How to Think of Social Reality

How to think of ‘social
reality’?
SOSC 1000
Lecture 4
Jan Krouzil PhD
May 20, 2021
Agenda
Announcements
Part I What is meant by 'social reality’?
Part II Hermeneutic phenomenology
Keywords
Readings & supplementary sources
Part I
What is meant by 'social reality’? (1)
Conceptions of ‘social reality’
‘social realities’ are all around us

think of cocktail parties, football games, bar mitzvahs, political
rallies, even nations
all made up of ‘social entities’
‘social entity’ can be defined in reference to ‘the separate
existence of an organization that is perceived to exist by its
members and the public at large as a given, i.e. something that
exists before and outside of them.’
‘social realities’ are creations of not individual human minds,
but
collectives of human minds
by their very nature, they are mostly founded on agreement (or
contract)
humans are immersed both physically (somatically) and
virtually in
a universe of ever changing ‘social realities’
they play a major role both in determining how humans live and
how well they live
the social realm affects not only how humans relate to one
another
but also how they interact with the rest of the biological and
physical realms
science, for example, is a complex social undertaking by which
humans collectively seek to understand the physical, biological,
and even the social realm itself
The constitution of the ‘social reality’
virtually all social entities are 'plastic’ - their properties change
significantly over time, as a result of the purposive and
unintentional behavior of the socially constructed individuals

who make up a society
organizations, labor unions, universities, churches, and social
identities all show a substantial degree of flexibility and
fluidity over time, and this fact leads to a substantial degree of
heterogeneity among groups of similar social organizations and
institutions
the properties of a social entity or practice can change over time
they are not rigid, fixed, timeless; they are not bound into
consistent and unchanging categories of entities
such as 'bureaucratic state', 'Islamic society', or 'leftist labor
organization’
‘molecules of water preserve their physical characteristics no
matter what. But in contrast to natural substances such as gold
or water, social things can change their properties indefinitely.'
(Little 2007)
the objects studied by social science include ‘social structure’
e.g., kinship structure, historical events, artistic and political
movements, types of government, socio-economic classes,
historical eras, technology, and the functioning of a market
economy
if there is something like ‘social reality’ then all social
phenomena and thus all objects of social inquiry will be
aspects
or parts of it
an account of social reality possible as a comprehensive account
of the constitution of all objects of social science
‘social reality’ can be conceived of as the concrete, empirical
reality of actual social life
What is meant by the expression 'social reality’?

‘reality’ is the totality of what (actually) ‘exists’
‘social reality’ can be formally and neutrally defined as part of
what is ‘social’
is experience giving us access to ‘reality’?
‘reality’ is there for the most part independent of any particular
person’s experience
yet experience is something by means of which people
apprehend reality
What does the word 'social’ refer to?
'socialis’ (Latin) connotes companionship
in modern times the word 'social' is used to qualify any mode
of human coexistence
social reality is that part of the world to which experience gives
us access that constitutes the realm of human coexistence
‘social reality’ consists in the interrelatedness of the continuous
passage of different people's lives
in the interrelatedness of what determines, occurs in, and is
produced by human lives
interrelated ongoing lives as the concrete, empirical reality in
which actual social existence consists
Components of ‘social reality’ (Schatzki 1988)
analyzing ongoing life, or moment-to-moment existence, as
series of
actions that are governed by ‘practical intelligibility’ and
performed in interconnected, local settings
‘practical intelligibility’ is what makes sense to an actor to do
it governs action by determining what an actor does
making sense to a person to perform a particular action is an
instance
of ‘rationality’

what makes sense to people are actions that are considered to be
permitted, appropriate, prudent, efficacious, sensible, called for,
and so on
what makes sense to a person to do is determined by a range
of 'intelligibility-determining factors’
ends, ideas (including concepts and thoughts), mattering,
knowledge, tasks and projects, rules, paradigms, customs, and
setting
‘setting’ plays a dual role in ongoing existence
many actions are taken toward and in response to the people,
events, and objects encountered in settings
the actions and entities people encounter in settings help shape
which particular intelligibility-determining factors determine
what makes sense to them to do
people become familiar with particular rules, paradigms, ideas,
and
so on, for instance, by encountering books, movies, actions,
including
linguistic actions, etc
the role that persuasion, indoctrination, threats, and pedagogy
also plays in molding what makes sense to people to do
types of interrelations between lives
individual lives are not fully-formed atoms which exist
independently of the external relations they maintain among one
another, the entering into which would, on an atomistic way of
thinking, constitute social existence
not only do lives take shape through interaction with one
another but an individual life, merely by being a life, is thereby
entangled in a multitude of interrelations

‘social reality’ consists in interrelated ongoing lives
the phenomena in which ‘social reality’ has its ‘being’ are the
phenomena constituting and interrelating live
actions
intelligibility-determining factors
the entities found in settings
interrelations
What is the significance of this account of social reality?
implications for the constitution of social phenomena and the
character of social inquiry
‘social construction of reality’ (Berger and Luckma nn 1966)
Overarching social formations
embracing a plurality of lives, e.g., economic systems, political
alliances, wars, football games, peer groups, conversations,
artistic movements, and historical events
all these formations are parts of ‘social reality’
consist in combinations of phenomena of actions, entities in
settings, intelligibility-determining factors, and interrelations
since ‘social reality’ consists in interrelated ongoing lives,
all social phenomena and facts must have their ‘being’ in
features of the nexus of lives
Part II
Hermeneutic phenomenology (1)
Keywords - phenomenon, logos and hermeneutics
phenomenon (or phainomenon)
rooted in Greek language and derived from the verb phainesthai,
meaning ‘to show itself’ (to manifest itself)
the meaning of the expression ‘phenomenon’ is established as
‘what shows itself in itself (in ‘the form of intuition’)

(Heidegger 1962)
to clarify n which sense phenomenology can be ‘a science of’
phenomena the meaning of logos must be delimited
logos
can be literally translated to ‘apophantic speech’
translated and interpreted, as reason, judgment, concept,
definition, ground, and relation
something to be seen (phainesthai) - what is being talked about
for the speaker or for those who speak with each other (i.e.,
subject matter)
phenomenology
can be defined as a universal a priori science which is the self-
founding first philosophy (prima philosophia) articulated
through rigorous and exhaustive
descriptive investigations of the phenomena of consciousness
human consciousness embraces transcendence in the limit
concept of God
the insight that everything that actually exists is a ‘this-here-
now’
hermeneutics
theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic and non-
linguistic expressions
the hermeneutic tradition stretches all the way back to ancient
Greek philosophy
in the course of the middle Ages and the Renaissance emerges
as a crucial branch of Biblical studies

later on it comes to include the study of ancient and classic
cultures
with the emergence of German romanticism and idealism the
status of hermeneutics changes and it turns to the conditions of
possibility for ‘symbolic communication’ as such
the question ‘How to read?’ is replaced by the question, ‘How
do we communicate at all?’
now hermeneutics is not only about symbolic communication -
its area is even more fundamental – that of human life and
existence as such
hermeneutics provides the critical horizon for many of the most
intriguing discussions of contemporary schools of thought
as an interrogation into the deepest conditions for symbolic
interaction and culture in general
‘Life as a text’
to understand this ‘text’ we need to employ a method to
interpret this text
this method must cover ontological questions and the most
fundamental questions one is faced with
‘What is Being?’ is such a question and it should be understood
in
relation to the whole text it is rooted in
hermeneutics as ontology - about the most fundamental
conditions of man's being in the world
hermeneutic phenomenology sets out to overthrow what it takes
to be the Cartesian trajectory of the modern conception of
reason (‘Cogito ergo sum’)
for Descartes the task of philosophy is to show how the subject
can rationally establish the norms of epistemic certainty
whereby a given representation is judged to be ‘true or false’

(Heidegger 1962)
such a position leads to a conception of truth in terms of the
methods provided by the natural sciences alone
such a model tends to forget the most fundamental, pre-
scientific aspects of our being in the world
‘the hermeneutics of facticity’ (Heidegger 1962)
phenomenology becomes hermeneutical when its method is
taken to be interpretive rather than purely descriptive
every form of human awareness is interpretive
poetry and art as expressive works for interpreting the nature of
truth, language, thinking, dwelling, and being (Heidegger)
meanings are not given directly to us - we must make a
hermeneutic detour through the symbolic apparatus of the
culture (Ricoeur)
Hermeneutic phenomenology (text and context)
concerned with the life world or human experience as it is
lived - ‘Being in the World’ (‘Dasein’)
examines how human meanings are deposited and mediated
through myth, religion, art, and language
the focus is toward illuminating details and seemingly trivial
aspects within experience that may be taken for granted in our
lives, with a goal of creating meaning and achieving a sense of
understanding (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1991)
views humans as primarily concerned Beings with an emphasis
on their fate in an alien world (Heidegger)

Keywords
social construction of reality
action/practical intelligibility
setting
interrelations
overarching social formations
phenomenon
logos
hermeneutic phenomenology
epistemic certainty
meaning and understanding
Reading
Schatzki, Theodore R. 1988. The Nature of Social Reality.
(ROR)
https://www-jstor-
org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/stable/2107975?seq=1#metadata_i
nfo_tab_contents
Lawson, Tony. 2019. The Nature of Social Reality Issues in
Social Ontology [ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335911696_The_Natur
e_of_Social_Reality_Issues_in_social_ontology
Shabazian, Mehdi. 2015. An Introduction to Hermeneutic
Phenomenology. [ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312324059_An_Introd
uction_to_Hermeneutic_Phenomenology
Supplementary sources
The Matrix & The Social Construction of Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rukdvq8v8So

Understanding Social Constructionism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BDDMByOxJU
What does social construction really mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UpSoosy9ws
Hermeneutical Phenomenology
https://www.slideshare.net/ChanoAlfornon/hermeneutical-
phenomenology-130347047
Social science paradigms
SOSC 1000
Lecture 2
Jan Krouzil
May 13, 2021
Agenda
Announcements
PART I Foundational paradigms
Keywords
Part I
Foundational paradigms
Rooted in different ontological and epistemological assumptions
(implicit or explicit)
materialism and ideationalism
individualism and collectivism
biological evolution determinism

socialization and anti-socialization
conflict paradigm and harmony paradigm
Dichotomy of materialism vs ideationalism
Materialism
Key claims (ontological)
objective material things and facts exist independently from our
cognition
‘social facts’ cannot exist without some input from material
forces and entities
material forces have ontological priority over ideational forces
Key principles (epistemological)
material forces should always be part of the understanding or
explaining frameworks
better to explain social facts with material forces than with
ideational forces
reduce ideational explanations to material explanations or
underpin ideational explanations with material factors
Examples
realism
claims that material power rather than ideational forces
determine outcomes in international politics and states foremost
seek material power (Niebuhr [1932] 1960; Carr 1939;
Morgenthau 1948)
historical materialism
claims that it is material productive forces that underpin
superstructure, which is mostly ideational (Marx 1859, preface)

Foundational paradigms (3)
Ideationalism
Key positions (ontological)
ideational forces hold ontological priority over material forces
cannot be reduced to material forces
ideational forces ultimately determine outcomes in human
society
the more important force in our world is ideational rather than
material (Wendt 1999)
better to explain social facts with ideational forces
our brain invents ideas
Toward a synthesis
since human society is made of both material forces and
ideational
forces any social science must be based on both materialism
and
ideationalism
a purely materialistic approach is obviously untenable because
human beings invent ideas and ideas have profoundly (re)shaped
human society and the physical environment
a purely ideationalistic approach will not do either, because
even if one insists that an idea matters—and ideas do matter—
one still needs to explain how that idea comes to exist and
matter
the challenge is how to synthesize materialism and
ideationalism
organically

Dichotomy of individualism vs collectivism
Individualism
Key assumptions (ontological)
individuals make collectives
collectives have no extra or unique properties other than the
sum of the properties of the individuals within
even if collectives have some unique properties they have little
effect on individuals’ behavior thus social outcomes
Key axioms (epistemological)
to adequately understand human society, all we need is to
understand the individuals and how their actions together add to
the collectives
in its extreme form, groups are assumed to be nonentities and
thus irrelevant for understanding society
individualism adopts a reductionist methodology of reducing
groups to individuals (either implicitly or explicitly) (Collins
1981; 1992)
Examples
the neoclassical economics approach
assumes atomistic individuals with (bounded) rationality
the rational choice approach in sociology and political science
Collectivism
Key notions (ontological)
collectives have extra properties other than the sum of the
properties of the individuals within them
contain interdependence among individuals, group/collective
identity, and social structure that are absent among independent
individuals (Turner et al. 1987)
cannot be reduced to the simple sum of individuals - collectives
are real entities

properties of collectives, while a creation of individual human
agents, have a life of their own once created
Key principles
to adequately understand human society, we need to understand
collectives’ properties (e.g., group identities, structure, culture,
and norm) and how these properties change and shape social
outcomes over time
for understanding individuals’ behaviors, we need to
understand how collectives’ properties impact or even dictate
individuals’ behaviors
collectivism thus explicitly rejects the reductionist position of
reducing collectives to the mere sum of individuals within
collectives
all schools that emphasize collectives either as an agent or as a
starting point for understanding social realities are adherents of
collectivism.
extreme collectivism even holds that collectives often have
logic, soul, or reasons
Toward a Synthesis
Key principles
individuals make collectives thus holding ontological priority
over collectives
as such, all collectivism theories must contain assumptions at
the individual level (implicitly or explicitly)
collectives have extra properties other than the sum of
individuals’ properties
cannot be reduced to the simple sum of individuals

individuals invent and deploy both material stuff (e.g., temples
and monuments) and ideational stuff (e.g., ideas, rituals,
identities, norms, institutions, and culture) to hold the
collectives together
once created, these collective-derived properties come back to
shape individuals’ mentalities and behavior, and thus social
outcomes afterward.
the information flow between individual and collective is an
enclosed circle rather than a one-way street
to adequately understand human society, we need to understand
the interaction between individuals and collectives (i.e., how
individuals’ actions shape collectives and how collectives shape
individuals)
this interaction, in the much debated agent-structure problem,
one of the major driving forces behind the evolution of human
society
Human Nature - Biological Evolution, Socialization, Anti-
socialization
the complexity of human nature as a thorny problem that will
not—and should not—go away because no social theory is
possible without some assumption over human nature
all social theories assume some kind of human nature, one way
or another
Key paradigms
Biological evolution (ontological)
Key notions
the most critical force that has shaped human nature
has endowed the human mind with certain specific traits before
the coming of human society
the human mind has never been a tabula rasa or blank slate
(Pinker 2002)
universal, fundamental and inerasable (through socialization or

anti-socialization)
survival (i.e., security) and reproduction (Buss 1995) as the two
most critical drivers of human behavior
Biological evolution (epistemological)
Key notions
seeks to uncover and then explain human psychological traits
exclusively with biological evolution
esp. with the drive to survive and reproduce
the principal explanatory mechanism for biological evolution
determinism is the central mechanism of biological evolution
variation-selection-inheritance
Examples
Darwin’s theory of biological evolutionary
social Spencerism/ Darwinism
evolutionary psychology
Socialization paradigm
Key notions (ontologically)
human behavior is fundamentally constrained and shaped by the
social system
esp. its institutions (often backed by power) and culture
human behavior is fundamentally driven by individuals’ urge to
conform and adapt to the social system
esp. individuals’ conforming and adapting to the society in turn
underpins a society’s stability
Key notion (epistemological)
individuals’ behavior is best explained by a society’s constrains

and individuals’ (rational) urge to conform and adapt
satisfy themselves materially and psychologically
individuals’ conforming and adapting to the society in turn
explains a society’s stability
Example
the Comte-Spencer-Durkheim-Parsons-Mertonian structural
functionalism
Anti-socialization paradigm
Key notions (ontological)
socialization (and by implication, society) limits human’s
(natural) freedom
‘man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains’ (Rousseau
([1762] 1973)
human behaviors are fundamentally driven by the urge to rebel
against the prevailing social system
i.e., its norms, power, knowledge, etc
this urge to rebel is what ultimately drives social change what
brings human emancipation
agents’ behavior is best explained by the oppression in the
society and agents’ urge to rebel against it
if subjects (as agents) have yet to rebel, then we must look for
domination, “false consciousness,” and power/ knowledge
(Weber 1978; Gramsci [1926-1937] 1992-1996; Foucault 1980)
agent’s success or failure to rebel and rebel successfully
explains societies’ stability and change
holds that all of us are capable of critical thinking against the

prevailing social order—it is part of our nature, although not all
of us actually do critical thinking
the ‘power elite’ have no incentives to be critical because they
profit from the prevailing social order (Mills 1956)
Examples
Marxism
the Frankfurt School’s ‘critical theory’ (e.g., Marcuse,
Habermas) postmodernism (e.g., Nietzsche, Foucault, Deleuze)
Toward a synthesis
socialization and anti-socialization must have a material
foundation provided by the biological evolution of the ancestors
of our species (i.e., pre-Homo habilis species)
the part of human nature determined by biological evolution,
which in all likelihood is inerasable and universal holds
ontological priority over both socialization and anti -
socialization
increasing institutionalization or ‘rationalization’ of society
drives some individuals to anti-socialization
a dialectic relationship between socialization and anti-
socialization
Conflict and harmony paradigms
Conflict paradigm
Key assumptions (ontological)
agents (i.e., individuals or collectives of individuals) generally
have divergent interests
agents often have conflict of interest—mostly real but
sometimes imagined—among them
agents often resort to actual conflictual behavior—that is,
quarreling, passive resistance, struggling, threat of force, and
actual use of force—to advance their interests

most social outcomes are produced by agents’ conflictual
behavior to advance their interests
Key claims (epistemological)
we want to uncover agents’ conflict of interest, real or imagined
we want to understand agents’ conflictual behavior for
advancing their interests
we want to understand social outcomes as the product from the
interaction of agents’ conflictual behaviors to advance their
interests
Examples
Marxism sociology
Weberian sociology
realism in international politics
Foucauldian postmodernism
Harmony paradigm
Key assumptions (ontologically)
there is a general harmony of interest, or at least, more common
interest than conflict of interest among agents
even when conflict of interest does exist, agents will generally
eschew conflictual behavior and favor cooperative and
coordinative behavior to resolve their conflict of interests
most social outcomes are produced by agents’ cooperative and
coordinative behavior to resolve their conflict of interest and
improve their collective welfare
Key assertions (epistemological)
we want to uncover agents’ common interest, including their

urge to harmonize
their interest
even when agents have conflict of interest, we want to
understand agents’
cooperative and coordinative behaviors because of their urge
to advance their
common interest while minimizing their conflict of interest
we want to understand social outcomes as the product from the
interaction of
agents’ cooperative and coordinative behaviors
Examples
functionalism assumes a general harmony of interest among
individuals
the society is a ‘big happy family’ (Darhendorf 1968, 176-77)
neoclassical economics
incl. neoclassical economics-inspired New Institutional
Economics (e.g., Coase [1937]; Williamson [1975], [1985])
Toward a synthesis
Key principles (ontological)
there is both conflict of interest and harmony of interest among
agents
and they often coexist
conflict of interest often exceeds harmony of interest
agents engage in both conflictual and cooperative behaviors,
depending on circumstances
social outcomes are the products of both conflictual and
cooperative
behavior
cooperation and conflict are intermixed; cooperation sometimes
is achieved in the shadow of possible conflict

just because agents have conflict of interest does not mean that
they are doomed to actual conflict
likewise, just because agents have common interest does not
mean that they will cooperate or coordinate
we cannot assume conflict of interest behind actual conflict or
harmony of interest behind cooperation and coordination
instead, each particular social outcome needs a careful search
for its specific causes
Keywords
scientific realism and anti-scientific realism
dichotomy
materialism and ideationalism
individualism and collectivism
biological evolution determinism
socialization and anti-socialization
conflict paradigm and harmony paradigm
Reading
Tang, Shiping. 2010. Foundational Paradigms of Social
Sciences [ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249678327_Foundatio
nal_Paradigms_of_Social_Sciences
Introduction to social science
SOSC 1000

Lecture 1
May 11, 2021
Jan Krouzil PhD
Agenda
Announcements
PART I Course outline - overview
PART II ‘What counts as knowledge’?
PART III From knowledge to wisdom
Keywords
Part II
‘What counts as knowledge’? (1)
Aporia (n.)*
Definition of aporia
an expression of real or pretended doubt or uncertainty
especially for rhetorical effect
a logical impasse or contradiction especially: a radical
contradiction in the import of a text or theory that is seen in
‘deconstruction’ as inevitable
First known use of aporia
circa 1550
History and etymology for aporia
French aporie, ultimately from Greek aporia difficulty,
perplexity, from aporos impassable, from a- + poros passage
*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aporia

Etymology* of the word ‘knowledge’
know common Indo-European word for ‘to know’
found in all IE branches (know, ken in Germanic, cognizant in
Latin, etc.)
most common IE root for to know is ‘to wit’
Germanic, videre (to see) in Latin hence visible, video, etc.,
whose ultimate meaning was ‘to see therefore to know’
as well as the Vedas in Sanskrit, etc
-ledge is a rare Germanic suffix
also found in the Swedish noun kärlek meaning love, with the
first element kär akin to our ‘care’ and -lek this same element -
ledge
stems from an Old English ending -laec which denoted
realisation, ‘making real’
from an old Saxon verb lacan, meaning to move about, bring
into the world, make happen, and hence (from its meaning of
‘move about’) to play - akin to the English dialect to lake
meaning to play, which in turn yielded our more common word
lark = a practical joke (‘for a lark’)
as well as the Danish lege = to play games (the Danish toy
brand name Lego comes from that word)
Working definition of knowledge
“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values,
contextual information, and expert insight that provides a
framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences
and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of
knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only
in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines,
processes, practices, and norms” (Davenport and Prusak 2000)

*etymologies are not definitions; they're explanations of what
words meant and
how they sounded, say, 600 or 2,000 years ago
https://www.etymonline.com/
How to define ‘knowledge’?
knowledge
an abstract concept without any reference to the tangible world
powerful concept, yet it has no clear definition so far
from the Greek philosophers up to present experts in knowledge
management, people tried to define knowledge but the results
are still very fuzzy
Key aspects of the dispute
the knowledge nature and the attempts made in epistemology to
define knowledge
definition that knowledge is ‘justified true belief’ is shown as
having the limitations given by the justification condition and
the truth nature
the metaphorical approach to knowledge explanation
main metaphors used for knowledge - knowledge as objects,
knowledge nuggets, knowledge as
an iceberg, and knowledge as stocks and flows
a new paradigm of metaphorical thinking based on the
knowledge
energy
understanding knowledge as a multi-field paradigm composed
of the rational, emotional, and spiritual knowledge fields

Knowledge nature
‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’ subjects of human inquiry from
the ancient times
ever since Plato and Aristotle developed epistemology as a
theory of knowledge trying to answer the question: ‘What is
knowledge?’
none of the theories and arguments so far accepted as being
fully satisfactory
Knowledge nature - major perspectives
rationalism
Plato (428-348 BC) made a distinction between
rational reasoning grounded in axioms
opinion a product of our senses
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
makes rationalism the basis of modern philosophy
‘Cogito ergo sum!’
dualism of mind and body
impact on science, philosophy and education in Europe and late
on in America
empiricism
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
opposable perspective to rationalism
ideas and forms cannot be separated from physical objects and
sensory data
knowledge not created a priori and not innate in a deterministic
form
created through our sensory interface with the real world and

processed by our mind
John Locke (1632-1704)
objects do exist in the outer world
our sensory perception is the most important source of our
knowledge
attempts to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism
conceptual frameworks based on different syntheses between
them
Japanese intellectual tradition
Buddhism and Confucianism
integrated perspective of mind and body
three overarching premises
oneness of humanity and nature
oneness of body and mind
oneness of self and other
foundation of the Japanese view toward knowledge
approach to management practices
martial arts – learning with the whole body (Miyamoto
Takeuchi 1995)
Part III
From knowledge to wisdom (1)
Definition of knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ (Nonaka and
Takeuchi 1995)
conditions for knowing - tripartite account
truth condition
belief condition
justification condition
one may conclude that ‘the necessary and sufficient conditions
for knowing that something is the case’ are

what one is said to know be true
one be sure of it
one should have the right to be sure (culturally and contextual
dependent)
Kinds of knowledge
experiential knowledge
from the direct connection with the environment gained through
our sensory system and processed by the brain
can be seen as created by an interaction between emotional,
rational and spiritual knowledge
skills
knowledge about how to do something (‘know-how’)
based on experiential knowledge but a well-structured and
action oriented knowledge we get by performing repeatedly a
certain task and learning by doing it
thinking skills for knowledge workers and decision makers
intuitive skills
knowledge claims
what we know, or we think we know
we don’t know how much we know since knowledge means both
explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (experience existing in
our unconscious zone and manifesting itself as ‘intuition’)
explicit knowledge is somethi ng we learn in schools and reading
books (or listening to professors)
knowledge claim is what we frame in an explicit way by using a
natural or symbolic language
with explicit knowledge we enter the zone of exchange between
personal and shared knowledge (Dombrowski et al 2013)

Metaphorical thinking
thinking as a conceptual process which is primarily metaphoric
(Pinker 2008)
metaphors represent much more than just linguistic expressions
involved in our thinking process, helping us to understand new
concepts and ideas
metaphors are embodied in our experience and through a
progressive abstraction process they lead to new meanings for
less known objects or concepts (Lakoff and Johnson 1999)
Conceptual metaphors - composed of two different semantic
domains
a source domain where we describe the known object or concept
with its structural and functional attributes
a target domain where we place the less known object or
concept
Metaphorical thinking
involves a structural mapping of the known attributes and
relationships from the source domain onto the target domain
(see Fig. 1.1 in Bolisani and Bratianu 2018)
for ex. ‘time is money’
all of the above metaphors induce a series of limitations in
understanding and using the full potential of knowledge
limitations derive from the Newtonian logic, the linearity
property and the illusion of measuring knowledge by using the
methods developed for tangible objects and their attri butes
Metaphor based on energy
knowledge is conceived like a field without any tangible

attributes (Bratianu and Andriessen 2008)
fields of knowledge: rational, emotional, and spiritual
Rational knowledge
explicit knowledge framed by our reasoning mind and natural
language
a construct following the Cartesian spirit (‘Cogito ergo sum’)
Emotional knowledge
a wordless expression of our body response to the external
environment and is a direct result of emotions and feelings
subjective and context dependent
Spiritual knowledge
contains values and ethical principles and is essential in
decision making
both emotional and spiritual knowledge are embedded in tacit
knowledge and mixed up in the fuzzy description of experience
knowledge as a universal concept attracted the attention of
countless efforts to define it following the rules of scientific
inquiry
searching for an objective perspective and a rational eliminated
all subjective aspects related to perception and bodily
involvement claiming that knowledge is ‘a justified true belief’
truth and its justification cannot have the same degree of
objectivity anymore
think of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applicable to
quantum mechanics that states in the case of nuclear particles
position and velocity cannot be measured exactly at the same
time
objective attributes can be conceived as being independent of
the social context, but the subjective attributes are context
dependent and cannot be transferred easily to some other similar

contexts
the energy metaphor constructs a new paradigm that allows for a
better understanding of knowledge and offers social science
researchers, managers and leaders new opportunities to
influence people in times of change and uncertainty
Academic inquiry
‘At present the basic intellectual aim of academic inquiry is to
improve knowledge. Much of the structure, the whole character,
of academic inquiry, in universities all over the world, i s shaped
by the adoption of this as the basic intellectual aim. But, judged
from the standpoint of making a contribution to human welfare,
academic inquiry of this type is irrational. Three of four of the
most elementary rules of rational problem-solving are violated.
A revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry is
needed so that the basic aim becomes to promote wisdom,
conceived of as the capacity to realize what is of value, for
oneself and others, thus including knowledge and technological
know-how, but much else besides. This urgently needed
revolution would affect every branch and aspect of the academic
enterprise.’
(Maxwell 2007)
Keywords
aporia
etymology
‘true justified belief’
rationalism and empiricism
knowledge nature
kinds of knowledge
tacit and explicit knowledge
metaphorical thinking
knowledge energy

academic inquiry
Readings and supplementary sources
Readings
Bolisani, Ettore. 2018. The Elusive Definition of Knowledge.
[ROR]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318235014_
The_Elusive_Definition_of_Knowledge
Maxwell, Nicholas. 2008. From Knowledge to Wisdom. [SOR]
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom/essays/from
Supplementary
Total Philosophy: Epistemology - How we gain knowledge
2013 3:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bwoVEYEdok
The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7
2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhJ3hHK9hQ
Online Etymology Dictionary
https://www.etymonline.com/
Foundations of social science research - OEM
SOSC 1000
Lecture 3
Jan Krouzil PhD
May 18, 2021
Agenda

Announcements
Part I Social ontology
Part II Social epistemology
Part III Research methodology
Keywords
Part I
Social ontology (1)
What is ‘social ontology’ about?
study of the nature and properties of the social world
concerned with analyzing the various entities in the world that
arise from social
interaction
deals with the analysis of social groups
Basic questions
do social groups exist at all? If so, what sorts of entities are
they, and how are they
created?
is a social group distinct from the collection of people who are
its members, and if
so, how is it different?
what sorts of properties do social groups have? Can they have
beliefs or
intentions?
can they perform actions? And if so, what does it take for a
group to believe,
intend, or act?
Social ontology (2)
Other entities investigated in social ontology
money, corporations, institutions, property, social classes,
races,

genders, artifacts, artworks, language, and law
Scope for the field
the entities explored in social ontology largely overlap with
those that
social scientists work on
a good deal of the work in social ontology takes place within
the social
sciences
Social ontology (3)
Social ontology - questions about the nature of the social world
one set of questions pertains to the constituents, or building
blocks, of social things in general
for instance, some theories argue that social entities are built
out of the
psychological states of individual people
while others argue that they are built out of actions
and yet others that they are built out of practices
still other theories deny a distinction between the social and the
non-social
Social ontology (4)
Different set of questions pertains to how social categories are
constructed or set up
are social categories and kinds produced by our attitudes?
by our language?
are they produced by causal patterns?
is there just one way social categories are set up, or are there
many varieties of social construction?
The term ‘social ontology’
has only come into wide currency in recent years, but the
nature of the social has been a topic of inquiry since ancient
Greece
the field can be understood as a branch of metaphysics, the

general inquiry into the nature of entities
Social ontology (5)
Key themes and innovations in the history of social ontology
ancient and early modern debates on the sources of social
entities
ancient inquiries into the nature of social phenomena introduced
questions that remain active today
which features of the world are products of humans or society,
and which are products of nature?
what does it mean to say that something is a social creation?
the contrast between nature (phusis) and custom, law, habit, or
convention (nomos)
a central concern of Sophism, a school of Greek philosophy in
the fifth century BCE
sources of justice, law, and language: are these rooted in phusis
or in nomos?
Social ontology (6)
ancient philosophers explored the mix between natural and
human contributions in the construction of familiar features of
the world
didn’t theorize much about exactly what people do in order to
create the social world
instead they wrote of agreements, compacts, conventions,
habits, laws, customs without paying particular notice to
separating these from one another
in the early modern period, theories of these sources broadened
considerably as did the variety of social phenomena being
investigated
Social ontology (7)

Approaches developed in the 17th and 18th centuries include
social entities as
products of covenants (Hobbes, in Leviathan 1651)
products of convention
products of God and Nature
products of the individual mind (Locke)
Problem of demarcating social ontology
which things are social?
how are they distinguished from those that are not social?
Social ontology (8)
one option for interpreting the ‘non-social entities’ is that they
include only the objects of physics, chemistry, biology, and
other “hard sciences”
according to some theorists, even these are socially constructed
and therefore fall on the social side of the division (Pickering
1984, Woolgar 1988)
Constituents of the Social World
many positions on these matters descend from the debates
between individualism versus holism that took place in the early
part of the twentieth century (cf. O’Neill 1973, Udehn 2001,
Zahle & Collin 2014a).
individualism - the somewhat vague thesis that the social is
built exclusively out of individual people
holism - the even vaguer thesis that social entities are “sui
generis”, or ontologically fundamental in some sense
Social ontology (9)
Practices and ‘embodied agency’
theories of practice developed in anthropology in the 1970s and
1980s
attention to actions, routines, and the engagement of people
with the world

a range of theories are now classified under the broad rubric of
‘theories of practice’ (Bourdieu 1977, Giddens 1984)
theorists as diverse as Foucault, Garfinkel, Butler, Latour,
Taylor, Ortner, and Schatzki count among the practice theorists
Social ontology (10)
What are ‘social groups’?
debate in the literature concerns the kind of entities that ‘social
groups’ are - collections, classes, sets, fusions, structures, or
some other kind of entity
may seem natural to think of a group as a set of people in the
mathematical sense
groups can persist through changes in membership, while sets
are generally understood as having their members essentially
different approaches to groups make different commitments
with regard to the entities that should be included among the
social groups
e.g., committees, teams, corporations, universities, nations,
races, genders, red-haired people.
some theorists also propose that social groups must have certain
distinctive characteristics, such as the members being in certain
cognitive states or being subject to certain norms
Group minds, collective intentionality, and ‘group agency’
can groups take actions? Can they have intentions or beliefs?
Can they bear responsibility? If so, how are these to be
understood?
through much of the 20th century ascriptions of intentions and
actions to groups were widely regarded as either erroneous or
else merely ‘summative’
that is, for a group to have an intention or take an action is
merely for all the members of the group to have that intention
or take that action (see Tollefsen 2015)

Race, gender, and disability
much recent interest in social ontology has been sparked by new
approaches to race, gender, disability, and related social
categories
historically, erroneous ontological claims have contributed to
and been used to justify social oppression
claims about the genetic nature of race, for instance, are
historically tied to claims about intellectual, character, and
cultural differences between racial groups
likewise, claims about the nature of gender differences are
historically tied to claims about how women ought to behave
Controversy over race categories, gender categories, and other
categories
pertains both to their construction and their essential properties
the term ‘essentialism’, as applied to categories such as race
and gender, has a different meaning than it does in mainstream
metaphysics.
as applied to race, for instance, ‘essentialism’ is often
understood as synonymous with ‘biological essentialism’ - the
view that races have simple, natural, and heritable biological
properties, such that every member of a racial group has that
biological property
this should not be confused with a metaphysical claim that
might be made by a social constructivist proposing a ‘social
essence’ of race
for instance, a claim that membership in a racial group
essentially involves identifying with other people for reasons of
solidarity, or that it involves being descended from a
historically and geographically situated population
such a theorist would flatly deny ‘essentialism’ in the old sense,

while still analyzing the (socially set up) essential properties of
race (for a critique of essentialism, see Phillips 2010; see also
entry on race)
questions pertaining to the metaphysics of sex and gender
resemble those pertaining to race
historically, descriptive and normative categories were
conflated in simplistic biological theories
an important difference between sex/gender and race, however,
concerns the distinction between sex and gender (Beauvoir
1949, West & Zimmerman 1987)
many theorists propose that sexes are biological categories and
that genders are categories of social norms and behaviors that
are traditionally attached to sexes
other theorists argue that it is incorrect to regard sex as
biological (Fausto-Sterling 2000, Butler 2004)
thus in the case of sex/gender, there are arguably multiple
socially constructed categories that interact with one another
some theorists reject the distinction between sex and gender
(see entry on feminist perspectives on sex and gender)
Question of racial and gender categories
whether these are descriptively adequate categories in the first
place
many of the political phenomena associated with differential
treatment of groups and oppression cut across lines of race,
gender, and class
some theorists of intersectionality argue that it is misleading to
regard standard gender and racial groups as if they were unified
(see Crenshaw 1991, McCall 2005, Jones 2014)

a central problem in the ontology of race, gender, and other
categories is that how social scientists categorize not only has
ethical implications, but is affected by ethically-laden facts
some theorists challenge the idea of a purely descriptive
analysis of such groups; others propose that there can be
descriptive analyses, but that such analyses are a stepping stone
to ethically preferable categories
Haslanger (2000, 2012) argues for the ‘ameliorative’ analysis of
racial and gender categories
part of the role of social ontology is to analyze the concepts and
categories that are ‘operative’ in a social system
an equally important aim is to explore how we might otherwise
construct social categories with the aim of social improvement
Barnes (2016) argues for an ameliorative account of disability
Part II
Social epistemology (1)
Epistemology—the study of ‘knowledge’ and ‘true justified
belief’
until relatively recently was heavily ‘individualistic’ in focus
the emphasis was on evaluating doxastic attitudes (beliefs and
disbeliefs) of individuals in abstraction from their social
environment
social epistemology seeks to redress this imbalance by
investigating the epistemic effects of social interacti ons and
social systems
Key points
an introduction a brief review of the history of the field
discussion of central topics in social epistemology including
testimony, peer disagreement, and judgment aggregation
recent approaches using formal methods to address core topics
in social epistemology, as well as wider questions about the
functioning of epistemic communities like those in science

questions related to social epistemology and the functioning of
democratic societies
The phrase ‘social epistemology’
in contrast with what might be dubbed ‘individual’
epistemology
epistemology - concerned with how people should go about the
business of trying to determine what is true, or what are the
facts of the matter on selected topics
in the case of individual epistemology, the person or agent in
question who seeks the truth is a single individual who
undertakes the task all by himself/herself, without consulting
others
by contrast ‘social epistemology’ is an enterprise concerned
with how people can best pursue the truth (whichever truth is in
question) with the help of, or in the face of, others
also concerned with truth acquisition by groups, or collective
agents
Western epistemology
standard epistemology takes the form of individual
epistemology in which the object of study is how epistemic
agents, using their personal cognitive devices, can soundly
investigate assorted questions
René Descartes (1637)
represents the most influential tradition in (Western)
epistemology
contended that the most promising way to pursue truth is by
one’s own reasoning
the question was how, exactly, truth was to be found by suitable

individualistic maneuvers, starting from one’s own introspected
mental contents
John Locke (1690)
insisted that knowledge be acquired through intellectual self-
reliance
as he put it, ‘other men’s opinions floating in one’s brain’ do
not constitute genuine knowledge
Social epistemology
in contrast with the individualistic orientations of Descartes and
Locke,
social epistemology proceeds on the idea that information can
often be acquired
from others
to be sure, this step cannot be taken unless the primary
investigator has already determined that there are such people
a determination that presumably requires the use of individual
resources (hearing, seeing, language, etc.)
social epistemology should thus not be understood as a wholly
distinct and
independent form of epistemology but one that rests on
individual epistemology
Shaping the field of social epistemology
the middle part of the 20th century
sociologists and deconstructionists set out to debunk orthodox
epistemology
challenging the very possibility of truth, rationality, factuality,
and/or other presumed desiderata of mainstream epistemology
members of the ‘strong program’ in the sociology of science
challenged the notions of objective truth and factuality
argued that so-called ‘facts’ are not discovered or revealed by

science but instead ‘constructed’, ‘constituted’, or ‘fabricated’
‘There is no object beyond discourse. The organization of
discourse is the object’. (Latour and Steve Woolgar 1986)
Richard Rorty
rejects the traditional conception of knowledge as ‘accuracy of
representation’ and seeks to replace it with a notion of ‘social
justification of belief’
argued that there is no such thing as a classical ‘objective truth’
- merely the practice of ‘keeping the conversation going’ (Rorty
19790
other forms of deconstruction inspired by social factors but less
extreme in embracing anti-objectivist conclusions about science
Thomas Kuhn (1962,1970) held that purely objective
considerations could never settle disputes between competing
theories; hence scientific beliefs must be influenced by social
factors
Michel Foucault developed a radically political view of
knowledge and science, arguing that practices of so-called
knowledge-seeking are driven by quests for power and social
domination (1969,1977)
Moral social epistemology
expanding the notion of social epistemology by incorporating
moral or ethical elements
‘epistemic injustice’ - arises when somebody is wronged in their
capacity as a knower (Miranda Fricker 2007)
when a person or a social group is unfairly deprived of
knowledge because of their lack of adequate access to education
or other epistemic resources

Caveats re ‘creation of knowledge’
debates about these topics persist under the heading of ‘the
science wars’
within the mainstreams of both science and philosophy the
foregoing views are generally rejected as implausibly radical
this does not mean that no lessons can be learned about the
status of social factors in science and philosophy
offer important insight into the role of cultural beliefs and
biases in the creation of knowledge
Part III
Research methodology (1)
Visualizing research - schematic conceptualization
defining the concepts of research and methodology
a model of research
different types of research activities
the steps involved in research
devising a research question
Research methodology (2)
Basic elements of research
observation and data collection
descriptive research
facts (tangible and perceptible and intangible and
imperceptible)
conceptualization and classification
causal theory
models & hypotheses
operationalization & experimentation
hypothesis testing
applied theory/applied theoretical research

the applied 'trial-and-error' approach
theoretical refinement
Keywords
social ontology
individual epistemology
social epistemology
individualism vs holism
essentialism
social constructivism
postmodernism
moral social epistemology
Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods in Research
Simplified!
2015 11:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCOsY5rkRs8
The End of Social Science as We Know it | Brian Epstein |
TEDxStanford
2015 16:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLbEKpL-5Z0&t=84s
RESEARCH PROPOSAL_GUIDE
Minor Research Assignment I
SOSC 1000 6.0 Introduction to Social Science
Jan Krouzil PhD
May 13, 2021
Length: cover page + 2 pages of text

Due date: May 27
Grade value: 5%
__________________________________________
STANDARD COVER PAGE_TEMPLATE
Course: SOSC 1000 6.0
Name: ………………………………………………
Student number: …………
Tutorial Leader’s Name: …………………….
Tutorial Number: ……
Date of submission: ……
Number of the selected social phenomenon: ..........
Primary disciplinary perspective: ……….
Professional role: …………
----------------------------------------------------------------
Social phenomena to select from:
1. knowledge (production, dissemination, consumption)
2. international migration and/or diaspora
3. social and/or cultural capital
4. loneliness and/or suicidal ideation
5. COVID-19_related social effects
6. fake news and/or ‘post-truth’
7. circular economy
8. social science discourse
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. Select a social phenomenon and write a Minor Research
Assignment 1_Proposal (MRA1_P) explaining (a) why you have
selected this particular social phenomenon and (b) why you
think it merits further research on your part as a social science
‘concern’(cca 250 words, double spaced).
2. Provide a list of at least five social science terms and/or
concepts drawn from the course material that you expect to
utilize in the course of your research.
3. Select a primary disciplinary perspective (i.e., sociology,

economics, psychology, etc.) from which you intend to deal
with the social phenomenon and one type of a professional role
as social science researcher you want to assume for the purpose
of this assignment (i.e., analyst, participant observer,
advocate/activist).
4. Follow the format of this template.
5. Submit an electronic copy of the MRA1_Proposal on the
course Moodle website under ‘Assignments’ by May 27, 11:59
p.m. Late submissions will incur a 2%-point deduction
per day.
NOTE ABOUT YOURSELF (NAY)
Compared to regular and direct in-person class contact, learning
remotely can be alienating.
To alleviate to some extent this sense of ‘social isolation’ and
to re-personalize your learning experience in this course, you
are encouraged to write a brief note (up to a page) to your tutor
about yourself.
In composing the note you may include your extracurricular
commitments and responsibilities, interests or hobbies, grade
expectations, the corona virus-related restrictions experienced
in your everyday life, in-person vs online learning preferences,
or any matter you are comfortable conveying.
The note will be treated as strictly confidential and is non-
gradable.
2

How to Think of Social Reality

How to Think of Social Reality

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to How to Think of Social Reality

Similar to How to Think of Social Reality (20)

More from PazSilviapm

More from PazSilviapm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How to Think of Social Reality