Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://psc.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Philosophy & Social Criticism can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://psc.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
What is This?
The topic and special interests which bring us here for this meeting are
associated with the debates I have had in the past ten years with those in-
volved in the social sciences and the philosophy of science. I have been
asked to describe from my own point of view the role and relevance of her-
meneutics for the problem of society and social life. I shall begin with a
consideration of the conditions and the historical constellation under which
the social sciences in our epoch are organized and working. In our century,
particularly in the second half of our century, the social sciences have been
given a special challenge. When one compares the impact of both philoso-
phy (notably British Empiricism and German Idealism) and the social sciences
in the same epoch, one is forced to say that the influence of the former was
extremely weak. Of course, there was the development of theoretical eco-
nomics and the first steps toward a thematization of society as burgerliche
Gesellschaft. In general, however, this theoretical work did not have much
influence upon the practical organization of our society.
The basis of our social life in the nineteenth and the beginning of the
twentieth century had been sustained by the Christian tradition, its secu-
larization and the consequent secular formation of society. However, by
the middle of our century, the breakdown of these traditions - caused by
the two wars and the connected shift in the balance of power and the
political equilibrium - fostered a new desire and inner longing in our
society to find in science a substitute for lost orientations - a very dangerous
situation. While the serious scientist knows the restrictive conditions of his
thematization of social appearances and givens, the makers of public opin-
ion can distort the real work of scientists in view of the inner needs and
expectations of society exhibiting an increasing lack of orientation.
Let us, therefore, reflect a moment on the origin of this situation and on
the heritage which informs the scientific approach to social life, particularly
with respect to the application of science to social life and politics. Certainly,
the decisive first step in the modern age was the separation of the sciences
the one hand, and the fact of his own membership in society, on the other.
This observation, however, is not a critique of science. Every scientist who
gives an account of the conditions of his own procedure knows the price
he pays in return for the certainty, controllability and solid advance of
his investigations. This price was paid with full consciousness by Galileo,
the first pioneer of this scientific approach. He was well aware that he gave
up the traditional task of knowing the substances and foundations of nature.
His mathematical project and its validation by experiment entailed the
limitation of the field of possible investigation in accordance with the
requirements of method. Consequently, the possibilities for truth in science
were determined by method.
I entitled my own book Wahrheit und Methode I , not to challenge but only to
describe this problem. Those who think that this means that the problem
of method is not valid are mistaken. The importance of method consists in
the fact that by its own definition it investigates only by elaborating
questions which are accessible for mathematical abstraction and measurement
or its equivalents. If everyone would share this insight of any authentic
scientist, there would be no room for the widespread idolatry that presumes
that science alone should organize our life and culture. This situation, of
course, poses very complicated questions for our scientific and philosophical
efforts. We need to render an account of the conditions whereby possible
insights may be attained regarding truth in the social field. The recognition
scientific and technical power needs to elucidate this reference to the in-
vestigators membership in society. My question was: Where can we find an
orientation, a philosophical justification, for a scientific and critical effort
which shares the modern ideal of method and yet which does not lose the
condition of solidarity with and justification of our practical living? In order
to work out an orientation which brings together both methodological access
to our world and the conditions of our social life, it was natural for me to
return to precedingphilosophical orientations and ultimately to the tradition
of the practical and political philosophy of Aristotle. The mechanics of
Galileo and its methodical implications were unfolded in the philosophy of
science by Carnap and Reichenbach and attained the most radical formu-
lation in the program of the movement for the unity of science. Nevertheless,
the onesidedness of this ideal of science is obvious to the extent that one
senses the richness and breadth of the humanities. To justify the procedure
concept of praxis which was developed in the last two centuries is an awful
deformation of what practice really is. In all the debates of the last century
practice was understood as application of science to technical tasks. That is a
very inadequate notion. It degrades practical reason to technical control. In
fact, reason as guiding our practical behaviour is much more than technical
control. Praxis is not restricted to the special area of technical craftsmanship.
It is a universal form of human life which embraces, yet goes beyond, the
technical choice of the best means for a pre-given end. Aristotles concept of
prudence includes, as a matter of fact, the concrete determination of the end.
It is a misunderstanding to suppose that prudence is restricted to the
finding of the means. Prudence as practical deliberation upon and dis-
covery of concrete decision is both the finding of the means and the
concretization of the ends. One must realize that insofar as science would
be able to orient our activities and our practical behaviour by recommending
the right means to a technical achievement - and in this sense ancient
craftmanship is homologous with what we call science - we would have
no problem concerning prudence at all. Then, the function of prudence
would consist only in coordinating the various techniques and in sub-
ordinating them to the highest interests of individual and social life. As
relevant as the application of science is in many fields of the social life, the
properly practical function of prudence is a very different one. It concerns
the making of responsible political and practical decisions about happiness,
health, peace, freedom and other stable factors of human-being-in-nature.
This reference to the model of practical insight and practical philosophy
does not mean to suggest that it would be easy or even possible to reintegrate
modern science into the field of practical wisdom. The analogy between the
ancient problematic and our present-day one, however, is quite valid since
skill, art and any form of controlled production had a certain autonomy
in the classical period as well. One of Platos key insights was that having the
power to produce something does not justify doing so. On the contrary, the
use of craftsmanship depends finally on the decisions of the consumer. This
course, we can learn from the genial Greek thinkers who penetrated their
own political problematic by philosophical reflection. Nevertheless, we must
be aware that our problematic is different.
In a scientific culture such as ours the fields of techne and art are much
more expanded. Thus the fields of mastering means to pre-given ends have
been rendered even more monological and controllable. The crucial change
is that practical wisdom can no longer be promoted by personal contact and
the mutual exchange of views among the citizens. Not only has craftsmanship
been replaced by industrial work; many forms of our daily life are technolo-
gically organized so that they no longer require personal decision. In modern
technological society public opinion itself has in a new and really decisive
way become the object of very complicated techniques - and this, I think,
is the main problem facing our civilization. The real political activity of a
citizen has become more or less restricted to his participation in elections,
and exactly on this account the formation of public opinion has become
the central political task. In the old days it was the personal participation
of the citizens in the administrative work which controlled and neutralized
the impact of special interest groups and public affairs on the common
welfare. Today it is much more difficult to control and neutralize the
organisation of powerful economic interests. Even the opinions which form
the patterns of social life and constitute the normative conditions for
solidarity are today dominated to a great extent by the technical and econom-
ic organisations within our civilization. Immediate and natural interaction in
the ccurse of daily life is no longer the unique source and the dominant mode
for the elaboration of common convictions and normative ideas. That is
why the alienation of the common citizen trom public affairs is increasing
and why the reaction against this precarious disintegrative power, i.e., against
the establishment, is so strong. How can we learn to recover our natural
reason and our moral and political prudence? In other words, how can we
NOTES
1
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode. Gründzuge einer philosophische
Hermeneutik (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1960; 3rd ed., 1972). (English translation
forthcoming from Sheed & Ward, London.)
2
Charles Taylor, Interpretation and the Sciences of Man, The Review of Meta-
physics 25 (September, 1971), 3-51.