nt by pnpy tntt nd pmmt mbtn t d mt mptnt pnmn t t

t—t tnd n d k, mn t tn, f tby btn bty t ndtnd

t pnmn n qtn. in t: t tnd twd dty, n t pty f t pt t

wd xpn nd t v less bt mny pnmn tn w w bf

w ttd. in tt d, t fn ndtv nd pttyp f t dmnmnt f

ndtndn tt ‘ n’ n pd.

•

•

•




nt f t pnmn. T mb pt mtdy fm nt dmn

f nqy wn t t n tt dmn , n mt y, ny nty

to the scientic spirit: it is to fail to act in accordance with the intellectual virtues.7

it w b ttd tt t w w bn a prioristic … hw n w y

d f tm tt t nnt b n f x?—W tn, mt w nd t pbty tt t mt b n f m? a n f btt bjt? a

n f tn bnnn wt t tt ‘’?8

T qtn , pn wm t n f t w tt t n b

n f x (w x ty). W bmt tt t n n ppnnt t

dmntt n ntb n n w t n b n f x n t ,

jt n t bv .9 it nt bt ppnnt, t ‘mntm’ w v

t tdxy f dm tt n t d (t f m ft f

‘s sn’ tn f ‘s std’), w bn a prioristic nd dmt:

wnv ty nt, vty vty, tt t ny n tmt mtdf mn nqy knwd-qtn, ty n t t pbty tt

t my b v, mny. Ty dy nvnd, bf ny dn

bn, tt n t p nd m f ptm ptbty; w

w pn-mndd. Ty nvnd tt, t b wt nytn, tdy

mt b n; w kp kn10 f wtv tdy ty

nd n b.

lt pt t m pny , f dtnt w ntn t

t nd w, n dbt, f mtn kn t nt-dtnt ‘nd-

wvn’, ‘kn-jk’ nt-dtnm, n wt mn Pnk ndDnntt, mpy dm ynn fntt w t knw nt wt w

Thus the rst of our bullet-pointed questions above, we are employing to pose a

pbm f t w wd, mt pt f n wd, b nnd

t nw t t nd t td ( bt f t) f t bt-pntd qtn wt

m knd f ‘Y’.

8 F m dvpd mnt nd xmp, rd (2008).

9 T ttmpt t f t pbty f d n f y y

npppt f mn w y bv tt pbty n b d, n t

mt nvnn pf f t pnt wd b t dvy f jt tt n. T pppt

tn t d wd b t wk t tt n. T w v tkn t btn t wk

t wk, nt jt tk t pmm, v fd nd fd dmy t pd nytn

bt t f ndtndn mbm mn f yn nt vy m f

nny nfmtv knd.

10 T xpn f ntndd t sxt emp’ bnt dptn

f t tntv t ptv nd ntv dmtm, n pt 1 f bk 1 f ‘otn

f Pynm’ ( ttp://pp.vw.d/ppy/p205/sxt.tm), ‘m vmd t v dvd t tt, t v td tt t nnt b ppndd, w

t n n nqn’. W ‘ n nqn’ ft ‘kp n n’ f—kp

an open mind to—methods and truths that are not scientic or not scientically-arrived at,

rather than—absurdly—denying that science has efcaciously inquired into anything or—

dmty nd ntty—ntn tt only science has efcaciously inquired into

nytn.



Introduction 5

mn by ‘dtnm’ f t v dqt n t t tm.11 o

tt dtnm n tm f mtd btntv m nt t t

spirit of scientic inquiry, and it is the spirit of scientic inquiry that is primary. The

‘scientic spirit’—what one wanted t f ttn t qt f n t n’

endeavour in the rst place—militates against both methodological and substantivedtnm n t td.

In Defence of Peter Winch?

T btt; wy dfnd Pt Wn? i nt, -ftn pntd, mn

dvn n md-twntt nty ppy f n? h ntt

t nt mvd n, nd vm Wn, ppy n n mvd

n fm t dvn tt w nt ppy? W gn nt t n

dmn Wn’ wk v nd ‘pfndy mtkn dtn’?12 Tm t b t dmnnt ntv. smy, w ftn t fn tt Wn

w n nt ptvm,13 bt nn f ptvt nw. s, n nd t

d Wn tn.

Social Studies as Philosophy

it nw xty f-nty n Wn wt pvtvy pm tt

bk, The Idea of a Social Science. Wn Wn f t ‘n’ t ‘ntn’ n ISS y xpty f t t ‘experimental n’. sm

ntmpy dfnd f td n (dfnd f t d f

n), ry Bk nd l c. Minty, bv t d t w

criticise them to begin with awed premises, for their conceptions of science (they

v vy dffnt nptn) d nt dmnd tt t ndtn f xpmnt

nt t n. Bt t jtn f Wn, w t t b/wn t md

t m, d nt wk. evn t nt n y nd tnmy

f w pt f t ptv dmn f nqy nt mnb t

bjtn t pdb xpmnt nt nn-xpmnt n ny

11 Dennett remarks, “The term that is most often bandied about in these conicts, typically

tm f b, ‘dtnm’. T w yn f kyk t w y

tt f n ‘dtnt’, nd ty n ftn mk dtnm m ptn nd

heartless. But like most terms of abuse, ‘reductionism’ has no xed meaning” (Dennett 1995,

80). in m mnn Pnk wt, “attmpt t xpn bv n mnt tm

mmny dnnd ‘dtnt’ ‘dtmnt’. T dnn y knw xty

what they mean by those words, but everyone knows they refer to something bad” (Pinker

2002, 10). Dnntt’ dwn f n ny btwn t nd m myt ynf kyk mwt p nd myb vn tt. T dm (vn by nfn)

t w d nt n’ pp ynn f mtn nnn k ‘kyk’

ntn m tn p nd mpty t mv, nn m ntn. W vy

f fm kn ‘kyk’; ndd, by ntt, w mn ty n t nd.

12 s gn ‘cnpt nd sty’, ftnt 1, n Wn, B.r. (d.) (1970).

13 s, f xmp, Bk (1998 [1979]), p. 2.




n, t ty n pt (y) nn-xpmnt. Pt nt wy: t

nvbty f ndtn nd w xpmnt n b pdd n m f

t nt n dy m t n n w pdb xpmnt

ftn nvb t t ntt. hwv, t pt nvbty f

xpmnt ndtn, t t w wty f bt t nd mtdreection in the social 14 not t f t mn t w Wn dw

ttntn. Wn, w d bw, dw ttntn t t ft tt qtn n

td logically distinct fm t n t nt n.

s, wt w Wn’ m? W, n f nn n the Idea of a

Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy (ft ISS ) w t db

td f t bn wt mtdy nd f ttntn nt t nn

loci of signicance in their investigations: meaningful human actions. In short,

Wn t t p n wy fm n bn (w ntn nbtd)

wt dntfyn mtdy tt ntd n mt pnd n’ fft nthe identication and understanding of action. Unfortunately Winch’s efforts, by

nd , wnt nwdd. T ntt bn wt mtd wnt dp, vy

dp. s dp n ft tt wn mn k Wn m n nd td t tt t

bn w mndtd mkn f nw, dtntv mtd f

nqy f wn, pn t d f vn w wt t Wttntnn

ntn f -fwn. T w nt Wn’ ntntn. Wn w nnd t

dmntt tt t ntt d n t k mw t tn

t nt n f dn. in pfnd bt vy pdtb ny, Wn

w d—(-)ntptd—t t dttn n f ntm. sntm, pwf t tt Wn d p tvy fw t t vm t,

nd w y d mpy ffn vnt fm f t.15

Wn’ m n ft w tt t nt mndtndn nt n t

td w t d tndny t tm bn, nw ptbn

bt bn t m, f t n; wn t n d t

td m m kn t bn f ppy. T bn nd td

by Wn’ t, pp nd ntt k. T tn fndd

n mndtndn f t nt f ppy, w Wn dd n t

pnn pt f ISS. T nt f t w tnt t td bn philosophical rather than scientic stems from their being in thrall to a latent but

tt-ntnn pt f ppy t n nf ptnd t n

mt n: n f t mt n.

Wn wt,

T mnt n fw: nw dv bt mtt f ft n ny b

tbd by xpmnt mtd; n py a priori process of thinking is sufcient

14 Wt wd nn ntd ‘nm xpmnt’ k k, f ntn?cd t y ppn t , td ty ttn tt n w t nw t

t xpmnt w n fft ntd bf n ttd by pn f ny mn fft

t t tt nw? (Tnk Fdmn’ c).

15 W dt n t bdy f t bk m mmnt w y Wn nftnty

pvdd t t ftn n mkn t mdn f m t y; t mmnt w

vy y vm, n t dd f Wn’ f nd wk.



Introduction 7

f t. Bt n t n w xpmnt mtd, w ppy

py a priori, t fw tt t nvttn f ty mt b ft t n. on t

t nd, ppy tdtny md, t t n pt, t nt n t

nvttn f t nt f ty; t tf tdtn ppy w ttmptn

t d mtn w t mtd f nvttn d nv pby v, nd

mt b bndnd; t w mtkn bt t wn nt nd t ppt f tnvttn mt b dty ntptd ( ISS , p. 8).

Wn ntn t w w t mnt f. it f b f qvtn

n t wd ‘ty’.

T dffn btwn t ptv m f t ntt nd t pp mt

b xpd fw. W t ntt nvtt t nt f pt

tn nd p, t pp nnd wt t nt f ty nd

n n. Bnt pt t pnt vy w … wn pnt t tt t n n w

the philosopher asks “what’s real?” involves the problem of man’s relation to reality,

w tk bynd p n. “W v t k wt t mnd f mn n v

any contact with reality at all, and, if it can, what difference this will make to his life”.

Nw t tnk tt t qtn f Bnt’ d b ttd by xpmnt mtd

nvv jt mtk t tnk tt ppy wt t priori mtd

f nn d mpt wt xpmnt n n t wn nd. For it is not

an empirical question at all but a conceptual one. It has to do with the force of the

concept of reality. An appeal to the results of an experiment would necessarily beg

the important question, since the philosopher would be bound to ask by what token

those results themselves are accepted as “reality” (bd., pp. 8-9, mbdnd mp).

s, Wn t n dfnd dt m f pp nqy; m w

pp t xpmnt t mpy b t (pp) qtn. and

ft m tt td t bn t t m t t tn

ty t t m f t xpmnt nt n. T pnt, t b ,

tt qtn pp qtn f tt w n qtn nvv,

ntn t t, qtn t t bjt f t qtn’ t f dntty. if

t d tn t ty t nw t qtn t pp t xpmnt mtd b t qtn; t ndt n xpmnt n t v dy tbd t

dntty f t bjt f t xpmnt; t ny tn tt w n tk mnnfy

f ndtn t xpmnt nd f t xpmnt vn tbd nytn.

cnd: t qtn t wt gd xt nt t m knd f qtn

t qtn t wt nn xt, n vn wt n nvb mn xt

( ftd n h g W’ nv). F n kn wt gd xt w kn

wt wd nt hm, nd wt wd nt hm xtn: wd w v

t b b t hm, mt h b tnb, nd mt h b tb? un t

qtn t wt nn xt n t nm n dy dffnt wyt t n en tn w v n pbm m t t w nnt wt

t gd qtn. (Pbm ndxd pmny, ndd, by pttn f t

‘h’ n ‘hm’.)

cnd nt qtn. T qtn t wt t ny dd vn

n t nd f Mt qtn f w w n y tb t f




nwn ( w v dn, nd nwd). W n tb t f wt w

n ‘dd’, wt w nt t bn ‘n t nd f Mt’ nd

n. on w’v tbd t t, pdn vn dd n t nd wd

tt t qtn, jt n tt w v ndtd n xtv tdy f

Mt nd fnd n vdn f vn dd w tb t nty.

16

in ntt, f mn, pt, w t k wt nytn xt td

tt, pdn f tm vn dd vdn f mtn tt xt

td t tt w mpy b t qtn. indd, nd tt t kn

the question in the rst place indicated that asking questions of an interlocutor

had not satised them of the reality of the external world—the externality of the

ntt. a t tn, vytn, wt ty qtn t ty f, f

ty qtnn ty per se: ty m ntttvy ndpndnt f

t wn tt. Pntn t mtn, vn tkn t qtn by t nd

and leading them to touch the thing, having it peck their ngers, leaves their questionuntouched if not, presumably, their ngers. For the sceptic can simply respond that

t tn pntd t, jt wt t pn pntn, d nt really xt, f y

(w? …) v yt t dmntt t ty, t xtn td t mnd (t

ny mnd tt y xt). T qtn pd w qtn bt t nt f

ty n n. Wt w/ tn n qtn wt counts . Pvdn t

pt wt mtn tt n wd dny nt vdn f t xtn

f tt pt tn t ff ‘mtn’ t t pt vdn, t tt f

w t qtn d dy t n dbt, nt jt vdn bt anything

td f t wn tt. W nt mpyn tt pt qtn nnwb, tt n mt nd t pt’ pnt.17 W yn, wt

Wn w fw Wttntn,18 that the idea that one can refute such sceptical

questions by recourse to experimental methods is deeply confused.19 T pt’

16 and ptty m t tt wt ty ppnd: t are n dd n

Mt. of , wt t w d t f t xtn f t l N mnt,

there might well always be those who insist that we might still nd a dodo on Mauritius,

just as we might one day nd Nessy in Loch Ness and little green humanoids on the planet

M, pv ttmpt t d nt wttndn. Bt tn py nt

, t w; f tn bd n desire f t dd t xt f Ny t

xt, f (mn-k) f n M. it nt bd n k f t f wt wd nt

dd f wt wd nt Ny nd n. (sm mt bjt t t xmp f

t l N mnt n tt t nt tbd wt t f t t w kn

for. However, we have a clear idea what it isn’t: dolphin, seal, shoal of sh, beaver, submarine

md t k k t, nd n.)

17 F fm t—w wd t ndd tt ty n tmty b wn t t pt

t b nnn ( f xptn mny f t y n Wittgenstein and Scepticism,

dtd by Dn MMn 2004).18 s py Wttntn’ On Certainty.

19 it w wt mpn , tn xv f Pt ii f Wttntn’ PI (t vy

f t bk, anmb nd r nd t): “T nfn nd bnn f

pyy nt t b xpnd by n t ‘yn n’; t tt nt mpb

wt tt f py, f ntn, n t bnnn … F n pyy t xpmnt

mtd nd conceptual confusion … T xtn f t xpmnt mtd mk



Introduction 9

qtn pp qtn bt t nt f ty. it t qtn

bt t p t npt f ty n t v f t w v pd t,

t w v f wt tt npt.

hw d t t t td? W nd ft, td, qtn:

ny tt tn ndtkn n t nd f Mt n dntd pdf tm? Y mt nw n t t qtn, vn d bk by t ppt

vtny tt (nd fm nn-xtv cmn f Ntn rk bnk)

Mtt rdy; bk bt f y ( ‘ft’) by y— y nw —f-

vn mt. hwv, w t t y tt y mt wnt t nd t

f fnd rbn, d, spt nd ant, B (fm Mt). rbn’

d spt qd t xpnv ptn n n f w. anty B d

nd bnn nd mvd nt t t pvd fnd t py

f spt’ w ptn. Y ‘pnt t’ tt rbn’ anty B w my

tn fm f-ntt.20

T n y mt pvd f pn t mny nd y mnd, nd t tt nd t tm . T pnt

w w t mk mpy tt wt n qtn, wt ntn t t qtn

t wt t xt tt tn, t qtn t wt n wd nt

n tn. T t f tt tn, tkn n bttn fm t

mnn t (tt) tn v f t ndtkn tm, p f b,

t w; wt n tn tt nt nt mtn tt n b ttd by

xpmnt mtd. it t pp-tv nd n-ntv mtt.

T btt fm t pp f t tn nd t n t btt fm tt

w nvy pn t tn t dntty. s, mn t mt n t pbnd tn mn nn-tt mtv f tt tn. on n wy b td,

wt tt tt, nd jtn t vdty f tn nt vd by

mpy pntn t t n tn ny mnd.

s w v t qtn,

a t ny dd v n Mt?

D ‘t wd bynd my tt’ xt?

a t ny ‘ty tt’ t?

s qtn 1 n mp qtn; qtn 2 nd 3 npt qtn.

Ty n n mptnt n qtn bt t mnn f t wd ‘wd’

nd ‘tm’, ptvy. T nw t qtn 1 n b ttd mpy,

by pdn dd (, qy, by ty kn Mt f dd nd

tnk w v t mn f vn t pbm w tb ; t pbm nd

method pass one another by”.

20 T xpntn fm f-ntt tt y nt pn mt b ndd n m

ty t w y bb dn t vvd bv f t mn p, t p f t kpn f pt n tt vtn nd pby f t vtny-fntn

f t ntn f n’ pt’ w: spt vn nt w mn ky t b m

tttv mt t t d n t pk f mnn, w mn rbn, t, m

n f tkn p tnp wt pb mt w d-wn d-

wk. it n t p’ ntt tt ant v npw n tnp tt ky t

bear fruit, and so on. Spot’s claw has more signicance put like that …

1.

2.

3.




nding none, which is in effect what hunters and alien vermin dd t t nd

nd t t nftnt p n mkby t d, m tm nw).

T nw t qtn 2 nd 3 nnt b ttd. W mt pt t dffn

bn n f p. emp qtn t pn mnt n t; t

only b w tt w n vn tk f mtn bn vdn wtt bn t qtn f t t wm w pvdn d vdn. cnpt

qtn qtn wn nd wby mnt nnt b md

in abstraction from specic occasions and purposes.21 Wt t mn tt t

vn f nty w nt t t d f n ndt by

t nt f tt w t ntt k t xpn: t n ntvty

nd t pp tvty.22

Wy d w t nt t mk pnt ? W, w ntd bv,

Wn ftn mndtd. s, n n, t nt t nvbty f t

ndtn f pdb xpmnt n t td w dv Wn’m n ISS. it t t nt f qtn n t td tt, Wn

claims, have more in common with philosophical questions than with scientic

qtn.

Resisting Winch: Reafrming Social Science

Nw, t bn ndb tn t t mptn tt Wn tk t

fw fm t ( td ppy, t tn n). on pmnnt

nd tnnt nt dvt f hmpn ddtv-nm mtd n t td, l c. Minty, f wt w tmd bv ‘mtd

dtnm’. W m t nt jt wt tm ‘ntptvm’ (w

n t bn n ppt tm f dntn Wn’ dn, bw)

Minty tt

[i]n d t ndtnd t mnn f mn tn, w mt ttmpt t pt t n ntxt,

nd t t pt f t d ntxt wd nd n nt f t tt d p t

the event itself. The … example of interpreting the meaning of a lm is instructive. Could

one really be a lm critic if one knew nothing about how lms were made? That is, evenif one were concerned with only understanding the “meaning” of the lm as a “text” and

21 N bt n f bn td btwn mp nd npt

(f xptn, f ntn Kn’ wk nd Wttntn’ On Certainty). Tt

mptd y tny xt vnt t t dtntn btwn mp

nd npt mnn nd nd f n, Qnn qm ntwttndn. (T

qm, w bmt, n m pn tn t st pdx.)

22 ‘on-ntvty’ c Tv’ tm (Tv 2008). W bw t b

we nd it apposite to our purpose here; we use it in a way which does not necessarily drawpn Tv’ mnt, t w d by-nd- wt t mnt, nd (y)

mmnd tm t d w nttd n m f t nt qtn n

ppy. ‘Pp-tvty’ f t mnn f tn d nt nt rtvm—bt

t tt, nd n—bt mn ny t dw ttntn t w t dntty f n tn

ntmty td—w mt y ntny td—t t pp f t tn. M n

t bw nd n bqnt pt.



Introduction 11

ny t t v n ntpttn f t n d t vt t qty, wdn’t n

also have to know something about the causal genesis of lm? Wouldn’t one need to know

bt dtn, pdn, nd nd dtn? a t y n t t ntpttn

of a lm’s meaning? Surely we must care to know whether some of the subtleties in the

nal product were intentional—or whether they were artefacts of the medium itself.

Pp t m t f t ntpttn f mn tn. evn f n pf t

b nnd y wt ntptn mn tn, t my t b f

nqy. on mt knw mtn bt p vnt tt d p t t tn w

how the decision to act was formulated. What were the factors that inuenced the thoughts

t nt d? cd v td dffnty? T wt xtnt w t tn

function of intentions versus constraints imposed by other “human” factors? Was the actor

tired, desperate or hungry—had he or she just had a ght with someone? How do people

nmy t nd t mtn?

T, n my nd tt ntptv nd nm md f xpntn ndnt xd n nt; t vn t dffn mmtmnt t wt t mt

mptnt t v xpnd bt mn bv, ty w nvtby b t dd wt

n nt bt t pp f f nqy (Minty 1996, pp. 129-130).

T m tt d wt nb ty b d nbjtnb.

Bt, nf t f hmp nd nt Wn, wt d tt

y mnt t? T mpd dtntn btwn v f dptn

mdd; f t n ntptv nd ‘v’, bt bn wy f

dbn ‘t m tn’ ny fm dffnt ‘pptv’. Dbn pnn wy w d nt nvv t ntntn f t pn twn t pn is

no longer a description of a punch bt dptn f typ f mvmnt. T

d, wt d Minty pvd wt by wy f xmp f pttvy

inuences on a meaningful action? He writes: ‘What were the factors that inuenced

t tt t nt d? cd v td dffnty? T wt xtnt

was the action a function of intentions versus constraints imposed by other “human”

factors? Was the actor tired, desperate or hungry—had he or she just had a ght with

mn? hw d pp nmy t nd t mtn?’ (bd.). T

tn w n nd wd, w vnt, b y ndd n ny ntf t mnn f n tn nd nn f t xmp bvy xmp f

ft w mt b, bt, vn ftfy xpnd by bmptn nd

vn w. (T, nd t y, v ‘nt w’ w b potentially

‘vnt t’/n py n t ttn nd dptn, vn f t mty—..

pp b ‘w’ vn t fntn f wt n t bdy.)23 Wt

mn d v td tw, n tn ty dd, nt bvy bt

23 on n wy t wt pntn t tvty t t dn— dn ttWn mtm t fmtn fmnt—tt Wn (kw, Wttntn, Kn)

w b (m-)ntptd n ‘idt’ ant-rt f m knd. T whole person, t

w ‘tn nm’, nd nt jt t ‘mnt f’, wt ntt Wn/Wttntn;

nd ndd t w pn n t worldly situation. Nt jt b bt

( w py) ‘w’ tmty ‘n py’ n t—n ny—ttn. Bt t ,

w nt, tv nd bv, nt t f ntt ty dnfd.




ptd by t ddtv-nm mtd, Minty k t tb. it

bt ptd by knwn mtn bt t t pn nd t tn t

t ntxt, t ttn. of f t ny ‘tntv’ t tn ty

dd wd mpy tn n vtn f t w f py tn tt d nt m

v n f tn t pn dd, bt mk mnft ntnt pnt tn. Bt yn t d nt mn tt w ntnt beyond

outside t mnn f t tn. s tn t background nt w

t tn has sense. on’ dptn f t mnn f p f jy n m

n (nnt b d t v tt mnn) dvd f t bknd ntxt tn

m dvd f t f.

Similarly, questions as to whether a lm is shot on lm, or on video, or HD

dt t bknd nt w t mk pp nd pn

judgement of the lm. The critic is not oblivious to the practice, logistics and material

constraints of lm-making. When it is pertinent to what he wants to convey aboutthe lm he will refer to elements of the practice explicitly; when it is not judged

pertinent to what he is claiming regarding the lm’s meaning he will leave such

tn n t bknd, t nd nn-mnft ntxt, t pk. sm

t mt tnk tt t f xtm -p t fm n xtm dtn

t tpt n (wn t dn t d py tt), t tn,

tndd, t -p t t bjt wt tndd n, vnt t t

point they wish to make in their appraisal and interpretation of the lm. Others will

tnk t my n nnqnt tyt t f t dt. et wy, tn

are not thought of as any more beyond the limits of interpretation of a lm than thentnt f vty tt bynd t mt f ntpttn f pn’

ety tn, t my tt n bt mtm ty vnt t t

pnt bn md nd t d b ft n n’ dptn nd mtm

ty nt vnt nd n b ft entirely n t bknd, simply md.

hwv, w wd nt wnt t tp ; t nttv t y ty t mn

what it would be for a lm critic to be oblivious to the basic practice, logistics and

material constraints of lm making, or a sociologist or anthropologist to be oblivious

t b py nd b t. Wd pn—t’ tm

‘McIntyre’s lm critic’ and ‘McIntyre’s interpretivist sociologist’—be recognisably t t; wd ty vn b nby members f t?

Ty wd t mb mmb f (t xtm nd xt) t.

In the case of ‘McIntyre’s lm critic’ would he not be as (or, even more) likely to

bv t t n n t b gd d nt xtn by t fdn dwn

of cinema seats and the drawing back of velvet curtains? For if the lm critic really

knows nothing of the basic practice, logistics and material constraints of lm making

he knows nothing of what is and is not a lm. Similarly, ‘McIntyre’s interpretivist

t’ w knw mpy ntn f py nd b ty; wt

d mnnfy y tt w wd ndtnd? hw d he v? W yt nt n n ttmpt t ft nytn Minty wt bt my t w tt

the dichotomy he sets up makes little sense. ‘Interpretivists’ (as McIntyre identies

nn-hmpn) nt bv t py ty n d ty tnk t wy

insignicant to their inquiries (though of course the degree of signicance regarding



Introduction 13

pt nt f pt tn mt w b wt v t mny

dbt btwn t f knd).

on tn tt d by dn tt nttd by wt Minty

wt (bv) w Wn y dd, by wd-b fnd nd wd-b

f k. Tt , n f t ‘ntptvt’ ‘Verstehen’ n t ppyf n. Nw, n n n t n pbm wt Wn bn md

or identied as a member of this school, if membership is open simply to those who

pp ptvm nd mtm n t ppy f n nd fv

m fm f ny w nt f t mnn f tn. hwv,

t dffn btwn Wn nd t pmnnt ntptvt,

nd t dffn qtn t wt n Wn n ntptvt

pp. in t (f w d t n bqnt pt) Wn fw

Wttntn n dwn vt dtntn btwn ntptn nd pn/

fwn/byn t. Wt t t ndtnd tn t p t mnnf t tn d t ptpnt. on d nt ny t p

f ntptn nt’ wd ty n n nvtn—n hears t

wd. smy, n d nt ntpt t pn; n t (n wd p).

T tt tt ntptn mt b tkn p n bt bn f pjd

nd t n fy. T fy w mt db t fy f xtnn pmy.

T fy bn f t tndny t tnk tt wt wt tmt

signicance, what is primary, is that which is extensionally described, with all

t ntnn dptn bn my wy f ‘ttn-p’ t pp m

tnt bt tny m pmy xtnn wd (T ndd dpt nt: ‘xtnnm’, n t pym, fnty f ‘d’

n, pyy-tttv t ndd w t vd ‘ftn’). T

fallacy has its roots in empiricism (and owers in some forms of reductionism) and

t d tt t w, mnd, tt dd t mnn nt t wd t n

mpn d by t (b, ntd mn) wd.

T gmn Verstehen n b tntd t ‘ndtndn’

‘ntpttn’. if Wn t b n t t Verstehen tdtn, tn w

wd fv t fm tntn, wt t d tt wn w y tt wt w

k ‘ndtndn’ w yn n m tn tt w k t ndtnd ttn, n pfty vydy, n. W d nt k ndtndn n m btt

n, ny vb t pptn f n nt ‘mtdy’. on k

ndtndn n tt n k t p t mnn (n t m wy) dny

mmb f t t d. expt n ndtndn mttn t,

nt n pn t xpt n ny ‘dm’ n f that wd. T nd

n b n elite f ndpndnt xpt n (t nn ntnt f) n. in

n mptnt n, w all pt xpt—, vy y, w (

wt d f t bk, n n mptnt n) xpt n pt f t

en n.Ptpnt n nvtn d nt nd t ntnty b ntptn t’

wd. s t nttn wtn ty nd nt ntnty b ntptn

t mnn f t’ tn. T n process f ndtndn nnn

n w nb tm t t mnn n t’ tn nd wd. T

w Wn dff fm Verstehen tt cnwd nd c




Ty. s; n d not f nt t tp f n ndtndn m t

f myt ppty, k m nn-tn mtv pty. T m t b

Mn’ nn,

W mt nt tnk f verstehen m t f p, nttv, ymptt

ndtndn, a reliving of the experience of others. Verstehen mtn w

d t tm. W nd n verstehen n judging that pn n dd

pntn t , n judging that t xpn n nt’ f dt pdd

by mk, nd ft. W nd t d t, ndd, wn w nd

t n. T ntn db bt judgements n, wt any

judgement, ty require evidence nd my, bqnty, b jtd (Mn, P.T.

2006, 64, mbdnd mp ).

Nw, w n vy m tk Mn’ pnt bt Verstehen nt bn ‘ t

f p, nttv, ymptt ndtndn, vn f t xpn f t’. indd, t t ( dny ndtndn, t tn xtdny

ntpttn) wt ‘w d t tm’; t ntn m q bt

t. hwv, t , w ntd bv, nt mtn tt dw dvy

(y) at all n vdn (f. dn f t t qtn: f t dd, f

ty, nd f tm). Mn ty f nt pyn n ttntn t t

dffnt t w w pt ‘t jd’/‘jdmnt’. on’ jdmnt d

fact mt tt f ff md wn t f knowing nd t

f ttn t ft nt fy vb t n. it f t n tn t jd t

tn ppnd nd tt t ft, x, n t fm f t pptn: x y; wnt ft, x, fy dd tn t qtn f vdn bm dndnt nd

t n nd t tk f jdn tt x t nd . T nvk atn’ dn

n Sense and Sensibilia, w jd t t b p n t vnty ny wn t p

nt bf : w jd p t b n t vnty n t vdn pvdd by t

t f pty tn tnp, t f ttt mk n t md f t fnd-ff

, nd n. if nd wn t p m fm t ty nd tnd ntn nd

snufing before us this is not further evidence of a pig being in the vicinity, making

jdmnt tn, bt t t t mmnt t w jdmnt md

dndnt w v ppndd t ft: p.24

Jdmnt dn t mnn f tn nt f t vty f

jdmnt. F t f ‘jdmnt’ n t f mp mtt, t ny

Mn , , w mt y, ntny td t t npt f vdn.

in ntt, jdmnt dn t mnn f tn nt td t

t npt f vdn. F, w xpnd bv, t mnn f tn

24 a atn pt t n (n nmtkb ty): ‘T ttn n w i

wd ppy b d t v evidence f t ttmnt tt m nm p tt, f xmp, n w t bt tf nt ty n vw, bt i n pnty f p-k mk

on the ground outside its retreat. If I nd a few buckets of pig food, that’s a bit more evidence,

nd t n nd t m my pvd btt vdn t. Bt f t nm tn m

nd tnd t pny n vw, t n n ny qtn f tn vdn; t

mn nt vw dn’t pvd m wt m evidence tt t’ p, i n nw jt see tt

t , t qtn ttd’ (atn 1970, p. 115).



Introduction 15

nt n mp mtt—t npt n. a jdmnt t t mnn

f tn m nt py ( ppd t my/mpy grasping t

mnn) wn t mnn nt fy t nd, wn t bynd p. T

mt ppn n ttn w t ntxt n, w w bvn

nt t (pp wt mny vy dffnt wy f dn tn t )nd n. T ttn w w w nnt t p w n jd

t t b p ( nt), jt t ttn w w w vn’t pd

t mnn f n tn w jd t t mn x y z. T mty wt

d Mn, nd t, ty; t d tm ty f t mty nd .

Jdn t t b p n t vnty, k jdn t t b dd n Mt,

ndd dndnt by pdtn f p (yptty, n pn tm

n d d) f dd n Mt. Jdn wt dn w dn

mpy n nttnn wy f pn t vnn, nt ttd by pntn t t

dn n qtn, n m tn jdn n t t b tt ttd by pntnt t tn. T tn’ dntty npt nt n mp mtt.

Beyond Science: Winch’s Continued Relevance

Minty nd Mn bt wnt t dfnd m t f ntm n t ppy

f n. Minty dfndn hmpn ddtv-nm mtd

nd Mn vn f ‘t’ ppy f n. W wd nt w

t v d wt t mpn tt t ny ntt Minty

nd Mn tt nd tk nt f Wn’ wtn. it w n t 1940 tt rbtMtn (1968 [1949]) td t pp t pnnmnt f tt ‘Dn f

n’ W. i. Tm tt ‘ n w tt t ft t fnd’

t, nn t nd t tt t v p pndn v t

wk f t pd nd t t n wt m mp nd ty-

building that would be sufciently focussed to support knowledge accumulation.

T mpn dd nt d. stpn c’ (2001) dtd tn What’s

Wrong With Sociology? nd l c. Minty’ (2006) The Dark Ages ttfy tt

t nt mny w wn t db wt n n n ‘mp

n’ n Mtn’ dy nvvn nytn m wt n p.

Minty’ bk f- ntn f w tt p y md

n Mtn’ tm, f t ttn f Mtn’ mpnt tt w y

bft f scientifc ndtndn f w ty wk nd w t pbm mt

b vd.

cntmpy y n Btn nd ep, n ntt, ftn very much

fntn f t wy n w t ty ndtd, t mn mt nt

ntbtn t ‘s Ty’ pp ffn fw fndmnty nv

ideas, attempting instead the combination of diverse, often supposedly conicting,

nptn fm y’ tk f n tndn dtn: nd t gnd

t f hbm, gddn nd Bd. Wt t ‘tt’

m mt nvby ffd wt n vwdy mn ntntn (t

spirit pp mn tn dvtd) ty d nt y v m

n t wy f t t-f nttn n, bt ny dd t t




Bb-k ttn, qn t wn ntt, bt fn t ttt m

tn fw f t ddnt w, pptdy, d b dy nd tf t

b dwn nt t b tnt. T vy mbtn f ‘s ty pp’

, wv, n w nw bn dmtd, ftn t f dnmnt wt

nd nqnt pptn t t vy d f n ny nd, t, wt t‘scientic sociology’.

However, it is not our view that the move away from ‘scientic sociology’ is

t b wmd mv wy fm ‘n’, f, w dd bv, t

tt w fm Pt Wn’ dbt bt ‘t d f n’ tt

‘scientic sociology’ had much more to do with philosophy (both metaphysics and

epistemology) than it had to do with anything genuinely scientic at all. The idea

f opposition t n m pnmy. T tnb ‘mv wy fm

n’ nt ty tt t , t m m ptnn within philosophy.

Wn nt, n vw, t m vn b tn v nd td wtn t ‘ nd mn n’ n 1958— plus ca change, ft .

a w ntd bv, Wn’ mn mnt, n t, w tt ‘y’

(nd my m f ntpy, pyy, nm, nt …) n t

tn mn tndn, w y ppy pntd n fm w d ny

md bt t w mt b ndd tm f t pmd dvn,

bt t w ptd t n nd ftn mb t. Nt ny dd

Wn ‘y’ p f ppy, w t t wn knd f

ppy, n w ttmptd t b, n w t nttv, n wy tt

nt mptb wt t t ppy. Wn’ t ‘ ntt’w nt tn t v p n, bt t v p (t wn knd f) ppy, nd

rather to philosophise in a spirit that they would actually nd satisfying, instead. To

philosophise—that is, to reect, to think, and to look—in such a way that would

ty d wt t ntt nd, t tn wy vn tm wt t

n tt ‘m ndd’, b n p d bn md wt

vn dvn t pp nd tt ndy t nt fft t

mpy--tty- t wy t f tm.

in m wy, t p f tm dn m t vndt Wn’ pnt

bt t qntnty pp nn f n. sn Wnwt t bn, w n f dpn, vy ntb ‘tn t

t ’ w, t m d Wn mf ndvtnty npd, n

which has been so extensive and inuential that it is often necessary to talk about

‘ tt’ t tn bt ‘ ty’ t vd mpntn t

ttn t v f tn bt t nt f ty. a mv

n dn t pd bn n t vty nd ptvn f an-

sxn tt t ‘cntnnt’ nd, py, Fn, tt. T mp ft

that the most prominent gures in such thought—Althusser, Levi-Strauss, Foucault,

Dd, Dz t ., v ny y bn t by pfn, nd vm m mmny bn pp, pny nn wt pp

pbm nd wtt m f t nn f nvttv mp p pnt

n an-amn y. T xpt ntn f t pp nt

f t pbm t nt, fm Wn’ pnt f vw, tfty n, f,

fm pnt f vw, t wn knd f ppy t nvvd.



Introduction 17

Insofar Wn w pd m ttntn, t w y n t mptn tt

f n w ndd, tn t w t t ntn wt t philosophy—

wt, y, ty, wt pp t f t pnmn

n qtn (.. ‘-fwn’)—n t mptn tt t pbty f nw

b f t ‘ n’ d b ndd: dd Wn pnt t t twy fwd f wt wd ‘ td’ dd wn vw bt

wt t t b dn f t tt? Bt t d f ‘ t wy fwd’ n

w mnn t Wn’ tt, n t ntn f ppy proper

w nt fm Wttntn f ppy tt, n mptnt wy,

mk n ttmpt t nyw, f ppy nt n bn. hn,

t n t wy f n t, t t t pbty f n n

tt t is mw t ( Kvn M’ (2000) ttmpt t mmnt

t n bt Wttntn’ tt t pyy). T insofar Wn

w vn ttntn, tt ttntn w vwmny ntv, ftn mptydmv, nd n t mptvy n w w vn fvb

mnt, t w ftn bd n n m pnttv f n tntv

approach within sociology, mnt knd. Ntvy, Wn w/ t d

npnty dt, nd t pfndy t f tn wt y tt nt

n bmn v m nty mtt, n w, vn n t

ctn mntm, t nd t f n the body ntd f the mind. Ptvy,

Wn w/ ndd ffn nw mtdy f y.

Bt t, t ntv nd t ptv pn mnd ntnd wt

tt Wn tt w pp n nt, nd tby tmty pd-pbm, pbm f wn mkn, bn f wn nfn. Mty

ft t f py n y tf, Wn vd ndb nd ntnn

ttntn n t ‘ppy f n’, t f Wn mf t d f

dtnt bn f y tt pd n t pp pbm, tn

n xy t y tf wd tf b nnn, mnfttn f t

view of philosophy as an under-labourer to empirical/scientic inquiries that Winch

pdt t t vy bnnn f ISS.

in ‘t ppy f n’, Wn bn t f f t n-

nnn, nd t ntnn, dbt bt tnty, wt ‘tnty’ n d w mt b d t dffnt t nd t pt

mptvy, wt t pt mt v t wn nnt nd

ptnty dtntv tnty. in t ntxt, Wn n dvtn tt

ty pd t npt, tt dffnt mmnt v t b ndtd

n tm f t wn npt, nd tt, tf, mmnty mt nfnt

t wn dtntv ty—t mk m t ‘tvt’. T n f tt

ftn dnt t n p wt t ptn t Wn f dtn

bt t nnt mt f -t ndtndn, mpyn, f nt xpty

tn, tt ny t w bn t t n y ndtnd t, nd tt t mpb really t ndtnd nt t xpt fm ‘nd t’.

Wn’ wk mn f f v dn vn nt t pnt, t

interest in it is mainly conned to the ghetto of ‘philosophy of social science’, and

m m ftn t tt f t dvtn tn f ppvn ppt—nd

t ftn ppvn ppt, ppt f t t Wn, f t m




ftn ppv f n d ‘Wnn’ mtdy f n, f

‘Wnn’ tvm, both f w d ntdtn n tm, nppy d

f t m nppy n. unftnty, t Wn tt m n f tm, k

t Wn() tt m() n f p, nv xtd. a w w ty t xpn, n

dffnt wy, nd t m nt, Wn nv ppd tt t w ‘n’ pbm bt t pbty f ‘ndtndn nt t’, tt t

w ny inherent difculties—bordering on impossibilities—in understanding

nt t (ft , t ny ‘nt t’ by vt f xn f bt

nd bpy), ny mndn , ntd, tt t fm nd pt

difculties that we all encounter at points in our lives in understanding other people

nd t wy—.. ‘i’m mpty t f ympty wt tm’, ‘i n’t t t

knack’, ‘I don’t see the point of it’, ‘I haven’t got the time to spend nding out’ and

t k. Insofar (nt f!) Wn ‘t bm’ f ntn t ntv v

tnty nd n t ft t 1960, tn m f t ft dn bn wt f tm, ftn Wn’ ppd tn t pbm tt dd

nt pt were pbm.

If Winch’s arguments are rescued from their ghetto connement, then they

n t b mnt bt nt ft f t whole dpn—ft

f t vy d f ‘ n’—n nvtn ptm bt how far t

nnmb vnt bn pd n t nm f ‘y’ ( t pn ff

‘t td’ nd ‘md td’) nd n ty mp nq,

nd how far ty mn mtvtd nd bmd by pp—, Wn

wd mtm tm, ‘npt’—pbm. in t nntn Wn’vw dpy ddnt f ty mpy tt

t dffn btwn ‘npt’ nd ‘mp’ pbm nt w

ndtd n ‘ n’;

tt t dvn btwn t ‘npt’ pbm nd t mp

nq m ft nt t ppdy ‘mp’ pt tn mt

t mn, nd tny nt mty ptd by t dffn

btwn ‘y’ n t n nd nd ‘ppy f n’ n t

t; ndtt vy ftn t ppn f bn n fft t v n mp

problem, one with genuine factual content, is only supercial and is seriously

misleading, to those engaged in the problem-solving, fact-nding effort as

w t nk.

Wn dd nt — nd dd nt nd t — d tt ‘ n’ no mp

content, only that many of its signicant and central concerns do not hinge upon, and

w nt b vd by, ft nvttn. Tt t m mp ntnt

does not bring it signicantly close to the natural sciences, nor even mean that itsmain business is nding out hitherto unknown facts. Winch was insisting that the

pbm w tkn bt w pbm in sociology (ntpy, pt,

t.), n t n f bn pbm tt pnt n y’ mn fft t

tn nd xpnn, nd not jt pbm t b dbtd n t mnd

.

b.

.



Introduction 19

tt f ‘ppy f n’: t vy ft tt t d m tw

is surely symptomatic of the problem his diagnosis identies.

Wn my v bn d-nd n y bqnt t ky ntbtn.

T d nt, wv, mn tt mnt vnt, vn tt ty

v bn pvn wn by bqnt dvpmnt; ny tt t t nd mptn still wt pp ntn. If w t n pnttn

f Wn , nd if Wn t n wt , then wt y nt ny

ntnny vnt t ‘ n’ bt t nvt fndmnt tnk (in

wd-b n dpn). rt tn jt t tt t , t —

necessarily briey—point to two very prominent areas of recent social thought

w tt t tt Wn dvpd.

rnt tt nvvd y nvd t v t

nty f ty, nd t t tw ‘d’ t tt t tt w tt

as the material of our nal introductory illustration. ‘Postmodern’ views subsume theft f ‘ ty’ nd tt f ‘n’, dn tt nd dtn

bt t ttty v t dbty n t mdn wd, nt t t f

the reexive application of favoured social science ideas to social science’s own

doctrines. Sociology has often presupposed a difference between itself—scientic

t t mp—nd dy, nd t tk fm f pptn f t

wk bm: pp think ty knw wt ty dn, bt w t

(pyt, ntpt, ‘ntv ntt’, t.), w w (t

mpymnt f mtdy t tt nttn), tt ty d

nt. T p-mnn f t fm f pd w m t n ntt prejudice in the academic etc. world, but also owes much, slightly more specically, to

t npt f ‘dy’ (w n b td bk t Mx) nd ‘t nn’

(dvd fm Fd, tty v ln). Bt f t Mxt nd Fdn n

dtd wt wn tt t n dby ttd by dy

nd nn dtmntn, tn wt bt ‘ n’ d tf?

s mp tn n yd tny ntv mnt— d can

only be tf n xpn f dy nd t nn. it nt tt vydy

d d nt—b t nnt—pnt ty, wt ‘ n’

d n, bt tt t vy pbty f pnttn tf nt .T mp twd n ty bm ddtb fm f t w t

pw, nd t ptn f ptv pnttn v wy t dv t t

ppt dtbtn f pptd pnttn (wt t ntn f ‘ty’

being redened into a very different form than structures of logically arrayed general

tt, nt t b t d f ‘’ tf bm pt).

rt tn nd t pt, tt v t t

t t nd f d-ty tn, m f mpnv nt

tt n nmp t d f t ttty (n bf f, t t n m ,

rounding off the ‘unnished project of modernity’). The principle form which the‘tn t gnd ty’25 , tntvy, t mv ‘bk t ty’26

v tkn tt f yntn p-xtn dtn. T nvv

25 f. sknn (1985).

26 f . Mz (1995).




dntfyn t nt pbm f y f pn f dtn, n

w t p dtmy btwn ‘tt’ nd ‘ny’, ‘bjtvm’ nd

‘bjtvm’, ‘dm’ nd ‘mtm’ mn t dm. in t wd,

t pjt f ty bm t ny knwn

t ny-tt pbm, n f ttn t ppd pt tw d f t m n, nd nptn tm wtn n v-n m w

w ‘xpn’ w t mntn t nty (‘ft’ t tn vty v

pw t mp nw ftn vn).

The need for these unicatory schemes results from disputes between rival

schools of sociologists who—at least allegedly—afliated themselves with one or

t p f t pty tt t bv—pptd—dtm nttt, w

n t fm t ptnn tmv n t ‘ny’ ‘bjtv’ xtm

n t y f ty md t ttn t w tdtn

pwnd by, py, Mx. sy’ fnd, Mx nd Dkm,d bn dmnt tt ty m tn jt n nmb f ndvd, nd tt

mpx fm f ntn w take precedence v ndvd ,

‘tt’, tt t pp bjt mtt f y. if ty—n m

n—nt ny f ndvd, tn t n ‘tt’ t b tdd, t

n tt n b ppd t n xpntn f t tn f ndvd, n t

t ft tt tt ‘pd’ ndvd tt mn tt ty xpnty f

what individuals do. The desire for unication arose, then, from the need to defend

t nd f ‘tt’ n ty, wt mkn nn t t

w dvtd t ndpnbty f ny. up nt t ttmpt t tt-nd-ny ynt, tt f ‘tt’ w mddy n-dd t

w mmnd ny, f ty d xdd ny fm t nt.

Wt knd f pbm d t ntt f ‘tt’ nd ‘ny nvv? in

ty, t ntn bt ntntn f t mtpy dbt v ‘dtmnm’

nd ‘tnmy’. hw f ndvd made t d wt ty d, nd w f

ty xmpt fm ny knd f mpn?

T x ndtd f t w n n nty. T mnt

wt ‘ tt’ y xt w ‘ndvd’ (t w ttt

d tdtny pndd wt t vw tt ‘ndvd’ v n xtn bt my pdt f tt). T, t nd f npt f

‘tt’ f dmnttn tt ‘’ nd nt jt ‘ndvd’ ft

. hwv, t mnt nt jt bt wt t n b tbd tt

tt are , bt nvv t py f n tt t d tt ty nt

wd pt y n mpty mpb ptn. T d f ‘ny’

ttn t ppt f xtm—ndb—vntm. indvd wd b

mpty f t d nytn tt ty wntd. T wd b ntn, v t

w f py, t mt t tn. Tt pp d b f n wy jt

nt nvb tt f ff, w, t ‘tt’ nd ‘ny’ nfnttn nt mbntn, w t nd f mtn t t mt t

xtm vntm—nd wt wd d b m tb tn npt f

‘tt’.

Bt y t n nd f t dtn f ty t tb

tt w nt f n t—mwt d—n. if ntt tnk



Introduction 21

tt w, dny pn, mn v t mnnt mnptnt

tn ty y t n w v t tty mpb nptn—f t

are tt w nv ndvd tn f n t xtdny

fn, ty y nd tn, bt t d nt pv ty nd ntn f

‘ tt’ t v tm fm fy, bt, nd ny, ty mnd tt tyd nt, n t wn v, mn tt tn k t t .

T problem y t f tnkn tt ptptn ndvd in

society nd b tt f tn f dtmntn. T d tt w,

mmb f t ty, nt really dn wt w tnk (.. mn) tt

w dn fd n t d tt ntntn nd pp nt wt mk

d wt w—tnk tt w—wnt t d. sm tnk t mt b b

ntntn nd pp nn-mt, mnt pnmn .. ppnmn, nd

tf nnt qfy , mt, . T real f bv

nty nknwn t , nd t ty, nt v, tt mk dwt w d. smtm, t mnt pd n tm f ‘ntnt’ t tn

tn, w tt n ttn wt ndvd n d,

pvntn tm fm tn n wy w ty mt pny pf n fv

f wy tt t d q f tm.

sn wt pp v n mnd n ty t t y t pp tt

t d tt something makes us do the things we do identies the explanatory form

f tn—tn t fm . Fm tt pn t d tt everything

w d w md t d. F m pp, t tt bn frisson,

mwt nnny—w nv y knw wt w dn, tn tm fft f nknwn . s d nt n tt m ft mp

nq, bt n tt bf tm, nd d nt tmv nttt ypt

tt w b ttd bt pvd b n w ypt mt b nttd nd

t dtmn w t t f ny nqy w b pmby ndtd.

T d tt w always made to act as we do would be in conict with

t d—pmby tt f xtm vntm—tt w never made to act,

bn wy f t d bty wtv w wnt. W pnd t Introduction

wt J.l. atn’ mxm bt pp, tt t wy t bt w ty

y t, nd tn t bt w ty tk t bk; w, t w t b t n mnd, f w nt yn tt t y t nvt any t f dn

nntny dtmnt nptn, t t wt ny ntny, bt t

, f xmp, ‘nt-mnt’ w wnt t tt ndvd mn bn

, as individuals, virtually insignicant for social science, which is essentially

bt ‘tt’ nd nt bt ‘ndvd’ t . (s ‘nt-mnm’ pnt

f ntn t ky mmnt n t tt f ln nd m f fw,

f at, f Ft n ‘’ p, nd pp f lv-

st.)

T d f ndvd m pppt f tt (f tt wtdtmnm n t ntxt mn) my dw m bt t p t—

t t m t bv tt everything tt w d mtn tt w made t

d, nd t pp t tt v t-d f t d f ynt. if w nnt

dny tt m tn w d tn w are md t d, nd t n




w w are ndd qt f t d jt wt w wnt, tn t tw mny

p xtm n b bt tt.

a ynt pmd n pnptn mt y d t t d tt

pp n n tw knd f bv, tt w dtmnd by t

tt nd tt w tnm f. T ‘mn f fdm’wtn t mt f dtmntn, t d, mtm wn pp t ‘bk

t’ f t nt tt t tt mp n tm.

W d nw nt tt t ntn f tt dtmntn ftn nd

m wnd p wt t d f pt tn t f dtmntn,

t t t dffnt n tt. T, tt tt

f nt mpy w pd wtv fft ty pd … ty

tt f mn f nt w k (n mtp n) t nt

all bv, n w bjtv ty n bn vy y f.27

T, ndvd tnmy, ny, tt bv w p t nt f the social structure, and which can only be behaviour which dees or escapes the

dtt f t tt.

W v bn ttn t ttmpt t t ty by wy f

ynt, mny dfnvy mtvtd, pndn t n n f tt, w

w tt f mntn t ntn f ‘ tt’ fm d.

ant n f tt, dy-ntmtd, tt n fm wt w v d

‘ptmdn’ nptn, n tt v bm t f t d tt n

mbn ty f ty pb, n w v, n mptnt wy, ttkd

t pbty f dtmnt mnn n t ntxt f tt n.28

on basis given for thinking this is that society is too diversied to be brought under any

single tt m; nt , mntnd, tt n ny m

w nt b n bjtv pnttn f ty, bt ny dd mn

by w n pt f ty k t mp t nptn nd nd n t

t. a n tt m mpy nnt b n bjtv pty f ty

b t n ttmpt t pnttn, nd pnttn, mntnd

bv, pvdd by nn py nd d mp nd d

nt y pt nytn bynd tmv, bt pvd—f t f w

mk nïv f tm n dy ff—ny n ‘fft’ f pnttn, btnt t tn29 tf. in t wd, n p ny pt mnn,

n t n bt tt t ny pt pt f t pt, nd n t n tt t

pt t pnt n mbdy’ d.

T ttmptd bvn f t d f n ty , wv, tf

pdt f theoretical ddtn, n w nty pt t d f n

27 Jn Mgwn (1991) wt, “ptmdn ty, i , dvn by t

mtn f tt mnt d p ntmpy f nd p tt

strategy of preserving pluralism (difference) can be found”.28 W d nt mk ny ttmpt t t ttmnt f ptmdnm pt-

ttm, . F nby dtd t nmnt wt Dd n

dnttn htnn Shame and Philosophy, pt 2, tn 5.

29 T pvtn f t vy d f t tn tf mk dy tt

ptmdnt my pt n nw . Ty v nt fndmnty ftd t

dbt, Wttntn d; ty my dppntd rt.



Introduction 23

f-ntnd ytm, wby t mnn f xpn entirely dtmnd

by t ntn tn btwn t mnt—t n—f t n. (on

n bm s f kkn t ff.) Fm t, t fw tt t tnp

f n t nytn td t mt b bty, nd nty , f ny pt

f t n pd by t p n t n ytm w. Bt f tm f n ty—mnt t pnttn— t (-)pnt tn

ty n tmv, tn t d f n d tt pbty, f t

way things are in themselves plays—by denition—no part in xing the forms of

n, vn t n wtt ny ntn nntn t tt w t

pptdy pnt. Tk t n f tt—ftn dbbd ‘ttt’ n,

owing to its afliation with ‘structuralist linguistics’—a step further, and suppose

tt n nt tty d ytm d bn pmd. Wtt

wtdwn fm t d tt n ytm f bty n, w tt t

n nt qt ytmt t n ty d. admt, tt , ttt m ‘py’ n t tn btwn t n n t ytm nd t d tt

the denite meaning of expressions is xed entirely by the internal relations of the

system—the signs are dened in relation to each other, but now only comparatively

loosely, meaning that if there is to be any xity of meaning it must be supplied

fm m t tn t tn f t n tf (t mv

from ‘structuralism’ to ‘post-structuralism’). The necessity to x meanings in actual

instances calls for the intervention of power, the imposition of a deniteness on

relations that are not intrinsically denite, and such power will be driven by the

nn py nd d mp dy mntnd. in mpterms, language cannot say anything denite about the nature of things because

language itself is not itself denite. Hence, language cannot really defnitively b

bt nytn t tn tf, n wt n b d n t n pdt

f t n tt tf p t nny ptn nd t pty

tn n n wy t tn nt. ‘Wt t y ’ ( tt tk

mt b wd t ) nt ny td n bt ny bynd ny

pbty f—ntv—ntt.

amnt k t n n m t qt tn dpy ptbn

, jt pny nd bvy wn. Wv f t tn ty t nt d ty m t v n n fn ndffnt! sd n mb

such arguments, one can have the sense that one has (nally!) seen through all the

dn tt mn bn v vd by f mnn, tt one ndtd

that nothing is what it seems. It is in this sense that one can see the strong afnity

wt ntm nd nd ty; f tm—b t Minty’ ttmptd

bttn f hmpn ddtv-nm ntm, hbmn nd

ty, Ddn dnttn—m t pvd t mtd

n w w nb t dntfy nd t bk f f pjd, wt tt

b nfd by dy t nn.in t f pt-mdnm wv, t , dy mpd, ft

mptn … at t m tm w nmk nn pjd, w v

pd tt t n pnt n tyn t y wt tn y n ntt t

wt ty pp t b. T x n ny b n f xpn n wtt

ttmptn t t p nw n n t p (nd t mk t tt f ‘ptmdn




ty’ tf knd f mpndb). ‘rty’ nw my dn twd

pjtn td by t wkn f t n nd f pw tn tt jnty

d n t nwttn t, vn n t m bt, nd nb t y,

wt ny vdty, tt n tn btt tn t t, mpy dn dpt

t dpt f tt. Wtn t t t dd t bn n ntn, fnd btt t—d, n m ntxt, ‘t ct W’, nd n t ‘t

sn W’ nd nn mny dffnt dpn, ndn t

nd ty td—btwn t w mbd m vn f t d nd

those who vigorously resisted them (the conict peaked and has died down, but this

d nt mn tt t dvn tt pdd t v d t xt).

The rst point to make is that the two sides of the Culture and Science Wars is

tt mny f t dmnt n b ytd bn v wt n

ny n bty nntn wt ty, nd n tt pt ty, t

pk, tk n t wn. T n t n d, ftn n tmvrt, nt tt n d and must v ny tnp wt

ty xtn t nd ntttvy ndpndnt f t f t t nt pvdn

‘f’ pnttn. o n , n mptnt pt, t wy tt

t b f t ndtn tt tn n tmv, xtn ty, t f

pnttn—f w’ nt n t b mkn mtk t tm (nd f w

dd w wd n b xtnt) tn t wy w pnt t wd t v

nd t must at crucial points t with the way the world is, must correspond

t t ntn ppt f wtv t tt t does pnt. F t, t

persistence and success of our way of life testies to the truth of the arguments.T ppnnt, t, w tt f n pt t—t ppnnt’—pt f

wt mk n mnnf, tn t just can’t b nytn ny bt

t tnp btwn n nd nytn xtn t t. T ntn f

n bty w mn, n t nd, tt n ny ‘pnt’, t

nv y pnt t .

T dmnt nt n empirical , bt vy m pp, dpt,

n w pd mny pp dpt d. Tt , bt d n b

n t tn fndmnt pm. T (ptmdn, t.) t d nt

dpt t nt pm tt t d f pnttn f mtn ttpnt t ntn nt f ty t ndpndnty . rt, ty v tt

d n p nd tn k wt nytn n pby tfy t qmnt,

n n t pv—t tmv t t—tt nothing can mt t qmnt

because (as we have put it in this condensation and simplication of very complex

ntvy) t pnttn wd b nty t-f, nfftd by

d dttn, bt n ntnnt, nd n tf tnd n

ny n bty tnp t nytn td t n, mnn tt no

n t f, nd nqnty tt t n true pnttn, ny

tn tt v t f, dvn ppn f pntn tn. rt tn pttn t nt pm n qtn, tt ‘pnttn f ty’ q

necessary correspondence, the critics accept this, and thus ‘nd’ that the very idea of

pnttn twn nt dbt. on n, wv, qy w pt tt pm

nt qtn, wnd wt t d ttn f tn tt w wd

ordinarily call representations, and thus nd out that one could consider that ‘being



Introduction 25

bty’ nd ‘bn pnttn’ nt nttt ntn— t w

w t tk t ft tt m m pt n ft nd n nd t n

mt nd ntmt pvn tt t n tn mn t nt

f nytn. Nt ‘ft’ n ‘mt’ ff tmv ntn ppt f

bjt, bt ny nt f mmnt w n—nd mnfty —dt dtmn t d t w dffnt bjt mt b t m m

dffnt nt fm t …

The Continued Need to Read Peter Winch

T tn tn t tt; n wd b mtkn f n tt tt t m tt

t ‘n tn n’ mpd tt w n m—nt

nd nnt—n nt-n. W nt-ntm, y, bt vn tt dn’t

pt wt w y mn t t t n wt fw. W nt t dvn-tt f m f wt p n nd ppy f n

tdy (nd dtn bk t wn Wn td ISS ). F gnd s Ty—

ppndd n v by Bk, Bd, gddn, hbm, nd n—

deconstruction as a methodology in the social studies—as exemplied in exercises

n t dnttn f txt tty pnd by Dd (.. cffd 1986,

am 1989)—nd ntm— ppndd n ptvt by t

Minty nd n t by t Mn— m t pvd,

by way of furnishing us with a methodology, a lens through we will nally be able

t t dy-dvn nny-dvn pjd bt tt t, t wy w t t ntttn nd nm, nd t dntty

f tn: wt w y dn. o nt n ttmpt t y tt n-n

( t, mmb f ty: people) n b mtkn bt t tn, bt

tt pp bn mtkn bt wt ty dn nd w ntttn

mpt pn tm d nt mpy tt wt qd mtdy f

n, tt fmwk, tt w mt ppnd wt t ty

y dn w pn’ tn t ntttn mt b.

T ny btwn mtdy ( ty) nd n, w w nvkd

above, can be briey explored in a little more depth, here. The fact that you might

mtk d p n t n f y dn f nk n dk nt,

tt y jt md t typ n t pp y wt dpt t d-t

d nt mn tt y nd pt. smy, pn mt t n mnn

tt ty ny t, fwn dn wt , dntfy mtvtd

by nvy, , pn ny t n f mt m t tt mny f t m

bf, tt ty nw nd t v ntvy ntnd t ty’v

md, tmmd fm t tnp t t ntttn f t c nd t wy

t nny ttd t bf.

it d nt follow, n t fm , tt w nd p f pt: tt

ttd by vt t t ptn. T mtk n qtn d pp t

mt nd p ndtn n t f t nk/p nd t n (nt

bn ttntv n) n t f t md typ. spt w nt mk

m t nd w nt mk n m ttntv. smy, mn t tt




my tn w mtvtd by nvy mtt f nty wt nf (mtm,

’ nty f n t knwd tn nd b nt wt

oneself), and coming to recognise the inuence the church has exercised over the

n md mtt f n t ntnnt nt f t (tt

t w t pbt) nd tt t c’ tn d nt w (dn)

tt t t mmnd ntnnt (dn t pb f n

t b d pn).30 Bt vn t ny dn’t qt t t t nb f t

w wnt t dw t . F mtd nt tt t pt n mnn

analogous to spectacles, correcting deciency in vision, bringing our (ideologically

nny ttd) vn bk t 20-20 vn. N t ny wd b

btt btwn t md f mtdy n t n nd t X-y

spectacles of science ction (with the rider that what they enable one to see—below

the surface—is what is most signicant; is what is real).

in t, t p f tm tt n nd n nd n,

tt t bk, nd w mk n py f t pttn. T t

tm f t dntty f n tn nd f t vydyn f ndtndn. Ty

b mny f t mndtndn nd tm f Wn, nd

tf f t f w bv tn t b (f nt m) vnt

nw ty w 50 y , bd n f t p t pnt n f. s,

wt w b xptn Wn (cpt 1) xpnn wy nt n idt

(Chapter 2), demonstrating the afnities and differences with Ethnomethodology and

t ‘qttv’ t, evn gffmn (cpt 3), dfndn

Winch against the charge of conservatism (Chapter 4) we nd ourselves returned to

t m : ndtndn wt pn dn pfty mndn nd

everyday affair; where it is difcult, as when we—as occasionally ppn—m

pn pp w mny d tn n vy dffnt wy t , tn w nd

to make more of an effort, just as we do when we are reading a book we nd hard

n, not p t ppn tt p f pt (.. mtd/

theory) is what would help us. Our difculties in reading are with what’s in the book,

nt wt t y w t d t dn.

Wt ty dn, t dntty f t tn, mpy wt t tn mn

f t t n t ttn: tt dntfyn t mtm d, nd

nvv mtm (..) t tnkn, d nt qt t t bn ny nd

wtv f ty/ n.

in bqnt pt w nt mny f t w v ntdd

n m dpt. W v t—n tn , nd n dpt n t bdy f

bk—t dfnd Wn fm wt w mt tt mndtndn.

‘rtt’, n mtn kn t t pjtv n d f tt wd n t k

f Fz nd evn-Ptd, t tn n t m pn-mndd n pnt

n t wk f Wttntn nd Wn … untnkn, functionalistically benecial

t p-dty, nd ptvy ptt … T pttn bn tt f

ntm (nd, by xtnn, nd ty nd pt mdnm) mkn t

mpb t m f n tntv wy f tnkn tt d ttn t

mpm f t ny Mtd pmttd ny vbty nd mptn …

30 Wt n, tf, m t n t t ntnny f t c’

nptn f t d.



Introduction 27

T td, nk t ‘ n’, nt ny bn bt nd

wt nn-dm, wt (mptnt) mmb f mmnty. s tdy

bv mtn tt w d mt f t tm, w mn. it w b vdnt

tt tt t ty Wittgensteinian ntpttn f Wn. W

bv tt m f t (mpnt) mndtndn f Wn’ pjt tf f t ndtnd t ntty f Wn’ ‘ppy f n’

f Wttntn(’)— t bt f t ndtnd Wttntn mf. W tk

y Wn’ Wttntnn (tpt) t, nd t tt Wn

d ft t fn f Wttntn (d t)31 mmn t t mn

nt m. Wttntn n idt rtvt, nd jt , Wn nt; t.

T nt tt mny bk tt bm nd n t wn t’ ftm.

The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy bk; w mn,

n this book, to dispel the legend. Peter Winch was a very ne philosopher indeed,

bt ‘t ndy’ Pt Wn, t Wn td dpd32

by mny ‘f’and loved by his few ‘fans’ is a lesser, ctional, character. The true Winch was more

d tn f fn wd. h w (Wttntnn) pp w f t

rst time made it fully possible to see that ‘social science’ not only had no clothes, but

tt t n’t n mp t , t, nd n nd f n. T n ‘t’ t.

T nd n b n tn n, n t n n w dvt

f n ( vn nd ty) f ty v wntd t t b. Wn dd

nt v nw wy f dn n, ‘Wttntnn, -vnd’

wy. T ppd nm, Dnd Dvdn (2001 [1974]), nd t ny

pty ymptt a.r. l (1963, p. 273), ntmtd t bdty f thevery idea of social science … The legendary Peter Winch is a ctional character 33 —

t t Wn w f m mptnt nd f m d n tn tt ‘

n’ qntnt mdn myt. Bt myt n t wd-b fm f n

t wt knd f myt—f, f m xtmy tn m n, ty

nnt bear t dmt t wn nt, nt vn t dky …

31 s htnn (2007), nd htnn nd rd (2008).

32 T mt tk d tt ypb. s gn p t., f n w

to conrm that it is not hyperbolic.

33 F n xmp n t d Wn’ vw f Jm Bmn’ (1992), New

Philosophy of Social Science; Wn wt f Bmn’ bk, “T nd f t ntdty

chapters is particularly difcult for me to discuss, since a great deal of the argument hinges

n tm nd jtn f vw i m d t v d n my 1958 bk The Idea of a

Social Science. My difculty is that I recognize as mine hardly any of the views discussed;

ndd, mt f tm vw w i criticized. T btntt t n dt wd qt

npppty tk p t mnd f t p i m wd f t vw, bt t

n, t w y, pnt tt i f i mt mk. Nt my d Bmn nwtk nt f, vn mntn t xtn f, nmb f t pp by m w

tny vnt t t ntpttn f my ptn; vn db ppvny m

tm md by ad Minty f my pp ‘undtndn Pmtv sty’

without nding it necessary actually to refer to that paper, even to the extent of including it

n bbpy. s m f t ‘vt d’ btwn ntpt nd ntpt n

which Bohman later rests so much theoretical weight” (Winch 1995, p. 4).




it f t t t pnt t dd ny tt m f wt w v d dy

nd m f wt w y n wt fw should already be clear f n d

d fy Wn’ ISS nd fw bqnt pp: .. “undtndn

a Primitive Society”, “Trying to Make Sense”, “Can We Understand Ourselves”,

nd t Preface t t 2nd dtn f ISS , nd myb dd r gt’ t bt vyntf ntdtn t t 50t nnvy dtn. hwv, t t 50 y

n t pbtn f Wn’ bk dmntt tt f dn nt bn

n bndn wn t m t Wn’ wk. W d t p tt t pnt txt

mt m wy t vn t tnd.

There_is_No_Such_Thing_as_a_Social_Science

Documents