Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:19:59.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Respect for Subjects in the Ethics of Causal and Interpretive Social Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2020

MICHAEL L. FRAZER Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL L. FRAZER [Opens in a new window]
MICHAEL L. FRAZER*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
*
Michael L. Frazer, Senior Lecturer in Political and Social Theory, School of Politics, Philosophy, Language, and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rival causal and interpretive approaches to explaining social phenomena have important ethical differences. While human actions can be explained as a result of causal mechanisms, as a meaningful choice based on reasons, or as some combination of the two, it is morally important that social scientists respect others by recognizing them as persons. Interpretive explanations directly respect their subjects in this way, while purely causal explanations do not. Yet although causal explanations are not themselves expressions of respect, they can be used in respectful ways if they are incorporated into subjects’ self-directed projects. This can occur when subjects correctly understand and freely adopt researchers’ goals through a process of informed consent. It can also occur when researchers correctly understand and adopt their subject’s goals, using their research to empower those they study.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 114 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 1001 - 1012
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the NUI Galway Law and Philosophy Colloquium, the University College Dublin Philosophy Colloquium, the University of East Anglia Philosophy Seminar, the Open University Values and Reasons Philosophy Seminar, the Association for Political Theory (APT) Annual Meeting, and the Philosophy, Politics, Anthropology and Allied Disciplines (PPA+) Annual Conference. I would like to thank all the organizers and attendees as well as Coral Celeste Frazer and Jennifer Page for their invaluable assistance and the University of East Anglia for its generous research leave. I would also like to thank Leigh Jenco, Sarah Goff, and three incredibly thorough anonymous reviewers for helping to improve this article so significantly for the better as it made its way through multiple rounds of revision at the APSR.

References

Aristotle, . c.330BC/1992. The Politics, trans. Sinclair, T. A., trans. revised, Saunders, Trevor J.. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You’re Doing It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, Mark, and Blakely, Jason. 2018. Interpretive Social Science: An Anti-Naturalist Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Anthony. 1962. A Clockwork Orange. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Chih Lin, Ann. 2000. Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cranor, Carl. 1975. “Toward a Theory of Respect for Persons.” American Philosophical Quarterly 12 (4): 309–319.Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. 1977. “Two Kinds of Respect.” Ethics 88 (1): 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1987. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott, ed. 2016. Ethics and Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Donagan, Alan. 1977. The Theory of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, Keith. 2016. The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downie, R. S., and Tefler, Elizabeth. 1969. Respect for Persons. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Eynon, Rebecca, Frey, Jenny, and Schroeder, Ralph. 2008. “The Ethics of Internet Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods, eds. Fielding, Nigel, Lee, Raymond M., and Blank, Grant, 23–41. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Frankena, William K. 1986. “The Ethics of Respect for Persons.” Philosophical Topics 14 (2): 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry. 1997. “Equality and Respect.” Social Research 64 (1): 3–15.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Green, Leslie. 2010. “Two Worries about Respect for Persons.” Ethics 120 (2): 212–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1821/1967. Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. with notes. Knox, T. M.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. 1993. “Donagan’s Kant.” Ethics 104 (1): 22–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, Martin. 1994/2002. The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction, revised and updated. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Stephen D. 1980. “The Nature of Respect.” Social Theory and Practice 6 (1): 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheson, Phil, Read, Rupert, and Sharrock, Wes. 2008. There is No Such Thing as a Social Science: In Defense of Peter Winch. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1785/1996. “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Practical Philosophy, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary J., 37–108. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Peter. 2011. Ethics and Self-Knowledge: Respect for Self-Interpreting Agents. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Avishai, and Halbertal, Moshe. 1994. “Liberalism and the Right to Culture.” Social Research 61 (3): 491–510.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1843/1978. “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edition, ed. Tucker, Robert C., 16–25. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, 1852/1978. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” In The Marx-Engels Reader 2nd edition, ed. Tucker, Robert C., 594–617. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1995. “Objectification.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24 (4): 249–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2001. Value, Respect, and Attachment. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Frederic Charles. 2006. “Ordinary Language Interviewing.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, eds. Yanow, Dvora and Shwartz-Shea, Peregine, 150–160. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Schrag, Zachary M. 2010. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965-2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sennett, Richard. 2003. Respect: The Formation of Character in an Age of Inequality. New York: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Smith, David Livingstone. 2011. Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. 1959/1964/2012. The Two Cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sondheim, Stephen. 1957/2010. “Gee, Officer Krupke.” In Finishing the Hat: Collected Lyrics (1954-1981) with Attendant Comments, Principles, Heresies, Whines and Anecdotes, 50–51. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe. 2006. “Talking our Way to Meaningful Explanations: A Practice-Centered View of Interviewing for Interpretive Research.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, eds. Yanow, Dvora and Shwartz-Shea, Peregine, 127–149. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Tilley, Helen, and Gordon, Robert J., eds. 2010. Ordering Africa: Anthropology, European Imperialism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Patrick. 2014. The Naked Future: What Happens in a World that Anticipates Your Every Move? New York: Current.Google Scholar
Van den Hoonard, W. C. 2011. The Seduction of Ethics: Transforming the Social Sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Frassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1906/2011. “Critical Studies in the Logic of the Cultural Sciences.” In Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. and ed. Shills, Edward A. and Finch, Henry A., 113–188. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1917/2011. “The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Economics.” In Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. and ed. Shills, Edward A. and Finch, Henry A., 1–48. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1922/1978. Economy and Society, eds. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Simon. 2018. “Aristotle and Respect for Persons.” In The Roots of Respect: A Historic-Philosophical Itinerary, eds. Giorgini, Giovanni and Irrera, Elena. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, Joanna, and Roberts, David, 2016. Academic Integrity: Exploring Tensions between Perception and Practice in the Contemporary University. University of Kent and the Society for Research into Higher Education. https://www.srhe.ac.uk/downloads/WILLIAMSJoannaROBERTSDavid.pdfGoogle Scholar
Winch, Peter. 1958/1990. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, 2nd edition. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora. 2006. “Neither Rigorous nor Objective? Interrogating Criteria for Knowledge Claims in Interpretive Science.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, eds. Yanow, Dvora and Shwartz-Shea, Peregine, 67–88. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.