TOWARD A SCIENCE OF MAN IN SOCIETY978-94-010-3660-3/1.pdf · TOWARD A SCIENCE OF MAN IN SOCIETY A Positive Approach to the Integration of Social Knowledge by ... differs from popular

TOWARD A SCIENCE OF MAN IN SOCIETY

STUDIES IN SOCIAL LIFE

VI

EDITOR: GUNTHER BEYER

ADVISORY BOARD

P. J. BOUMAN, University of Groningen

JEAN GOTTMANN, University of Paris

WALTER HOFFMANN, University of Munster

LIVIO LIVI, University of Rome

TOWARD A SCIENCE OF

MAN IN SOCIETY

A Positive Approach to the Integration of Social Knowledge

by

K. WILLIAM KAPP Professor tier Nationalokonomie

Universitat Basel, Switzerland

THE HAGUE

MARTINUS NUHOFF

1961

ISBN-13: 978-90-247-0512-2 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-010-3660-3 DOl: 10.1007/978-94-010-3660-3

© Copyright I96I by Martinus Nijhojf, The Hague, Netherlands All rightr reserved, including the right to translate or to

reproduce this book or partr thereof in any form

To

L.L.K.

PREFACE

THIS study is concerned with the search for a new unity of social knowledge and social inquiry. As such it is addressed to all those who see in the present compartmentalization and special­ization of the social sciences the reason for the bewildering pro­liferation of subject matters, the preoccupation with trivia and the failure to make the maximum use of our knowledge for human welfare. More specifically, I am addressing this book to those who are dealing with "interdisciplinary" problems such as the study of foreign areas, the analysis of sociocultural change, economic development of "backward" economies and the planning and teaching of "integrated" courses in the social sciences. The book suggests an answer to the question, How can our specialized knowledge about man and society be unified? As such the study reflects the conviction that all scientific knowledge, in order to make the greatest possible contribution to human welfare, must become comprehensive in character. In fact, such knowledge differs from popular and common-sense understanding precisely by the fact that it is systematically formulated and held together in terms of a few unifying conceptual frameworks. Indeed, all scientific understanding is, above all, an effort to simplify by unifying what has long appeared as unrelated and disparate. Those who believe that compartmentalization and specialization are the royal road to success in the social sciences may find this an irritating book.

I do not quite share the views of those who may argue that the integration of social knowledge must await the genius of a Newton,

viii Preface

an Einstein, or an Adam Smith and that pending the appearance of such an integrating master mind all we can do is to settle back to cultivate our own specialties. I believe that the integration of social inquiry is a common responsibility and depends upon the collaboration of many minds. This is necessarily a long and labori­ous process. What is required is a willingness to explore areas of research which are often far removed from one's specialty. This is a process of self-education in the best sense of the word - a process which presents special difficulties and few rewards except those satisfactions which may be derived from its contributjon to the sought-for integration of our social knowledge. Interdepart­mentalism through participation in interdisciplinary seminars and group discussions is not enough. To understand what related disciplines are doing calls for a study of their basic concepts and ultimately of the substantive content of their conclusions.

The widespread assent which efforts at interdisciplinary inte­gration currently command is not without dangers. These dangers stem from the fact that the term integration is frequently used indiscriminately and that approval is often given uncritically. Indeed, integration has become a catchword which, in the absence of any clear definition, has remained sufficiently ambiguous to mean, if not all things to all men, at least many different things to different people. In fact, the term seems to cover a great variety of approaches which, if examined carefully, are found to have little in common. For this reason alone it seems to be im­portant that an attempt be made to distinguish between these different approaches to integration and to give a more precise meaning to the term. In the absence of such a precise meaning critics may see in the inadequacy of one method a sufficient reason to reject the whole idea of integration.

One further word of caution may be in order. Man has always found it desirable and indeed relatively easy to integrate the totality of his experiences in terms of a unifying world view - be it animistic, religious, or secular in character. What makes these .a priori systems of thought more than problematical as integrators of our compartmentalized knowledge is not only their unverified and unverifiable character but the fact that they easily degenerate into dogma - that is, something that is no longer open to question

Preface ix

and refutation. It would be a step backward if, in our effort to establish some measure of integration of our social knowledge, we were to brush aside the epistemological insight which has taught us the provisional character of all knowledge. Nothing could be further removed from our objective than to prepare the ground for the imposition of a new dogma, a new faith, or a new fanaticism. Indeed, any attempt to approach the integration of social inquiry, so to speak, from the outside either in terms of a new faith or in terms of a metaphysical superscience would be as futile as it would be ineffective in the long run.

In this spirit of caution and with these objectives in mind we explore first the reasons for the present compartmentalization of our social knowledge and advance certain proposals for an inter­disciplinary synthesis in terms of common-denominator concepts or conceptual frameworks. Following the systematic analysis of social reality as distinguished from inanimate matter and living organism, we set forth in Part III our solution by elaborating two complementary conceptual frameworks: man and culture. These frameworks are based upon the findings of cultural anthro­pology, psychology, and sociology. Two concluding chapters en­deavor to make explicit the major practical effects of an integrat­ed science of man in society. Thus, chapter 10 deals with the effects of integration on the method and strategy of inquiry; Chapter XI explores in a more speculative spirit some of the long­run promises which an intellectual synthesis holds for social theory, social practice, and higher learning.

In so far as the book is concerned with the reasons for the disruption of our social knowledge and the search for a new unity of social inquiry, it deals with a metaphysical or philosophical subject. In so far as we are trying to show that the subject matter of the social sciences differs from that of either physics or biology, we have had to concern ourselves with some of the recent ad­vances in the natural sciences. (We hope to have the indulgence of the experts in these fields for having undertaken the self­appointed task of interpreting the philosophical implications of recent developments in their disciplines to fellow social scientists.) Inasmuch as we proceed to elaborate the tentative conceptual frameworks of man and culture, we are dealing with concepts and findings of disciplines outside our narrow specialty. This was un-

x Pre/ace

avoidable and no one is more aware of the hazards of such an enterprise than the author.

In an intellectual enterprise of this kind it is necessary, perhaps more than in any more specialized endeavor, to acknowledge my debts. Perhaps the most fundamental debt is owed to those economists who have long criticized the relatively narrow con­ceptual framework of neo-classical economics. To them must be attributed my earlier preoccupation with problems that have been outside the traditional scope of economic analysis and my concern with "institutionalism" and the "humanization" of eco­nomics.

A second debt is owed to students of the history of thought and of economic analysis who have criticized the process of special­ization and compartmentalization which has given rise to the present disruption of social knowledge and social inquiry. Their diagnosis of the dilemma made for a sharper awareness of the problems and the remedy.

A further debt is owed to philosophers and those physicists and biologists who, while pioneers in their respective disciplines, have been sufficiently fascinated by their new discoveries to analyze the epistemological implications of their findings for the non­expert.

Finally, my participation in the planning and teaching of interdisciplinary courses at Columbia University and Brooklyn College brought me in close contact with the findings and modes of thought of such social disciplines as cultural anthropology, psychology, and sociology. As everybody knows who has ever participated in a serious effort at "integrated education" in the social sciences, contact with the newer social disciplines es­tablishes the first interdisciplinary bridges and lines of communi­cation. All one has to do is to venture into the new territory. I would like to gratefully acknowledge a fellowship from The Fund for the Advancement of Education for a comparative study of social science courses at different colleges and universities. I was fortunate enough to be able to experiment with an integrated approach to the study of economic development in India during a year spent at the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics in Poona as a Fulbright Research Professor.

My more specific debts are greatest to my wife, who, as on

Preface xi

previous occasions, has shared my interest in the problems under investigation, helped in every phase of the research, and sug­gested many important changes in the course of the writing of the manuscript.

Professor Fred H. Blum of the University of Minnesota, read an earlier version of the manuscript and made many valuable sug­gestions for its improvement. Professors Nonnan O. Brown and ]. Gomez-Ibanez of Wesleyan University, Carl E. Schorske of the University of California and Charlotte Houterman of Sarah Lawrence College read earlier drafts of individual chapters. Their critical comments are gratefully acknowledged as are also a number of suggestions for improvements of a substantive nature by Mr. Mulford Martin of New York University; Miss Janet Kahn of New York made many editorial improvements while she prepared the manuscript for the press.

Middlefield, Conn. October 1960.

K. W. K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface VII

PART ONE

THE FRAGMENTATION OF SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE

I. SPecialization and Compartmentalization: Symptoms and Effects I. Contradictory Orientations in the Social Sciences 3 2. The Fragmentation of Social Knowledge 4 3. The Fragmentation of Social Knowledge and the Modem

University 12

1 I. The Causes of Compartmentalization 17 I. Diversity of Explanations 17 2. Secularization and Synthesis 20

The Lapse into Naturalism 22

The Role of Analogies 25

3. The Limitations of Earlier Syntheses 28 4. Economics and Compartmentalization 31 5. Psychoanalysis and Compartmentalization 37

III. Approaches to Integration: A Critical Review 48 I. Integration by Interdepartmentalism 50 2. Integration by Historiography 52

3. Integration by Analogy 56 4. Positivism and the Unity of Science 60 5. Dialectical Materialism and the Integration of Social

Knowledge 64

xiv Table of Contents

PART TWO

LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION

INANIMATE MATTER, LIVING ORGANISMS AND HUMAN SOCIETY

IV. Inanimate Matter 73 1. Complementarity and Uncertainty 77 2. The Determinacy of Macro-Physical Processes 80

V. Living Organisms 87 1. The Hereditary Process 88 2. Living Organisms as Open Systems 90 3. Structure and Purpose 93 4. The Psycho-Physical Hypothesis 96

Note on the Origin of Life 101

VI. Human Society 103

1. Enculturation 106 2. The Economic System, Power, Coercion, and Govern-

ment 107

3. Social Action and Social Indeterminacy IIO

4. Human Societies as Systems with Specific Structures II3

5. Social Change II5

PART THREE

MAN AND CULTURE

AS INTEGRATING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

VII. Integration by Common-Denominator Concepts 123

1. The Nature of Integrating Concepts 125

2. Integrating Conceptual Frameworks in the Social Sciences 128

3. The Complementary Concepts of Man and Culture 129

Note on Earlier Attempts to Erect a System of Social Knowledge upon an Explicit Concept of Man 134

VIII. Toward a Concept of Man and Human Nature 138 1. The "Premature" Birth of the Human Infant 140 2. Biological Weaknesses as Latent Potentialities 143 3. The Structure of Human Needs and Motives 146

Table of Contents xv

4. Rationality and Emotionality 152 5. A Bio-Cultural Concept of Man and Human Nature 154

Note on Monistic Principles of Human Needs and Human Behavior 157

IX. The Modern Concept of Culture I. Definition of the Culture Concept 2. The "Causes" of Culture 3. The Integration of Culture 4. Integration, Diversity and Autonomy

Summary and Conclusions Note on Culture and Psychopathology

X. Integration and the Strategy of Scientific Inquiry I. The Orientation toward the Social Context 2. The Preoccupation with Social Structure, Social

160 161 164 167 169 172

173

179 179

Dynamics and Cumulative Causation 183 3. The Acceptance of Social Indeterminacy and Incomplete

Predictability 190 4. The Importance of Real Types and Substantive Analysis194

XI. Toward of Science of Man in Society

Bibliography Index of Authors Subject Matter Index

200

213 222 226