Читать книгу Contemporary Sociological Theory - Группа авторов - Страница 69

1 A major problem of data adequacy exists in confirmation of theories based on system-level data when the systems are large in size and few in number. There are too many alternative hypotheses which cannot be rejected by the data. In part for this reason, research data in the social sciences are often gathered at the level of units below the level of the system whose behavior is of interest. […]Because data are so often gathered at the level of individuals or other units below the level of the system whose behavior is to be explained, it is natural to begin the explanation of system behavior by starting at the level at which observations are made, then “composing,” or “synthesizing,” the systemic behavior from the actions of these units.

2 Just as observations are often most naturally made at levels below that of the system as a whole, interventions must be implemented at these lower levels. Thus a successful explanation of system behavior in terms of the actions or orientations of lower-level units is ordinarily more useful for intervention than is an equally successful explanation which remains at the level of the system itself. Even where an intervention is at the level of the system, such as a policy change made by a nation’s government, its implementation must ordinarily occur at lower levels, and that implementation is what determines the consequences for the system. Thus an explanation of system behavior which goes down as far as the actions and orientations of those who will implement the policy is likely to be more useful than one which does not.

3 An explanation based on internal analysis of system behavior in terms of actions and orientations of lower-level units is likely to be more stable and general than an explanation which remains at the system level. Since the system’s behavior is in fact a resultant of the actions of its component parts, knowledge of how the actions of these parts combine to produce systemic behavior can be expected to give greater predictability than will explanation based on statistical relations of surface characteristics of the system. […]

4 As point 3 suggests, an internal analysis based on actions and orientations of units at a lower level can be regarded as more fundamental, constituting more nearly a theory of system behavior, than an explanation which remains at the system level. It can be said to provide an understanding of the system behavior which a purely system-level explanation does not. Still, this raises the question of what constitutes a sufficiently fundamental explanation. Is it any explanation that goes down to a level of units below that of the system itself? Is it one that goes down to the level of the individual person? Is it one that does not stop at the level of the person but continues below that level?I will not attempt to answer this question in general, except to say that point 2 provides a satisfactory criterion in practice. That is, an explanation is sufficiently fundamental for the purpose at hand if it provides a basis for knowledgeable intervention which can change system behavior. Later I will suggest that a natural stopping point for the social sciences (although not psychology) is the level of the individual―and that, although an explanation which explains the behavior of a social system by the actions and orientations of some entities between the system level and the individual level may be adequate for the purpose at hand, a more fundamental explanation based on the actions and orientations of individuals is more generally satisfactory. […]

5 The internal analysis of system behavior is grounded in a humanistically congenial image of man. This cannot be said for much of social theory. For many social theorists social norms are starting points of theory. The image of man demanded by a theory that begins at the level of social systems is homo sociologicus, a socialized element of a social system. The questions of moral and political philosophy which address the fundamental strain between man and society cannot be raised. The freedom of individuals to act as they will, and the constraints that social interdependence places on that freedom, nowhere enter the theory. Problems of freedom and equality cannot be studied. Individuals as individuals enter only via their conformity to or deviance from the normative system. With this image of man as a socialized element of a social system, it becomes impossible, within the framework of social theory, to evaluate the actions of a social system or a social organization. Germany under Hitler or Russia under Stalin is indistinguishable as a nation-state from Switzerland in any evaluative sense and Charles Manson’s and Jim Jones’s communes, which were directed toward death, are morally indistinguishable from an Israeli kibbutz, which is directed toward life. This is especially curious, since many sociologists hold values that sharply distinguish among social organizations on the basis of humanitarianism yet are content with social theory that blinds them to these very values―a stance which probably derives more from intellectual superficiality than from any lack of moral righteousness.

[…]