AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF FREE WILL IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
A Thesis
Presented to
The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Program Requirement
for Ashbrook Students
Michael Byrne
April, 2011
© 2011
Michael Byrne
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
Abstract
This study is an exploratory analysis of the belief in free will within the social sciences.
While free will is a common topic in many fields, currently, very little research has investigated
this topic. As such, this study was based on the assumption that no statistical difference would
be found between the social sciences on belief in free will. To investigate this hypothesis, a
historical case study was used to analyze belief in free will among professionals in the social
science fields.
Three general problems were addressed. First, this study examined the consistency of the
belief in free will or determinism across the major divisions of the soft sciences. Second, this
investigation highlighted the differences found within anthropology and political science.
Lastly, consistency and inconsistency in the belief of free will and determinism within the social
sciences was discussed.
Significance was found in political science and anthropology. Two potential implications are addressed for these findings. Firstly, anthropology and political science may not accurately be classified as social sciences. Secondly, a mobius model was introduced to explain the natural flow of quantitative and qualitative methods that define the social sciences.
These results provide an understanding of the social sciences beliefs concerning free-will.
As no research has investigated belief in this way before, this research provides a basis for further research. Further research should be pursued addressing the role of religion, time, sub- fields, and work in multiple fields. The proposed mobius-model should also be further analyzed.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I would like to thank my parents. Both my mother and father have provided
the support and love that has enabled me to complete this project. No amount of writing can
fully capture my appreciation for all they do and all they mean to me. I would also like to extend
thanks to friends and family who have been so supportive.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Oscar McKnight for his motivation,
knowledge, and guidance. Without his direction, this project would not have been possible.
Lastly, I would like to thank Ashland University and the Ashbrook Program for the
education and experience. A special thanks to all of those professors who have been particularly helpful along the way.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………..iv
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………vii
Chapter
1. THE PROBLEM ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1
Free Will and Determinism ...... 1
Purpose of the study ...... 2
Statement of the Problem ...... 2
Assumptions of the Study ...... 3
Significance of the Study ...... 3
General Research Hypothesis ...... 3
Delimitations ...... 4
Definitions and Operational Terms ...... 4
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 5
Literature Review ...... 5
Higher Education ...... 5
Hard Sciences ...... 6
Humanities ...... 6
Social Sciences ...... 7
Determinism ...... 8
Environmental determinism ...... 8
v
Behavioral Determinism ...... 9
Psychological Determinism ...... 9
Economic Determinism ...... 9
Free will ...... 10
Free will and Predictability ...... 10
3. PROCEDURES...... 12
Restatement of the Problem ...... 12
Description of Sample ...... 12
Research Design ...... 13
General Research Hypothesis ...... 14
Derivation of General Research Hypothesis ...... 14
Instrument ...... 15
Variable List ...... 15
Data Collection ...... 15
Statistical Treatment ...... 16
Limitations ...... 16
4. RESULTS ...... 17
Demography ...... 17
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 26
Statement of the Problem ...... 26
Procedures ...... 26
Description of Sample ...... 26
Research Design ...... 27
vi
General Research Hypothesis ...... 27
Conclusions ...... 28
Anthropology Findings ...... 28
Political Science Findings ...... 32
Other Social Sciences ...... 35
Law ...... 39
Implications of Study ...... 42
Suggestions for Future Study ...... 44
REFERENCES ...... 45
APPENDIX A ...... 66
Anthropology ...... 66
Psychology ...... 70
Geography ...... 79
Political Science ...... 83
Sociology ...... 88
Law ...... 96
Philosophy ...... 100
Economics ...... 109
History ...... 115
vii
LIST OF TABLES Table Page
1. Breakdown of Participants by Classification………………………………………………...17
2. Group Assignment of Social Science Professionals: Anthropology, Psychology, and
Geography……………………………………………………………………………………18
3. Group Assignment of Social Science Professionals: Political Science, Sociology, and Law.19
4. Group Assignment of Social Science Professionals: Philosophy, Economics, and History...19
5. Anthropology and Free-Will…………………………………………………………………20
6. Psychology and Free-Will……………………………………………………………………20
7. Geography and Free-Will……………………………………………………………………21
8. Political Science and Free-Will……………………………………………………………...21
9. Sociology and Free-Will……………………………………………………………………..22
10. Law and Free-Will…………………………………………………………………………...22
11. Philosophy and Free-Will……………………………………………………………………23
12. Economics and Free-Will……………………………………………………………………23
13. History and Free-Will………………………………………………………………………..24
14. Summary Bar-Graph: Social Sciences and Free-Will……………………………………….24
15. Proportional Belief in Free-Will by Group Classification……………………………….…..25
16. Summary Table of Findings…………………………………………………………….……25
17. Mobius-Model – A Theoretical Relationship: Social Science……………………………….43
viii
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
In modern higher education, academia is divided into two main disciplines, the hard
sciences and soft sciences. It appears that it is the degree of rigor that separates two,
characterized by the extent to which mathematics is used (Storer, 1966). In essence, the hard
sciences use rigorous methods of research that can be tested, measured, and challenged. Their studies attempt to remain as objective as possible in their pursuit of knowledge. However, it is not appropriate to universally state that the soft sciences are not entirely without mathematics; for example, many researchers in the soft sciences are using meta-analysis in research and when discussing conclusions (Gage, 1985). Yet, it must be acknowledged that the social sciences as a soft science, in general, vary in the way they pursue knowledge of human condition and frame
questions. Nothing demonstrates this more than the topic of free will and determinism.
Free Will and Determinism
In the general sense, the social sciences are not known for their experimental design and
mathematical analysis; however, Libet (1999) did attempt to test free will experimentally and
found that that free will operates under constraints. The researcher discussed how free will could
be limited by how a person performs a free will act. Yet, more in line with the social scientist,
Van Inwagen (1975) discussed how free will and determinism is incompatible from a theoretical
view. It is Pereboom (2001) that sums up the moral responsibility of free will; the author
contends that a person has free will and can choose to do otherwise and is therefore responsible
for all acts. This feeling of moral responsibility due to free will is consistent with the vast
majority of people. A survey distributed widely in 36 countries by the International Social
Survey Programme (1998) found that 70% of people agree that personal fate lies in their own
2
hands. Many documented research scientists contend that all human actions are caused by prior
events (e.g., Skinner 1972; Crick 1994); thus, making free will at best an illusion and at worse, a
delusion.
It is apparent that free will has both personal and social implications; for example, Peele
(1989) discussed the tendency of society to label deviant behavior as a disease, including a diagnostic classification. As a response, an article in the Washington Post article on neuroscience
and moral behavior asserted that reducing morality and immorality to brain chemistry could
diminish the importance of personal choice and responsibility (Vedantam, 2007, p. A01). The
implication is that if disease and determinism are plausible causes of all behavior, is there room
for free will and what do those who practice and study in the social science believe?
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to examine the consistency of the social sciences with respect
to their belief in free will and determinism. Those most likely to benefit from this study are
those engaged in the academic and professional pursuits within the social sciences. By
examining historical figures within the social sciences, findings will address the construct
validity of free will and determinism within the social sciences.
Statement of the Problem
Three general problems are addressed in this study. First, this study will examine the
consistency of the belief in free will or determinism across the major divisions of the soft
sciences, including: anthropology, archaeology, geography, history, economics, law, philosophy,
political science, psychology, and sociology. Second, this investigation will highlight differences
if those differences are found. Lastly, the final problem is to explain the consistency or
inconsistency in the belief of free will and determinism within the social sciences.
3
Assumptions of the Study
Three assumptions underlie this study:
1. It is assumed that the fields selected represent the main areas of the social sciences,
and combined will encompass a representative sample of belief within all of the
social sciences.
2. The individuals analyzed are representative of the populations’ belief within each
3. Individuals and their ideas as presented in literature is representative of the
individual’s beliefs.
Significance of the Study
The prevailing belief in society is that free will exists and is the cause of some or perhaps
all human behavior. This belief is at the foundation of many of the main structures of society
and is often at the core of morality and justice. The social sciences have often attempted to become as much of a hard science as possible, not only because of the predictive validity the hard sciences deliver, but because of the consistency. Hence, this study is an attempt to measure the consistency of social sciences with respect to free will and determinism.
General Research Hypothesis
One general research hypotheses is of concern; that is, the consistency of belief in free
will across the social sciences. Therefore, the research hypothesis in this study is:
GH: There is no statistical difference between the social sciences in terms of
belief or disbelief in free will and determinism.
4
Delimitations
The scope of this present study is limited to known historical writings; however, while
many individuals clearly stated their ideas on free will, others must be interpreted by their
stances on ideas such as determinism. Another challenge is that opinions change over time and
this study offers a snap shot approach to assessing the concept of free will and determinism.
Likewise, this study for consistency and parsimony used the Encyclopedia Britannica as the
source of names associated with each social science field. These lists may be subject to a variety of uncontrolled influences or assignment not under the direct control of this study.
Definitions and Operational Terms
Free will Power of independent action and choice: the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination (Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved).
Determinism Belief that everything is caused: the doctrine or belief that everything, including every human act, is caused by something and that there is no real free will (Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved).
Soft Sciences Fields of study not as mathematically or scientifically rigorous; for example the humanities and social sciences (see Storer, 1966).
Hard Sciences Fields of study that consistently use mathematics in their research design or engage in a scientifically rigorous process; for example, physics, mathematics, experimental biology, chemistry, etc. (see Storer, 1966).
5
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
In gathering data for this study, a wide variety of resources were used to initially filter the
relevant research. Studies and writings in professional journals, books, newspapers and
conferences were included. An effort was made to limit the scope of research review given this
is an exploratory study with a specific question; therefore, this literature review is not intended to
be a comprehensive analysis of free will and determinism. However, a review of the university
system as it relates to the social sciences is relevant as well as a general examination of the
literature and professionals addressing the general topic of free will and determinism.
Higher Education
The structure of America’s higher educational system is mainly based on England’s first
universities, Oxford and Cambridge (Brubacher & Rudy, 2004). This model was replicated in
America’s first universities, including Harvard, which became the prototype for many American
universities to come with the intent of developing elite individuals to act as leaders in society
through a rigorous humanities study.
Towards the end of the 19th century, however, this paradigm changed dramatically. New
large universities focused on the scientific research and professional specialization; and the
leading universities of this era including Cornell, Johns Hopkins, University of Chicago, and
Stanford. In this new system, no longer were the humanities and social studies at the top, but rather the sciences (Lucas, 1994). This caused a natural realignment within the university system.
A new basis for the transmission of knowledge within the university system was now upon us, and divided into three main divisions (Clark, 1983). The basic divisions fell into what
6
is commonly referred to as the soft sciences, hard sciences, and the humanities. The soft sciences
include a variety of topics including anthropology, economics, political science, psychology,
etc., and focused on studying human beings, their behavior, societies, and functions.
Hard Sciences
Hard sciences include the natural sciences, engineering, and medicine, which are based in
mathematics, general or proof law, and a systematic means for attaining information (Storer,
1966). Findings in these areas are often not left open for variation or interpretation. In sum,
research in the hard sciences attempts to answer questions in both a logical and repeatable fashion – this is conceptually distinct from the soft sciences where they attempt to generate theory.
Humanities
The humanities are a much wider range of topics including religion, literature, language,
and the arts (Clark, 1983). The humanities focus on studying the human experience; often from
the interpersonal perspective, typically focusing on values, ideas, or experiences. In short,
disciplines of the humanities address dilemmas and acknowledge ambiguity. They help us face
the tension between the concerns of individuals and those of groups (White, 1997).
Clark (1983) summed up the curriculum differences among the soft sciences, hard
sciences and humanities. The hard sciences have a far more defined path of coursework,
whereas the social sciences and humanities are easier to enter and navigate. Though one school
of thought is not recognized as superior over another, the conceptual differences are apparent in
how they frame questions and the world.
For example, in the hard sciences, free will cannot be permitted, or more importantly,
cannot be studied as it does not adhere to physical processes (Kane, 1998). In the humanities,
7
Wegner and Wheatley (1999) introduced how free-will is an illusion and a unique human
experience. For this reason, the conceptual basis of free-will is not aligned with the process of understanding in the hard sciences; whereas, it does not violate any research or investigate assumptions used in the humanities.
Social Sciences
The social sciences rarely provide research discussing free will. While studies may be based on the assumptions that it exists or not, (Vohs & Schooler, 2008) the topic is never clearly defined. In fact, Wrong (2006) cautioned against such research because their participation as humans in society eliminates the possibility for pure objectivity and therefore always creates bias. Yet, free-will in the traditional sense is the power of an individual or agent to be the ultimate creators of their actions and enables praise or blame to be designated (Kane, 1998).
While this theological stance has been challenged, it is still held by many (Sproul, 1997).
Several hundred years later, the topic was once further developed by Kant (1798/1979). Kant believed individuals should be perceived as the sole first cause of their acts. While he included deterministic elements to include rational thought, he described a mind separate from the body and free to make decisions.
Hobbes and Locke (Rickaby, 1906) redefine free will as the ability for an individual to do what one wishes. An individual has free will in that they are able to pursue their desires, unrestrained by external forces. Individuals under the new definition may be subject to a variety of influences and factors that determine their behavior, however as long as their desires are not hindered, they are believed to have free will. Free will is no longer the freedom to choose anything, but rather a desire to act in a certain way. Only when that desire is prevented does free
will not exist.
8
Determinism
Darwin is most often noted with the foundation of many modern scientific views of determinism as he provided an explanation for the development of the species. On the Origin of
Species (Darwin, 1859) challenged many of the traditional views of the time. It has been condemned by many religious institutions, but has also been praised as a revolutionary idea for science (Dennett, 1995). While his concept is now firmly rooted in the physical sciences, it has also been used as a means to demonize races. Roger Brooke Taney used the idea as his basis for racial inferiority in the Dred Scott case (Faigman, 2004). African Americans were perceived as inferior in biological development and where therefore unable to participate as American citizens. However, regardless of how Darwin’s works have been used by others, the implication is that some things in life are determined (i.e. natural selection) and that human beings are not at liberty to change or have the free will to change this part of life.
Darwin’s biological determinism is analogous to physical determinism in that it supposes that individuals are composed of physical material and thus all processes are determined by the causal flow of the physical laws (Paludi, 2010). However, Rosoff & Rosenberg (2006) challenge the assumptions of physical determinism. They acknowledged that while at the micro-level, generalizations about functions and behavior are easily made, as focus turns to the macro-level these generalizations are far less predictive. There appears to be environmental factors not accounted for in the physical determinism model.
Environmental determinism
Mead (1934) proposed that culture is the determining force of individual behavior; hence, it is the environment that determines individual behavior. Environmental determinism manifests itself in history, geography, culture, etc. For example, Carl Ortwin Sauer explains determination
9
in terms of geography (Gesler, 1991). Individuals appear to be free to do what they like, but it is
the formations of their living environment that shapes them to behave in certain ways.
Behavioral Determinism
Behavioral determinism was most notably supported by B. F. Skinner (Naour, 2009) and
is perhaps the most controversial of the time. Skinner proposed in his work a theory of radical
behaviorism. He further developed this concept in his book Walden II, based on the novel
Walden (Skinner, 1948). The novel described a society in which individuals behaved in a
predetermined way according the conditioning they received. Skinner proposed that he could
take any individual and condition them to be whatever was desired.
Psychological Determinism
Shortly before Skinner, Sigmund Freud proposed psychological determinism (Freud,
1933). He suggested that behaviors, regardless of conscious thought, were the product of
subconscious mental states. In brief, processes occurring in mind are not spontaneous and free as
they seem, but governed by unconscious rules or complexes (Dictionary of psychoanalytic terms
and concepts, 2002 – 2010). Rogers (1961) recognized the difficulty in addressing the concerns
of patients who are certain that their behaviors are the product of their own conscious choices,
whereas it is evident to the therapist they are not. Roger’s concluded that the patient’s current
view is only the product of their previous mental state.
Economic Determinism
Some economists take similar views of mental determinism. Irving Fischer (1906; 1930)
proposes that each individual acts as he desires and has limited control over certain aspects of
their life. Fisher creates a mathematical model for describing human behavior according to
desire. This model is in essence a predictive model, which limits the scope of free-will.
10
Similarly, the philosopher Benedict de Spinoza believed that all events were the product of their
previous state. This leads to an infinite regress which he uses God to end; and, because God is
able to know all causal states and all events to come, individuals are determined by God
(Charlton, 2008).
Free-will
Crick (1994) reasserts the material deterministic view that humans are the product of
biological processes. Their thoughts and actions are determined by brain processes, which are
subject to the material elements of their body and environment. Libet (1985) examined how free
will might exist within the brain. While he refrains from suggesting his findings dispute free
will, his study provided evidence that brain actions took place subconsciously before the act was
consciously recognized. Spence (1996) sums up the situation of free-will and proposes that if
there is free will, it must exist subconsciously. Therefore, a conscious free will is incompatible
with the findings of neuroscience.
Balaguer (2009) argues that any current views of determinism are not adequate to
eliminate his definition of free will. Indeterminancy, he proposes enables individuals to have
free acts by not following the causal flow of events. He does not suggest that this implies an
agent making decisions, but rather that specific randomness enables individuals to be
undetermined. This view is further supported by Chomsky and Otero (2003). Free will, they
propose may not exist, however, it is so apparent that science must provide extremely compelling
evidence to the contrary.
Free-will and Predictability
Baer, Baumeister, and Kaufman (2008) propose that while free will and rational choice
seem underappreciated in psychology, whereas political science and economics focus too
11
strongly on them. Emile Durkheim, (Durkheim & Lukes, 1982) suggests that sociology should
not take sides between determinism and free will; stressing the study of sociology does not need
to address the issue in order to answer the questions of the field. Others such as Drakopoulos &
Torrance (1994) decide to take a stance on the issue and suggest that determinism does not
naturally belong in the social sciences. However, Reiss (2009) suggested that it is causality that
gives meaning to social sciences, but if agents acted freely, there would be assumed randomness
and unpredictability in behavior. If the social sciences are to be perceived as more credible if they are able to make accurate predictions (Rule, 1997). Yet, Drakopolous et al. (1994) proposed that predictability isn’t important, meaning is.
12
CHAPTER III
Chapter III begins with a restatement of the presenting problem. Other topics include the
description of the sample, the research design, hypotheses, and derivation of general hypothesis,
instrumentation, variable list, data collection, statistical treatment and the limitations of the
study.
Restatement of the Problem
No professional literature could be found that examined specifically the belief of free-will within the social sciences as a whole. While some researchers have stated their personal beliefs or reviewed their particular findings, little is known regarding the social sciences as a unique division of higher education. For this reason, three general problems are addressed in this study.
First, this study will examine the consistency of the belief in free will or determinism across the major divisions of the soft sciences, including: anthropology, archaeology, geography, history, economics, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology. Second, this investigation will highlight differences if those differences are found. Lastly, the final problem is to explain the consistency or inconsistency in the belief of free will and determinism within the social sciences.
Description of Sample
The total number of subjects included in this historical case-analysis review is 95.
Subjects were self-selected out of 9 group classifications; specifically, Anthropology,
Psychology, Geography, Political Science, Sociology, Law, Philosophy, Economics and History.
13
Participants were examined from the historical index as listed in the Britannica Online
database as contributors to their specific field. Criteria for inclusion in this review:
1. Individual was listed as a recognized professional
2. Individuals work was primarily in the field examined
3. They were not politicians
4. They lived after 1500 A. D.
Research Design
The research design used in this study was a historical case study method. In order to
control for internal or external bias that can arise from examining original sources and offering
interpretation (see Shafer, 1980), an encyclopedia (Britannica, 2011) source was utilized. The
rationale for using one encyclopedia source has to do with how encyclopedias validate
information using multiple sources; likewise, they are emotionally and politically detached.
Using a case study approach was appropriate for this study because it is an empirical
inquiry that investigates phenomenon within a real life context when the context is not clearly
evident (see Merriam, 1998). As with the question of concern to this study, no research
collectively examines the social sciences as a whole with respect to their position on free-will.
This study utilized a historical case study method to determine if the social sciences were
consistent or united in their position on free-will. For pragmatic reasons, the research reviewed
previously gathered data as sorted and classified according to the online encyclopedia Britannica
(see Appendix A).
14
General Research Hypothesis
One general research hypotheses is of concern; that is, the consistency of belief in free
will across the social sciences. Therefore, the research hypothesis in this study is:
GH: There is no statistical difference between the social sciences in terms of
belief or disbelief in free will and determinism.
Derivation of General Research Hypothesis
A survey distributed widely in 36 countries by the International Social Survey
Programme (1998) found that 70% of the people agreed that personal fate lies in their own
hands. Despite this, many documented research scientists are resolute in contention that all
human actions are caused by prior events (e.g., Skinner 1972; Crick 1994); thus, making free will at best an illusion and at worse, a delusion. Libet (1999) as a social scientist did attempt to
test free will experimentally and found that that free will operates under constraints.
The hard sciences based in mathematics, general or proof law, and a systematic means for
attaining information has not been concerned with something qualitatively described (Storer,
1966). Even the social sciences rarely provide research discussing free will. While studies may
be based on the assumptions that it exists or not, (Vohs & Schooler, 2008) the topic is never
clearly defined. In fact, Wrong (2006) cautioned against such research because their
participation as humans in society eliminates the possibility for pure objectivity and therefore
always creates bias. The social sciences, as a research body, have a professional responsibility to
review its position and stance on a topic that is widely discussed in society.
15
Instrument
Though there was not a standard or universal instrument available for this type of
research, a recording process was developed to record and sort relevant information of concern
to this study. Specifically, a spread sheet highlighted both the individual researcher and assigned
classification, in particular: Anthropology, Psychology, Geography, Political Science, Sociology,
Law, Philosophy, Economics and History.
Variable List
The following is a list of variables and how they were coded for this study.
Variable Description Coding
Professional Researcher Assigned by group 1 = Group Classification
0 = No Group Classification
Free-will Assigned by assessment Yes = 1
No = 0
Data Collection
Data used in this research was collected from the online encyclopedia Britannica for 95
recognized social science professionals. The data collection took place in February and March
of 2011. An average of two hours per participant was required to complete the “free-will”
assessment and record the data.
16
Statistical Treatment
To test the statistical significance of the proposed relationships, a binomial sign test was
used. The binomial sign test was selected as it is a non-parametric test, which requires no
specific assumptions about the distributions it measures. To simplify, a sign test does not need
not make restrictive assumptions about the nature of the population (Downing & Clark, 1989). In
this study, ones and zeros were assigned according to the belief in free-will and probabilities
calculated according to the chance of finding such a distribution by chance. The disadvantage of
the sign test is that it can ignore other information or variables. It specifically, examines one
question of one variable (Downing & Clark, 1989). The alpha level was set at .10 because this
research was exploratory. This alpha level is used to ensure that significant finding are not
excluded given the exploratory nature. Had prior research investigated this topic and a more
specific hypothesis developed, the alpha level would be lowered to the conventional .05.
Limitations
Certain limitations apply to this study. They are important to keep in mind when
attempting to generalize these findings or when developing future hypotheses.
1. Primary sources were not used.
2. Encyclopedia references and retrospective analysis was used for classification.
3. Many professionals never committed to writing or speech their views on free-will.
4. No control made for age of professional.
5. No control allotted for gender.
17
CHAPTER IV
The findings of the collected data presented in this chapter represent six major sections.
Examined in the following order are:
1. Demography, a breakdown of participants by classification;
2. Group assignment according to where each representative professional fell;
3. Summary tables of group classification and finings related to a belief in free-will;
4. Summary Bar-Graph: Social Sciences and Free-Will;
5. Proportional Belief in Free Will by Group Classification, and
6. Summary Table of all findings with significance found.
Demography
The descriptive statistics of group classifications can be found in Table 1. Anthropology
had 8 subjects, Psychology 16, Geography 8, Political Science 8, Sociology 13, Law 8,
Philosophy 16, Economics 10 and History had 8.
Table 1 Breakdown of Participants by Classification
18 16 16 16 14 13 12 10 10 88 8 8 8 8 6 4 2 0
Note. Minimum participation number was 8; maximum group classification and assignment was 16.
18
In tables 2, 3, and 4 are the descriptive findings of group assignment according to where
each representative professional fell.
Table 2 Group Assignment of Social Science Professionals: Anthropology, Psychology, and Geography
Anthropology Psychology Geography
Adolph Bastian Abraham Maslow Carl Ortwin Sauer Ales Hrdlicka Albert Bandura Karl Ritter Ashley Montagu B. F. Skinner Ellen Churchill Semple Franz Boas Bruno Bettelheim Ellsworth Huntington Gregory Bateson Alfred Binet Paul Vidal de La Blache Johann Friedrich Blumenbach Conway Lloyd Morgan Isaiah Bowman Margaret Mead Carl R. Rogers Giovanni Battista Ramusio Clark L. Hull William Morris Davis Sol Tax
Daniel Kahneman Edward Bradford Titchener Edward L. Thorndike G. Stanley Hall John B. Watson Otto Rank Stephen Pinker William McDougall
Note. Unequal N size.
19
Table 3 Group Assignment of Social Science Professionals: Political Science, Sociology, and Law
Political Science Sociology Law
Arnold Brecht C. Wright Mills Anthony Kennedy Hannah Arendt Charles Horton Cooley Anthony Scalia Hans Joachim Morgenthau Daniel Bell Catharine, A. MacKinnon Quincy Wright Emile Durkheim Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr Robert A. Dahl Gabriel Tarde Roger Brooke Taney Samuel P. Huntington Jean Baudrillard Sir Mathew Hale Sarah Wambaugh Lester Frank Ward William Brennan V. O. Key, Jr. Mary Parker Follett William Rehnquist
Max Weber Robert E. Park Robert K. Merton Talcott Parsons William Julius Wilson
Note. Unequal N size.
Table 4
Group Assignment of Social Science Professionals: Philosophy, Economics and History
Philosophy Economics History
Alfred North Whitehead Alan Greenspan Fernard Braudel Benedict de Spinoza Alfred Marshall Francis Parkman Denis Diderot Amartya Sen Henry Adams Friedrich Nietzche Carl Menger Hippolyte Taine Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Irving Fisher Jacob Burckhardt Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz John Kenneth Galbraith Jules Michelet Gotthold Ephraim Lessing John Maynard Keynes Marc Bloch Henri Bergson Milton Friedman Studs Terkel
Immanual Kant Paul Samuelson William Stanley Jevons Jean-Jacques Rousseau Jean-Paul Sartre John Locke
John Stuart Mill Noam Chomsky Rene Descartes Thomas Hobbes
Note. Unequal N size.
20
Table 5
Anthropology and Free Will
Anthropology Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Adolph Bastian 0 Ales Hrdlicka 0 Ashley Montagu 0 Franz Boas 0 Gregory Bateson 0 Johann Friedrich Blumenbach 0 Margaret Mead 0 Sol Tax 1 Note. One tail p = 0.0352; Two tail p = 0.0703.
Table 6
Psychology and Free Will
Psychology Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Abraham Maslow 1 Albert Bandura 1 B. F. Skinner 0 Bruno Bettelheim 0 Alfred Binet 0 Conway Lloyd Morgan 0 Carl R. Rogers 0 Clark L. Hull 0 Daniel Kahneman 1 Edward Bradford Titchener 0 Edward L. Thorndike 0 G. Stanley Hall 0 John B. Watson 0 Otto Rank 1 Stephen Pinker 0 William McDougall 1 Note. One tail p = 0.1051; Two tails = 0.2101.
21
Table 7
Geography and Free Will
Geography Belief in Free-Will (Yes = 1) Carl Ortwin Sauer 1 Karl Ritter 0 Ellen Churchill Semple 0 Ellsworth Huntington 0 Paul Vidal de La Blache 1 Isaiah Bowman 1 Giovanni Battista Ramusio 1 William Morris Davis 0 Note. One tail p = 0.6367; Two tail p = 1.2734.
Table 8
Political Science and Free Will
Political Science Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Arnold Brecht 1 Hannah Arendt 1 Hans Joachim Morgenthau 0 Quincy Wright 1 Robert A. Dahl 1 Samuel P. Huntington 1 Sarah Wambaugh 1 V. O. Key, Jr. 1 Note. One tail p = 0.0352; Two tail p = .0.0703.
22
Table 9
Sociology and Free Will
Sociology Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) C. Wright Mills 1 Charles Horton Cooley 1 Daniel Bell 1 Emile Durkheim 0 Gabriel Tarde 0 Jean Baudrillard 0 Lester Frank Ward 0 Mary Parker Follett 1 Max Weber 0 Robert E. Park 0 Robert K. Merton 1 Talcott Parsons 0 William Julius Wilson 1 Note. One tail p = 0.5; Two tail p = .1.
Table 10
Law and Free Will
Law Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Anthony Kennedy 1 Anthony Scalia 1 Catharine, A. MacKinnon 0 Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr 0 Roger Brooke Taney 0 Sir Mathew Hale 1 William Brennan 0 William Rehnquist 0 Note. One tail p =. 0.3633; Two tail p = 0.7266.
23
Table 11
Philosophy and Free Will
Philosophy Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Alfred North Whitehead 1 Benedict de Spinoza 0 Denis Diderot 0 Friedrich Nietzche 0 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 0 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing 0 Henri Bergson 1 Immanual Kant 1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1 Jean-Paul Sartre 1 John Locke 0 John Stuart Mill 0 Noam Chomsky 1 Rene Descartes 1 Thomas Hobbes 0 Note. One tail p = 0.5982; Two tail p = 1.1964.
Table 12
Economics and Free Will
Economics Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Alan Greenspan 1 Alfred Marshall 0 Amartya Sen 1 Carl Menger 1 Irving Fisher 0 John Kenneth Galbraith 0 John Maynard Keynes 0 Milton Friedman 0 Paul Samuelson 1 William Stanley Jevons 0 Note. One tail p = 0.377; Two tail p = 0.7539.
24
Table 13
History and Free Will
History Belief in Free Will (Yes = 1) Fernard Braudel 0 Francis Parkman 1 Henry Adams 0 Hippolyte Taine 0 Jacob Burckhardt 1 Jules Michelet 1 Marc Bloch 1 Studs Terkel 1 Note. One tail p = 0.3663; Two tail p = 0.7226.
Table 14
Summary Bar-Graph: Social Sciences and Free Will
60
52 50 43
40
30 free will no free will 20 Expon. (no free will)
11 10 7 7 7 88 5 6 5 6 5 44 3 4 3 1 1 0
25
Table 15
Proportional Belief in Free Will by Group Classification
100 90 87.5 80 70 60 62.5 50 50 50 46.15 40 37.5 40 30 31.25 20 10 12.5 0
Note. Values represent percentages.
Table 16
Summary Table of Findings
Classification for against total 1‐tail 2‐tail Alpha Significant Anthropology 1 7 8 0.0352 0.0703 0.1 S Political Science 7 1 8 0.0352 0.0703 0.1 S Psychology 5 11 16 0.1051 0.2101 0.1 NS Geography 4 4 8 0.6367 1.2734 0.1 NS Sociology 6 7 13 0.5 1 0.1 NS Law 3 5 8 0.3633 0.7266 0.1 NS Philosophy 8 8 16 0.5982 1.1964 0.1 NS Economics 4 6 10 0.377 0.7539 0.1 NS History 5 3 8 0.3633 0.7266 0.1 NS Total 43 52 95 0.206 0.4119 0.1 NS
26
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The final chapter encompasses four major sections. The first section includes a brief
restatement of the problem under investigation. A review of the procedures used to conduct this
research follow. Another section addresses the population characteristics and significant
findings. Lastly, the conclusion section further includes the interpretation of significant findings,
addresses implications, conceptualized findings, and suggests further research.
Statement of the Problem
Three general problems are addressed in this study. First, this study will examine the
consistency of the belief in free will or determinism across the major divisions of the soft
sciences, including: anthropology, archaeology, geography, history, economics, law, philosophy,
political science, psychology, and sociology. Second, this investigation will highlight differences
if those differences are found. Lastly, the final problem is to explain the consistency or
inconsistency in the belief of free will and determinism within the social sciences.
Procedures
Description of Sample
The total number of subjects included in this historical case-analysis review is 95.
Subjects were self-selected out of 9 group classifications; specifically, Anthropology,
Psychology, Geography, Political Science, Sociology, Law, Philosophy, Economics and History.
27
Participants were examined from the historical index as listed in the Britannica Online
database as contributors to their specific field. Criteria for inclusion in this review:
1. Individual was listed as a recognized professional
2. Individuals work was primarily in the field examined
3. They were not politicians
4. They lived after 1500 A. D.
Research Design
The research design used in this study was a historical case study method. In order to
control for internal or external bias that can arise from examining original sources and offering
interpretation (see Shafer, 1980), an encyclopedia (Britannica, 2011) source was utilized. The
rationale for using one encyclopedia source has to do with how encyclopedias validate
information using multiple sources; likewise, they are emotionally and politically detached.
Using a case study approach was appropriate for this study because it is an empirical
inquiry that investigates phenomenon within a real life context when the context is not clearly
evident (see Merriam, 1998). As with the question of concern to this study, no research
collectively examines the social sciences as a whole with respect to their position on free-will.
General Research Hypothesis
One general research hypotheses is of concern; that is, the consistency of belief in free
will across the social sciences. Therefore, the research hypothesis in this study is:
GH: There is no statistical difference between the social sciences in terms of
belief or disbelief in free will and determinism.
28
Conclusions
Although not officially posed as a research question, tables one, two, three and four clearly point out an important anecdotal finding; that is that not all the social sciences view the importance of free will equally. In essence, as a top-of-mind study, this study would indicate that the professional fields of psychology and philosophy spend proportionally much more time thinking and researching free-will than the other areas of social sciences. The implication is that regardless of whether psychology or philosophy believes in free will as a field, as no significance found, it is something to consider and research.
Tables five through thirteen highlight both significant and non-significant findings. Of interest to the hypothesis posed in this research, specifically, there is no statistical difference between the social sciences in terms of belief or disbelief in free will and determinism. Findings suggest that significance was found in two professional areas within the social sciences; they are anthropology and political science (see Tables 14, 15, & 16).
Anthropology Findings
The field of anthropology has statistically significant belief that free will does not exist.
This result suggests that within anthropology there is a universal feeling or foundation amongst most members of the field that there is no free-will. There are several potential reasons for why a topic such as free will has been generally rejected within the field. The most obvious is the difference between anthropology and the other fields of study. It seems plausible to assume, that while seven of the other nine fields show no preference for belief in free will either way, anthropology is studying topics where belief opposing free-will is important.
Reflecting upon the specific focus of anthropology, their perspective may be considered particularly unique. Anthropology’s focus is to explain what the human species is, how it
29
behaves, and how it evolved. These questions are focused on explaining the development of the
species over the course of time and across all cultures. In doing so, anthropology relies heavily
on the scientific method to explore these areas. In order to maintain objectivity, anthropology
may exclude free will as the belief is not held in all cultures. If some cultures hold this belief
while others do not, anthropology may default to explaining humans without free will. This
enables the field to explain the causal path humans and their cultures have taken in development.
It also coincides well with the sub-field of physical anthropology which relies heavily on the
findings of biology and Darwinian Theory. Thus, a reliance on findings in the hard sciences
presumably encourages anthropology to assume the same deterministic and causal understanding of the world.
Anthropology also includes the study of the development of cultures over the course of time. When analyzing a society within a specific time frame, the use of free-will as an explanation may be useful. Over the entire course of human development, there may be an ability to discern the pattern of changes in beliefs such as free-will. If belief comes and goes, anthropology has the unique ability to recognize this and perhaps even identify the causes for why it does.
Anthropology’s study of linguistics may also provide an explanation for their understanding of free will, particularly because the issue has often been lost in semantics. The traditional view of free will was redefined by the work of Hobbes and Locke (Rickaby, 1906).
Their redefinition has often been implicated in the confusion of the understanding of free will.
As anthropology studies linguistics, they are able to study the development of the word and the meaning intended in context. While other social sciences may be confused in the use of the term, anthropology is clearly able to distinguish the definition, and apply that definition to their
30
work. While Hobbes and Locke’s free-will may be able to be applied, the traditional view of self
agency would certainly contradict the explanations of human evolution and development. The
ability to make this distinction may not only explain anthropologies rejection of free-will, but
also explain other fields’ inability to come to an agreement on the issue.
Anthropologies distinction from other fields of social sciences may also be found in the
division of the field. Some social sciences have a vast array of sub-fields which cover specific
areas within the general field. Anthropology has only four main divisions including physical
anthropology, cultural anthropology, archeology, and linguistics (Haviland, Prins, Walrath, &
McBride, 2011). While there is great variety in other fields, anthropology remains focused on a
few select areas. Certainly anthropology covers a topic as broad as many other fields; however,
it does not create multiple sub-fields. It seems plausible to assume that a large quantity of
divisions enable the sub-divisions to vary from one another, whereas when there are only a few it
is far more difficult to break away from the common beliefs of the whole. If all of the theories
and assumptions established in the field are tightly intertwined with one another, there is little
ability for extraneous variables to be included.
The areas of study and the division of the field may be some of the reasons anthropology
varies from other fields on the belief in free-will, its application may be just as plausible.
Anthropology is focused on explaining human evolution, culture, and variance among these.
Despite anthropologists contributions to understand and explain the evolution of society, it either
refrains from suggesting policy changes or their suggestions are ignored by policy makers.
Exclusion from social policies may enable anthropologists to prevent being moved by political
and social opinions and goals. In explaining events, the goal is accuracy and predictability. The
focus remains on observing facts and creating the best explanation. When focusing on policy,
31
impact on a society has to be accounted for. Policies are intended to guide a society in a certain
direction. When the goal is to create and apply policies, the goal shifts from objective
explanation to the end result. The means by which the goals are achieved are not necessarily as important as attaining the intended purpose. This has implications for both political science and the remaining social sciences. Anthropologists may particularly be interested in refraining from policy creation in that it would impact their field of study. When observing the evolution and development of a culture, involvement in the course of events is another factor that would have to be accounted for. The particular studies of cross cultural anthropology would be impacted as one society may include policy changes while others would not. This may cause a divergence amongst the studied cultures. In order to be objective, anthropology needs to refrain from interacting with the cultures they are studying.
The previous explanations are all the universal tendencies within the field, which are established by the founding leaders and prominent individuals within the field. These individuals were the focus of this study and were used as a representative sample of the fields because it is expected that their beliefs reflect the beliefs of the field. Based on this assumption,
it may also be assumed that the first prominent individuals influenced the development of belief
on the topic of free-will. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was one of the first modern
anthropologists. His views were strongly based in the scientific method and the use of science.
This is clearly a reflection of the current studies of the field. Another major contributor to anthropology was Franz Boas who founded the American field of anthropology (Stocking,
1966). While he rejected the racial and environmental determinism of the time, he developed his ideas in the framework of cultural determinism.
32
These founding individuals have clearly impacted the course of anthropological thought.
As the prominent founders of the field established the guidelines with little addition of new sub-
fields, anthropological thought has remained within their initial guidelines. Had these
individuals primarily believed in free-will, it may be expected that the field followed that course.
Interestingly this has not been found in other fields.
Anthropologies belief that free-will does not exist may be impacted by its founding members, lack of variation within the field, abstention from policy creation, study of linguistic and development over time, tendency for scientific methods, and particular area of study or a combination of all of these factors. While each of these certainly requires further analysis and study, they are areas where anthropology varies from the other fields studied. The implications may be just as important as the factors contributing to the variance. Anthropology’s lack of similarity with the other social sciences suggests that perhaps it does not belong with the social sciences; or perhaps it is the most rigorous and scientific of the social sciences.
Political Science Findings
The other field which does not appear to coincide with the other social sciences is political science. Political science believes that individuals do have free will. Once again, the clearest difference between political science and the other social sciences is the topic of study.
Political science studies politics, the role of leaders and citizens, and differences between nations
(Danker, 2003). In studying politics, free-will seems to be an essential element to describing political systems. The modern democracy particularly focuses on freedom of choice, action, religion, and economics. Political science does not seem content with just describing these systems, but also giving meaning to them. Applying a completely deterministic understanding to a political system certainly creates a challenge for deriving meaning. If individuals vote not by
33
self-agency, but by a combination of causal forces, there is little meaning that can be derived.
Voting becomes extremely interesting in that individuals are not motivated by rational choice,
but by biological preferences and external influences. Individuals become not agents choosing leaders to best represent them, but automatons that are only interested in what is perceived as their self interest. The challenges of determinism to the structure and purpose of political science appears to play an important role in political science believing in free-will. Without it, politics becomes subjective and potentially meaningless.
The importance of free-will in giving meaning to the field of study appears to be the best
explanation for the findings of this study. There are several other variations that may be
plausible influences for this difference. The founding individuals, which political science often
reflects upon, are the Greek philosophers of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle (Bealey, Chapman, &
Sheehan, 1999). These philosophers focused on the free-will of individuals as essential to the
political system. Their ideas were derived from concepts of the soul, ethics, and goodness. As
their understanding was founded on free-will, the field of politics seems to incorporate their
understanding into modern development of political science. While the Greek philosophers were
excluded from this analysis, their impact is reflected in the works of more modern political
scientists. Samuel P. Huntington (1988) provides a similar description of the soul and the ability
for an agent to be a distinct entity from the causal chain. Robert A. Dahl (1989) provides a
similar description of free individuals. While they exist in the physical, they are metaphysically
free and capable of reason and decision making. Just as the Greeks influence modern political
scientists, the modern political scientists influence their contemporaries in the field. There seems
to be little if any variation from this path.
34
As was noted in anthropology, the quantity of sub-fields may be an important factor for
why the field does not vary from the major contributors in the field. Political science, like
anthropology, only has four main sub-fields (Danker, 2003). The unity of the field may enable
universal ideas to form more readily as well as provide less variation from those principles. The
topics and theories discussed by the founding individuals are expected to remain similar
throughout the fields’ development. While free-will may have been essential in the founding of
the field, it has remained a universal principle because of the limited variation from that
standard.
The general universal belief in free-will in political science may also be associated with
the purpose of the field. Anthropology specifically appears to be focused only on explaining
topics. Political science explains the areas of its study, but often does so as to provide means of
providing potential policies. Their theoretical works describe how a political system should
work, what the purpose of politics is, and what historical figures meant in their works. The
intentions of doing this are often politically motivated. Their studies provide suggestions on how
society should maintain stability or proceed to attain certain goals. The focus of their studies is
not only to explain the current state of affairs, but to apply those theories to pursue certain goals.
As will be discussed, this is similar to many of the other social sciences. Application of the
fields of the study to current affairs appears to be an important aspect to the social sciences;
however, this does not explain why political science varies from the social sciences by
maintaining a universal belief in free-will.
Examining the foundation of knowledge within political science more closely may
provide an explanation. Bealey and colleagues (1989) acknowledge criticisms that political
science is not a science. These criticisms include the inability for the variables of social science
35
to be measured, the inability for experiments to be conducted, and the inability for accurate
predictions to be made. These critiques do suggest that political science should not be
considered a science, however these same principles may hold true for the other social sciences.
The other social sciences appear to have the same difficulties with measurement, testing, and
prediction, but they also include elements of the scientific method. Political science has very
few models including the scientific method for their theories. This may be because the topic of
study cannot be measured with the scientific method. Free-will in particular cannot be measured
by the scientific method. Political science then is not capable of being an experimental science,
but rather can only be an observational science (Lowell, 1910).
Political science’s belief that free will exists may be the result of its founding members,
its focus on policy implementation and lack of variation in the field, its founding members, its
specific area of study, or a combination of these factors. These areas can only be speculative as
the nature of the study does not enable causal conclusions to be made. As with anthropology,
political science appears to vary from the other social sciences. Its lack of similarity suggests
that it may not belong with the other social sciences. As anthropology may have more in
common the hard sciences, and political science appears to be opposite, political science may be
more closely associated with the humanities. It appears to encompass the same beliefs that
would be associated with religions.
Other Social Sciences
The remaining social sciences including economics, geography, history, law, philosophy,
psychology, and sociology vary from political science and anthropology in that there were no
significant findings. The most important implication of this is that the fields may not find the
topic important. If free-will was an important aspect to enable the topics of the field to be
36
studied, the field would be expected to agree. As no universal beliefs within these fields were
found, free-will must not be required for their studies. This view was supported by Emile
Durkheim, (Durkheim et al., 1982) who believed that sociology should not take sides in the free
will debate. The other fields may follow a similar belief and only indicate their beliefs as an
unimportant byproduct of explanations for results. While this may be the case for some fields
such as geography or history, other fields such as psychology and philosophy directly undertake
exploring the topic as noted by the top of mind analysis.
If the fields directly explore free-will, but don’t agree, there must be other influences
impacting the ability to hold a universal belief. The founding ideologies appear to play an
important role in anthropology and political science; however, this does not seem to be so in the
remaining fields. This is not to say that the founding individuals did not lay the path for the
field, however, a divergence must occur to account for the results of this study. Sub-fields were
suggested as a potential influence on the universal principles within anthropology and political
science. These fields had very few sub-fields for which divergence from universal principles
could be found. Several of the social sciences such as sociology, psychology, and law have a
diverse group of sub-fields covering a vast amount of topics, often branching into other fields of
study. As these fields branch out, their reliance on the central principles may become less
important.
As the fields branch out, different topics and intentions may be pursued. The fields may
therefore divide their views depending on the topics being examined. Sociology for example
splits in deciding what the field should study. Max Weber (Coser, 1977) believed that similar to
the hard sciences, sociology needed to rest on the rules of causality and probability. While the
immense amount of influences makes it difficult to predict, the best option is to pursue each
37
influence as much as possible. Daniel Bell on the other hand believes that the sciences measure
the predictable, and as individuals are unpredictable (Brick, 1986) – the foundations of the hard
sciences have no role. These divisions may be made possible as the field diverges from central
ideas. As the amount of sub-fields increases, the ability to break away from the universal
founding principles becomes more likely.
History and geography are not as complex as others and do not have the vast sub-fields.
For these fields it would seem that free-will is not important. History is only concerned with
describing events that occur. While their descriptions may vary in explanation, free-will does
not appear to be an important aspect. Whether a history includes free-will or determinism, the
importance is only on recording what happened. The only point at which it matters is to include
explanations for events that occur. When no obvious influences are available, free-will can be
used, whereas when causes for actions and behavior are obvious, these are causal forces. Free-
will in history appears to be an unimportant factor only included when influences are unknown.
Geography appears to be similar to history in that free-will is unimportant to the focus of
the field. The field attempts to describe the earth and its features. When the human element is
included, geographers only have to describe how the environment impacts them. Some describe
individuals as determined by their geographical surroundings, while others focus on individuals
only being somewhat restrained by them. Either view still focuses on describing the
environment and how it might influence individuals. There is no specific view required within
the field. As with history, the lack of knowledge enables speculation of any kind to describe the
results found.
Other difficulties seem to emerge based on the definitions used to describe and
understand behavior. As was mentioned in the discussion of anthropology, linguistics has
38
caused much controversy on the topic. When psychologists explain the ability for individuals to
change their behavior, the patient considers their own agency as the force that will direct them.
Economics may struggle with this topic even more as their field of study is based on choice. As
all materials are limited, the language of economics assumes that individuals have the capacity to
select amongst them. Anything is a potential option for an individual if they are unconstrained.
For some economists such as Paul Samuelson, individuals are rational and their choices reflect
their autonomous ability to select among them (Hum, 2002). Carl Menger (1883/1985) maintains that while individuals have metaphysical and biological needs, these do not determine the individuals’ choice, they merely appear to. Keynes opposes these positions and equates humans to animals (1920/2007). Their behavior is the product of the biological and environmental factors. This position is clearly recognized by his policy suggestions. If individuals were free, they would choose to engage in the market. As they are not, the market must change to encourage their participation. Greenspan (2007), a supporter of the free market, believes individuals are autonomous. Once again this is reflected in his desire to remove restraints and open the market for individuals to make choices. These varying positions are not only opposing, but create different opinions on how to proceed with policy. While it was suggested that policy implementation was an aspect that caused a universal belief in political science, economists rely heavily on quantitative analysis. The divergence in the field may only occur when attempts to explain findings and create policies are undertaken.
A unique aspect of social sciences such as sociology, psychology, and economics is there application. There are fields of study that are solely interested in research; however, these fields also undertake policy suggestions or treatment of individuals. While many of their findings are often causally related, there appears a hesitance to conform to deterministic understandings.
39
Charles Horton Cooley (1918) believes that fatalist views are dangerous in that they ignore
individual’s capacity for creativity and William Julius Wilson (Choi et al., 1995) believes that
following a deterministic understanding will create the idea that some individuals are inferior
and others superior. Their responses do not seem rooted in explanations of behavior, but rather
in fear. It appears that in their mind, if deterministic understandings are applied, individuals will
do nothing more than initiate eugenics and slavery. They also appear concerned that individuals
will refrain from creativity and development. The split in the field may focus on this difference
between obtaining knowledge and applying it. For those who are interested in obtaining
knowledge, they follow what the evidence suggests. Others such as Cooley and Wilson
speculate on the impact to society if the knowledge is applied.
The fields of economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science,
psychology all showed no preference in belief for or against free-will. These results may be due
to changes over time, purpose of the fields, division within sub-fields, or that free will is an
unimportant factor in their studies. The focuses of the field’s were not initially used to describe
the lack of universal belief within the fields as the topics cover a multitude of subjects. Perhaps,
this is one of the better reasons for the indecisions in the fields. The fields are social sciences
because they are unable to agree upon whether free-will exists or not. If there was agreement
that free-will existed they may be better classified as a humanity. If there was agreement that
free will did not exist, they may be better classified as hard sciences.
Law
A field of study that was of particular interest to this study was law. Intuition would
suggest that law would be particularly interested whether individuals have free will or not. The
basis of laws is typically focused on determining responsibility. Responsibility implies that the
40
individual is the primary cause for an act. If the field rejects free will, then there is no moral ground for which to find a person guilty or not. Oliver Wendel Holmes may provide a unique perspective to understanding the field of law. The basis may not be in determining responsibility and punishing those who have committed crimes, but rather to act as a determining factor for societal behavior.
Holmes, when talking about an individual he had just sentenced to life in prison, says that he would tell the individual that he understands he was not at fault. Given the situation and the predisposition of the individual, he had no other options to pursue, but the criminal one he took.
Holmes explains that he would tell the individual that he should perceive himself as a soldier sacrificing himself for the good of the whole. If he was not punished for his acts, when other individuals find themselves in the same situation they will not have any reason for not committing the crime. They will expect the same response of non-punishment for their crimes.
It is therefore the purpose of punishment, not to determine guilt or responsibility, but rather to shape society into behaving in the best way possible (Pinker, 2003).
This view is particularly unique and has a very strong suggestion of behavioral determinism as proposed by Skinner. The purpose of law is therefore not to determine guilt, but rather to coerce others with the threat of punishment from committing crimes. This view of course is not held by all as there is not a universal belief within the field. The others may hold to the expected belief that the purpose should be to determine guilt and responsibility. In this case, the role of the courts is to determine whether the individual could have done otherwise and chose not to.
The field of law may be able to blend the varying beliefs of free-will without problems because it does not make a difference. Regardless of whether there is free-will or not, lawyers
41
only need to agree on the outcome of a court case. If an individual commits a crime of free-will
or not, the punishment will be the same. The individuals who believe in free will can say that
justice was served and the individual is being punished for not behaving responsibly. The
individuals who do not believe in free will can accept that the person had no other choice but to
behave as he did; however to encourage the proper behavior from the rest of society, they will be
given the same sentence. In either case, the outcome is the same.
As the field of law has not agreed upon whether free-will exists or not it seems likely to
conclude that it does not matter. If the outcomes of cases were different based on belief in free-
will or not, law may focus more on determining its importance. As the outcomes are the same,
the belief doesn’t matter. This is particularly unique in that the topic isn’t important, only the
affects of the court decisions. The application of the field does not rely on a solution to the free-
will problem.
The methodology of this study provided only politicians and judges for examination.
There may be a variance at different levels of the field. Prosecution attorneys, for example, may hold different beliefs than defense attorneys. As the prosecution focuses on establishing
responsibility and guilt, their goals would be expected to coincide with belief in free-will. They intend to show that individuals committed a crime and should be held responsible for their acts.
Defense attorneys, on the other hand, intend to show that their clients are not responsible for their crimes. Defense attorneys have used various methods to demonstrate that their clients are not responsible for their acts. The insanity defense provides an example of their methodology at work. By using insanity as a defense, the lawyer employs a technique of showing that individuals were incapable of making decisions or choosing between right-and-wrong at the time the crime was committed. If this defense is taken further, defense lawyers may be able to show
42
that, given the circumstances, any individual had no other option but to commit the crime. While
certainly the insanity defense requires the individual to undergo mental examinations to prove
they were incapable of making decisions, this defense may be one of the first steps to applying an understanding of no free will or choice within the legal system.
Implications of Study
It would be easy to state that given the results of this study, anthropology and political science are polar opposites within the field of social sciences. Therefore, one could argue that anthropology is really a hard science and political science really should be classified within the humanities. The remaining fields, where no significance was found, are accurately classified as social sciences. Anthropology and political science may similarly be conceived of as the ends of a scale as portrayed in Table 15. The social sciences blend into both the humanities and the physical sciences. An arbitrary line is created between the fields, when it is actually the blending
from one to the next. These assessments are relatively easy to make; however, an implication not
so obvious is that instead of being polar opposites, bordering on reclassification, they are rather
“two ends of the same circle.” Below is a conceptual mobius-model of the social sciences. It is
developed from the results and introduced as a possible explanation as to the variation within the social sciences. Table 17 is a theoretical model describing the relationship between the social sciences.
43
Table 17
Mobius-Model – A Theoretical Relationship: Social Sciences
The model above describes social sciences that are not in conflict, but rather in harmony.
It represents the continuous cycle of qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative models are
proposed, which are then testable by quantitative sciences. The quantitative findings are then
returned to the cycle to once again be examined to create new quantitative hypotheses. Both are
necessary in this model as they provide one another with new perspectives and models of
explanation. In the end, this study may have not found significant differences between the social
sciences, but rather a continuous model of investigation and analysis.
44
Suggestions for Future Study
This study measured the belief in free-will within the general fields of social sciences;
however, no attempt was made to measure sub-field differences. Likewise, professionals were
not randomized according to gender, age or formal education, which would be appropriate
variables to control for in future study. Another area for further examination is the changes in
belief over time; both the change of belief for professionals as well as overall shifts within the
professional fields. The impact of religion or individual religious beliefs should be examined in
the future, as these would be expected to be influential in professional beliefs. The impact of professionals who draw information from and contribute to multiple fields should also be examined further. Finally, as introduced above, the conceptual Mobius-Model of the social sciences should be examined.
45
References
Abraham Harold Maslow. (2001). Biographical Dictionary of Public Administration. Retrieved
27 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Alan Greenspan. (2009). Biography Reference Bank. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Albert Bandura. (1997). Biographical Dictionary of Modern American Educators. Retrieved 27
Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Ales Hrdlicka. (1941). Current Biography. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Alfred Binet. (1991). Library of International Biographies--Volume 7: Scholars and Educators.
Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Alfred Marshall. (1998). New Palgrave A Dictionary of Economics. 1998. Retrieved 28 Jan.
2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Alfred North Whitehead. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Algosaibi, G. A. R. (1965). The theory of international relations: Hans J. Morgenthau and his
critics. Background, 8(4), 221-256.
46
Amartya Kumar Sen. (2002). Nobel Prize Winners 1997-2001: Supplement. Retrieved 11 Feb.
2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Anthony M. Kennedy. (1988). Current Biography. Retrieved 03 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Antonin Scalia. (2010). Biography Reference Bank. Retrieved 03 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Ash, M. G. & Woodward, W. R. (Eds.). (1987). Psychology in twentieth-century thought and
society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ashley Montagu. (1967). Current Biography. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
B. F. Skinner. (1979). Current Biography. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Baer, J., Baumeister, R. F., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Are we free; psychology and free will.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balaguer, M. (2009). Why there are no good arguments for any interesting version of
determinism. Synthese, 168, 1-20.
Bandura, A. (2008). Reconstrual of “free will” from the agentic perspective of social cognitive
theory. In J. Baer, J. C. Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Are we free?: Psychology
and free will (pp. 86-127). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bargh, J. A. (2007). Free will is un-natural. In J. Baer, J. C. Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister
(Eds.), Are we free?: Psychology and free will (pp. 128-154). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
47
Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published 1972).
Baudrillard, J. (2005). The intelligence of evil or the lucidity pact. (Turner, C., Trans.). New
York, N.Y.: Berg (original work published 2004).
Baumol, W.J. & Blinder, A. S. (2009). Economics: Principles and policy. Mason, OH: South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Bealey, F., Chapman, R. A., & Sheehan, M. (1999). Elements in political science. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Benedictus de Spinoza. (1996). The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Retrieved 14 Jan.
2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Bergson, H. (1913). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness J. H.
Muirhead, (Ed.). (F. L. Pogson, Trans.). New York: The Macmillan Company. (Original
work published 1889).
Binet, A. (1907). The mind and the brain F. Legge, (Ed.). London: Ballantine, Hanson & Co.
Black, M., & Reed, J. S. (1984) Perspectives on the American south: An annual review of
society, politics, and culture. London: Gordon and Breach.
Bloch, M. (1988). Memoirs of War, 1914-15. (C. Fink, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bradshaw, J. (2009).Reclaiming virtue: How we can develop the moral intelligence to do the
right thing at the right time for the right reason. New York, N.Y.: Bantam Dell.
Brewer, J. D. (2003). C. Wright Mills and the ending of violence. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
48
Brick, H. (1986). Daniel Bell and the decline of intellectual radicalism: social theory and
political reconciliation. Madison, WI.: Wisconsin University Press.
Britannica – The Online Encyclopedia (2011). Retrieved (February – March, 2011)
http://www.britannica.com/
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (2006) Higher education in transition: A history of American
colleges and universities (6th ed.). New Brunswick, N J: Transaction Publishers.
Bruno Bettelheim. (1961). Current Biography. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Burckhardt, J. (1999). The Greeks and Greek civilizations (S. Stern, Trans.) New York, N. Y.:
St. Martins Press. (Original work published 1998).
C. Lloyd Morgan. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
C. Wright Mills. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Carl Menger. (1998). New Palgrave A Dictionary of Economics. 1998. Retrieved 11 Feb. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Carl R. Rogers. (1962). Current Biography. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Catharine A. MacKinnon. (1994). Current Biography. Retrieved 03 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
49
Charles Horton Cooley. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. Retrieved 11 Mar.
2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Charleton, N. G. (2008). Understanding Gregory Bateson: Mind, beauty, and the sacred earth.
Albany: University of New York Press.
Choi, J. M., Callaghan, K. A., & Murphy, J. W. (1995). The politics of culture: Race, violence,
and democracy. Westport, CT.: Praeger Publishers.
Chomsky, N. & Otero, C. P. (2003). Chomsky on democracy and education. New York, N.Y.:
Routledge Falmer.
Chorley, R. J., Dunn, A. J., & Beckinsale, R. P. (1973). The history of the study of landforms:
The life and work of William Morris Davis. London: Metheun.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national
perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clark L Hull. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Clark, S. (1999). The annales school. Fernand Braudel. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Cooley, C. H. (1918). Social process. New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons.
Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Cromartie, A. (1995). Sir Mathew Hale, 1609-1676: Law, religion, and natural philosophy. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50
Crowther, L. (2010). Diderot and Lessing as exemplars of post-Spinozist mentality. London:
Maney Publishing.
Cummings, M. S. (2001). Beyond political correctness: Social transformation in the United
States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Daniel Bell. (1980). World Authors 1970-1975. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Daniel Kahneman. (2007). Current Biography International Yearbook. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Danker, A. C. (2003). The essentials of political science (3rd ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Research &
Education Association.
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species: By means of natural selection, or the preservation of
favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.
Denis Diderot. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meaning of life. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Descartes, R. (1988). Descartes: Selected philosophical writings. (J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff,
D. Murdoch, Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published
in 1644).
Dictionary of psychoanalytic terms and concepts (2002 – 2010). Copyright AROPA. Retrieved:
April 17, 2011. http://www.freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/dictionary.html
51
Downing, D. & Clark, J. (1989). Statistics: The easy way (2nd ed). Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s
Educational Series, Inc.
Drakopoulos, S. A. & Torrance, T. S. (1994). Causality and determinism in economics. Scottish
Journal of Political Economy, 41(2), 176-193.
Durkheim, E. & Lukes, S. (1982). The rules of sociological methods: And selected texts on
sociology and its methods. New York:The Free Press.
Edward Bradford Titchener. (1997). Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 16 Apr.
2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Edward L. Thorndike. (1941). Current Biography. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Ellen Churchill Semple. (1971). Notable American Women, 1607-1950: A Biographical
Dictionary. Retrieved 17 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Emile Durkheim. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Faigman, D. L. (2004). Laboratory of justice: The Supreme Court’s 200-year struggle to
integrate science and the law. New York, NY: Times Books.
Farnham, C. H. (1910). A life of Francis Parkman. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Fernand Braudel. (1985). Current Biography. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Fisher, I. (2007). Mathematical investigations in the theory of value and prices. New York, NY:
Cosimo. (Original work published 1892).
52
Fisher, I. (1930). The theory of interest: As determined by impatience to spend income and
opportunity to invest it A. M. Kelly, (Ed.). New York: Clifton
Fisher, I. (1906). The nature of capital and income. New York: MacMillan & Company.
Follett, M. P. (1920) The new state: group organization and the solution of popular government.
New York, N. Y.: Longmans, Green and Co.
Fouraker, L. E. (1958). The Cambridge didactic style. The Journal of Political Economy, 66(1),
65-73. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1826949
Francis Parkman. (1938). American Authors 1600-1900. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Franz Boas. (1940). Current Biography. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures. New York: Norton.
Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose: A personal statement. Orlando, Fl:
Harcourt.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
G. Stanley Hall. (1996).World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Gabriel Tarde. (1998). A Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Gage, N .L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft sciences: The case of pedagogy. Bloomington, IN:
Phi Delta Kappa International.
53
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Gesler, W. M. (1991). The cultural geography of health care. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. (1997). Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 14 Jan. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. 1967. Retrieved 16 Jan. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Gray, P. O. (2002). Psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Greenspan, A. (2007). The age of turbulence: Adventures in a new world. New York, NY:
Penguin Group.
Gregory Bateson. (1999). World Authors 1990-1995. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Guilfoy, K. (2010). Capitalism and freedom in the affluent society. In R. Carveth & J. B. South
(Eds.), Mad men and philosophy: Nothing is as it seems (pp. 34-56). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hacker, A. (2003). Mismatch: The growing gulf between men and women. New York, N. Y.:
Scribner.
Hannah Arendt. (1959). Current Biography. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
54
Hans Joachim Morgenthau. (1963). Current Biography. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Harris, M. (2001). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories and culture. Oxford:
Altimira Press.
Haviland, W. A., Prins, H. E. L., Walrath, D. & McBride, B. (2011). Anthropology: The human
challenge (13th ed.) E. Mitchell (Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2008). Outlines of the philosophy of right S. Houlgate, (Ed.). (T. M. Knox,
Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1833).
Henri Bergson. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 16 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Henry Adams. (1938). American Authors 1600-1900. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Hippolyte Taine. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Holt-Jensen, A. (2009). Geography: History and concepts, a student’s guide (4th ed.). London:
SAGE Publications.
Hum, D. J. (2002). Paul Samuelson (1915- ): An economist’s economist and the laureate of
1970. In Wahid, A. N. M. (Ed.), Frontiers of economics: Nobel Laureates of the
twentieth century. (pp. 27-36). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1988) One soul at a time: Political science and political reform. The American
Political Science Review, (82)1, 3-10.
Immanuel Kant. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 16 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
55
International Social Survey Programme. (1998). Religion II [Database]. Retrieved December 26,
2006, from the German Social Science Infrastructure Services Web site:
http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/issp/data/1998_Religion_II.htm
Irving Fisher. (1998). New Palgrave A Dictionary of Economics. Retrieved 11 Feb.2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Jacob Burckhardt. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Jacobitti, S. (1988). Hannah Arendt and the will. Political Theory, 16(1) 53-56.
Jaquette, J., & Lowenthal, A. (2009). Samuel P. Huntington 1927-2008. New Perspectives
Quarterly, 26(2), 64-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5842.2009.01079.x
Jean Baudrillard. (1993). Current Biography. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 16 Jan. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Jean Paul Sartre. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 16 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. (2001). Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
56
John Broadus Watson. (1942). Current Biography. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
John Kenneth Galbraith. (1975). Current Biography. Retrieved 11 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
John Locke. (1952). British Authors Before 1800. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
John Maynard Keynes. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 11 Feb. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
John Stuart Mill. (1998). New Palgrave A Dictionary of Economics. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Jules Michelet. (1967). European Authors 1000-1900. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Kane, R. (1998). The significance of free will. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kant, I. (1979). The conflict of the faculties. (M. J. Gregor, Trans.). New York, NY: Abaris
Books. (Originally work published 1798).
Kavanaugh, L. J. (2007). The architectonic of philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press.
Keane, A. H. (1905). Obituary: Adolph Bastian. The Geographical Journal, 25(5), 571-573.
Keynes, J. M. (2007). A treatise on probability. New York, NY: Cosimo. (Original work
published 1920).
57
Louca, F. (2007). The years of high econometrics: A short history of the generation that
reinvented economics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lowell, A. L. (1910). The Physiology of Politics. American Political Science Review, 4, 1-15.
Lessing, G. E. (2005). Philosophical and theological writings H. B. Nisbet, (Ed.). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lester Frank Ward. (1985). American Reformers. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Levenson, J. C. (1956). The mind and art of Henry Adams. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levine, D. N. (2010). Adumbrations of a sociology of morality in the works of Parsons, Simmel,
and Merton. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp.
57-71). New York, N. Y.: Springer.
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of the conscious will in voluntary
action. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-566.
Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8-9), 47-57.
Lucker, A. M. (2001). V. O. Key, Jr.: The quintessential political scientist. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing.
Lucas, C. J. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Maas, H. (2005). William Stanley Jevons and the making of modern economics. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Marc Bloch. (1996). World Authors 1900-1950. Retrieved 28 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Margaret Mead. (1951). Current Biography. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
58
Mary Parker Follett. (1971). Notable American Women, 1607-1950: A Biographical Dictionary.
Retrieved 11 Mar. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Max Weber. (1997). Encyclopedia of the Essay. Retrieved 10 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
McDougall, W. (1921). An introduction to social psychology (14th ed.). Boston: John W. Luce &
Co.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mead, M. (2001). Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York, NY: Harper
Collins. (Original work published in 1935).
Menger, C. (1985). Investigations into the method of the social sciences with special reference to
economics L. Schneider, (Ed.). (F. J. Nock, Trans.). New York, NY: New York
University Press. (Original work published in 1883).
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merton, R. B. (1998). Robert K. Merton and contemporary sociology. (M. Carlo, S. Tabboni,
Eds.). New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Publishers.
Milton Friedman. (1987). Nobel Prize Winners. Retrieved 11 Feb.2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Montagu, A. (1989). Growing young (2nd ed.). Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey
Morgan, C. L. (1905). The interpretation of nature. London: Macmillan and Co.
59
Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought (2nd ed.).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Noam Chomsky. (1995). Current Biography. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Naour, P. (2009). E. O. Wilson and B.F. Skinner: A dialogue between sociobiology and radical
behaviorism. New York, N. Y.: Springer.
Nelson, A. D. (1980). Science and values: Arnold Brecht’s political theory revisited. Political
Science Reviewer, 10(1), 139-188.
Oakeshott, M. (2004). What is history?: And other essays L. O’Sullivan, (Ed.). Charlottesville,
VA: Imprint Academic.
Oliver Wendell Holmes. (1993). The Great American History Fact Finder. Retrieved 03 Mar.
2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Otto Rank. (1997). Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Paludi, M. (Ed.). (2010). Feminism and women’s rights worldwide: Heritage, roles, and issues.
Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Paul A. Samuelson. (1987). Nobel Prize Winners. Retrieved 11 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Peele, S. (1989). The diseasing of America. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without freewill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York, N. Y.: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
60
Pinker, S. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Penguin
Books.
Quigly, C. (1963). Skulls and skeletons: Human bone collections and accumulations. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland & Company.
Quincy Wright. (1943). Current Biography. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Rank, O. (1996). A psychology of difference: The American lectures R. Kramer, (Ed.). Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Reiss, J. (2009). Causation in the social sciences: Evidence, inference, purpose. Philosophy of
the Social Sciences, 39(1), 20-40.
Rene Descartes. Old Worlds to New. 1993. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Rickaby, J. (1906). Free will and four English philosophers: Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Mill.
London: Burns & Oates.
Robert Alan Dahl. (1995). World Authors 1985-1990. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Roger Brooke Taney. (1994). Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 03
Mar. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Robert Ezra Park. (1997). Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 10 Mar. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
61
Robert King Merton. (1965). Current Biography. Retrieved 10 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapists view of psychotherapy. London:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Ross, D. (1991). The origin of American social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rosoff, P. M. & Rosenberg, A. (2006). How Darwinian reductionism refutes genetic
determinism. Studies in History and Philosophy in Biological and Biomedical Science,
37, 122-135.
Rule, J. B. (1997). Theory and progress in social science. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Sarah Wambaugh. (1946). Current Biography. 1946. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Savage, D. G. (2004). Anthony M. Kennedy and the road not taken. In N. Devins & D. M.
Douglas (Eds.), A year at the Supreme Court (pp. 33-54), Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency, and freedom: The Dewey lectures. The Journal of
Philosophy, (82)4, 169-221. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2026184
Shafer, R. J. (1980). A guide to historical method (3rd ed.). Chicago: The Dorsey Press.
Shepard, J. M. (2010). Sociology (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sir Matthew Hale. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/252299/Sir-Matthew-Hale
Skinner, B.F. (1948). Walden two. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
62
Skinner BF. (1972). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Vintage Books.
Smart, C. (1989). Feminism and the power of law. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sol Tax. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Spence, S. (1996). Free will in the light of neuropsychiatry. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and
Psychology, 3, 75-90.
Spinks, L. (2003). Friedrich Nietzche. London: Routledge.
Sproul, R. C. (1997). Willing to believe: The controversy over free will. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books.
Steven Pinker. (1998). Current Biography. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Stocking, G. W. (1966). Franz Boas and the culture concept in historical perspective. American
Anthropologist, 68, 867-882.
Storer, N. W. (1966). The hard and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the
Medical Library Association, 55(7), 75-84.
Studs Terkel. (1974). World Authors 1990-1995; Current Biography. Retrieved 28 Jan.2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Taine, H. (1902). Life and Letters of H. Taine. (R. L. Devonshire, Trans.) Westminster:
Archibold, Constable and Co.
Talcott Parsons. (1961). Current Biography. Retrieved 10 Mar. 2011, from Biography Reference
Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
63
Tax, S. (1975). Action anthropology. Current Anthropology, 16(4), 514-517.
Terkel, S. (2001). Will the circle be unbroken?: Reflections on death, rebirth, and hunger for a
faith. New York, N. Y.: New Press.
Thomas Hobbes. (1952). British Authors Before 1800. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Thorndike, E. L. (1908). A Pragmatic Substitute for free will. In G. S. Fullerton & W. James
(Eds.), Essays, philosophical and psychological: In honor of William James (585-610).
London: Longmans Green, and Co.
Van Inwagen, P. (1975). The incompatibility of free will and determinism. Philosophical
Studies, 27(3), 185 – 199.
Vedantam, S. (2007, May 28). If it feels good to be good, it might be only natural. The
Washington Post, pp. 1A, 9A.
Walston-Dunham, B. (2009). Introduction to law (5th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.
Wambaugh, S. (1919). The doctrine of national self-determination: A study of the theory and
practice of plebescites. New York: Oxford University Press.
Warburton, N. (1999). Philosophy: The basics (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ward, L. F. (1903). Pure sociology: A treatise on the origin and spontaneous development of
society. New York, N. Y.: The Macmillan Company.
Webber, J. (2009). The existentialism of John-Paul Sartre. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Wegner, D. M., Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of
will. American Psychologist, 54(7), 480-492.
Weidman, N. M. (1999). Constructing scientific psychology: Karl Lashley’s brain-mind debates.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64
White, L. M. (1997). The humanities. In J. G. Gaff, J. L. Ratcliff & Associates (Eds.), Handbook
of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures,
practices, and change (pp. 262-279). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitehead. A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York, N. Y.: The Free Press.
William Julius Wilson. (1996). World Authors 1990-1995; Current Biography. 1996. Retrieved
10 Mar. 2011, from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
William McDougall. (1997). Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 16 Apr. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
William Morris Davis. (1997). Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Retrieved 17 Feb. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
William H. Rehnquist. (2003). Current Biography. Retrieved 03 Mar. 2011, from Biography
Reference Bank database: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
William J. Brennan. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. Retrieved 03 Mar. 2011,
from Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
William Stanley Jevons. (2003). Leaders of the Information Age. Retrieved 11 Feb. 2011, from
Biography Reference Bank database:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.ohiolink.edu:9099/.
Williams, J. R. (1982). Jules Michelet: Historian as a critic of French literature. Birmingham:
Summa Publications, Inc.
65
Wright, Q. (1955). Contemporary international law: A balance sheet. Garden City, N. Y.:
Doubleday and Co, Inc.
Wrong, D. (2006). The persistence of the particular. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Wolker, R. (Ed.). (1995). Rousseau and liberty. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Vohs, K. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The value of believing in free will. Psychological
Science, 19(1), 49-54.
66
Appendix A
Anthropology
Anthropology is the study of humankind throughout the world across the spectrum of
time (Haviland et al., 2011). The field is typically divided into four main areas of study
including physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, archeology, and linguistics. Physical
anthropologists focus on the biological and evolutionary aspects of humans and the variation
amongst races. Cultural anthropologists study the various ways cultures think, feel, and act.
Archeologists focus on studying materials such as bones and artifacts. Linguistics studies the way information is communicated and passed to each successive generation. The field of anthropology may trace its origins as far back as ancient Greece when Herodotus discussed the many culture’s he encountered. It wasn’t until European cultures developed better ships and the magnetic compass that anthropology really began to become a field of study. Anthropology uses a holistic approach to examining the human nature both biologically and culturally over the course of time (Haviland et al., 2011).
Adolf Bastian
Adolf Bastian (1826-1905) became a ships surgeon and traveled around the world. After returning, he wrote a book discussing the similarities between the various cultures he met in the far reaches of the world and published it in 1868. In 1869, he established the Berlin
Anthropological Society and in 1873 founded the Berlin Ethnological Museum (Keane, 1905).
Adolph Bastians foundational ideas are based on psychic unity and environmental determinism.
Psychic unity does not imply the supernatural, but rather refers to the genetic foundation of ideas and thoughts within each species. This framework then formulates itself within the environment to provide an explanation of the diversity within cultures (Harris, 2001). This view is scored 0.
67
Ales Hrdlicka
Ales Hrdlicka (1869-1943) published a paper of measurements of 1,000 individuals
comparing sex and insanity, which gained him a position at the Institute of New York State
Hospitals as an associate in anthropology. Hrdlicka’s work focused on finding a link between
the Pueblo Indians and Zuni people. He began a series of trips to Mexico in search of the normal population of Americans to base his claims. Hrdlicka then joined the Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History where he created a focused examination of skeletal remains.
Hrdlicka founded the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in 1918 and in 1928 founded the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (“Ales Hrdlicka,” 1941). The researched works of Hrdlicka’s do not directly indicate his belief or interest in free will, however, he is considered evolutionist and biological determinist. His work was mainly focused on establishing racial inferiority of African Americans. For the purpose of this research biological determinism is considered to be the non-belief in free will (Quigly, 1963). This view is scored 0.
Ashley Montagu
Ashley Montagu (1905-1999) earned his doctorate in anthropology from Columbia
University and is best known for discussing controversial topics of race and the sexes. In his book on race he discussed the importance of society rather than the role of genetics in determining the outcome of an individual. He also discussed the superiority of women based on more physical strength and providing more benefit to society. Montagu’s work also helped the creation of the UNESCO “Statement on Race” (“Ashley Montagu,” 1967).
Montagu (1989) believed that individuals do not have free will. While they are able to carry out ends and means, they are bound by their previous experiences and the constraints of
68
society. He believed that people should treat others as though they do not have free will, while
maintaining their own. This of course he knew was obviously false. This view is scored 0.
Franz Boas
Franz Boas (1858-1942) received his Ph. D. from Kiel, with a thesis on The Nature of the
Color of Water. Boas taught at the University of Columbia and served as president of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1931. He wrote a series of influential
books including The Mind of Primitive Man (1911), Anthropology and Modern Life (1928), and
Kwakiutl Ethnography (1966). Boas is best known for founding American Anthropology and
incorporating the scientific method into the study of anthropology (“Franz Boas,” 1940). During
Boas’ time, racial, and environmental deterministic ideas were strong. Boas rejected these ideas
and created what may be called cultural determinism (Stocking, 1966). This view is scored 0.
Gregory Bateson
Gregory Bateson (1904-1980) received training as a zoologist, but then became an
anthropologist. Bateson’s work covered a variety of topics including cybernetics, double bind,
and somatic changes. He also wrote many books, the most influential of which focused on
returning the mind as a study for the physical sciences. Bateson’s (1972/2000) beliefs are similar
to that of Spinoza. He believed mental processes were the result of physical processes and that
the mind will evolve within any sufficiently complex organism. The mind is therefore not the
cause of action, but the result of causes. While Bateson suggests there is some free choice, there
is no place for it within the physical sciences (“Gregory Bateson,” 1999). This view is scored 0.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) studied at Gottingen where he earned his
reputation in anthropology after studying skull measurements. He reported his writings in De
69
Generis Humani Varietate Native which classified the humans into five races. His later works
included the customs and physical environment for each of the races. Through Blumenbach’s
work with measuring skulls and characterizing races he was considered a racial determinist
(“Johann Friedrich Blumenbach,” 2001). This view is scored 0.
Margaret Mead
Margaret Mead (1901-1978) is considered as one of the leaders of anthropology. Meads
main contribution to the field of anthropology consisted of creating research methods which
revolutionized the fields and resulted in its acceptance as a legitimate field of study. She wrote a
series of books covering topics of the sexes, education, and American institutions. One of her
most well known is an all time best seller Coming of Age in Samoa, which brought focus to the
field of anthropology (“Margaret Mead,” 1951).
Meads (1935/2001) beliefs focus on the malleability of individuals. She supported
women’s rights, harmony, and environmentalism, but views individuals as responding to cultural
conditions. She writes that individuals may be educated to perform the roles that the society has
created for them. Her views strongly support cultural determinism, which cannot coincide with
an individual maintaining free will. This view is scored 0.
Sol Tax
Sol Tax’s (1907-1995) research focused on North and Middle American native cultures.
Tax is best known for organizing anthropology as a worldwide discipline and founding the field
of action anthropology. Tax also founded Current Anthropology and served as its editor from its
creation until 1974. From 1958 to 1959 he served as the president of the American
Anthropological Association. Throughout his career was the director of the Smithsonian
Institution’s Center for the Study of Man, served on the U.S. National Commission for
70
UNESCO, and on a variety of committees overseeing Native American affairs (“Sol Tax,”
2000).
In Tax’s (1974) explanation of action anthropology he describes his belief in the ability
for individuals to be self-determining. He suggests that people should not assume they know
what is best for other cultures and that these cultures are able to choose what is best for them.
Tax supports freedom in order that cultures can make their own decisions and choices. This
view is scored 1.
Psychology
Psychology was formed as a combination of both natural science and philosophy (Gray,
2002). It is defined as the science of behavior and mind. Behavior is characterized as acts that
observable whereas the mind is considered the sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, etc.
As science is only beginning to reveal means of measuring processes of the mind, behaviors have
typically been the primary means for which to make scientific claims about individual’s
behaviors. Behaviors are then used to make inferences about the processes of the mind such as
preferences. Psychology is not only an investigational field, but also an applied field.
Information is gathered, often for the purpose of being used to treat individuals or further
develop society (Gray, 2002).
Abraham Maslow
Abraham Maslow’s (1908-1970) work primarily focused on the areas of experimental
and social psychology. Maslow is best known for the theory of human motivation typically
known as Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”. The theory focuses on an individuals desire to fulfill
their needs (“Abraham Harold Maslow,” 2001). As the title suggests, Maslow believed that
these needs have an ascending order wherein the lower needs must be satisfied before the higher
71
ones can be attained. At the base, these needs are the basic essentials of survival and at the peak
is self actualization where an individual is able to attain their fullest potential. Maslow’s positive view of people was very different from the reigning Freudian system of the time. Maslow is considered the founder of the humanist theory (“Abraham Harold Maslow,” 2001). This view is scored 1.
Albert Bandura
Albert Bandura (1925-) attended the University of Iowa he was awarded M.A. and Ph.D.
degrees in psychology. He is known in the field for his social learning theory, which
incorporated both environmental factors in the form of society and cognitive factors in the form
of psychological factors. The theory suggested that behavior was a recognition and repetition of
behaviors performed by others. Bandura’s publications earned him recognition in the
psychology community and in 1974 he became the president of the American Psychological
Association and later the Western Psychological Association (“Albert Bandura,” 1997).
Bandura (2008) wrote extensively on the issue of free will. He discussed the historical
background of the issue and the current research. His understanding of individual agency is that
it was evolutionarily advantageous for individuals to be able to shape their environment and
behave unpredictably. Despite his basis in science, Bandura proposes that the resurgence of
non-agentic views of individuals is similar to the behaviorism that emerged with Skinner and
Freud. He concludes that not only do these views not accurately describe human behavior, but
they provide nothing in the way of social change. This view is scored 1.
B. F. Skinner
B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) was the major leader in the behaviorist movement. His work
focused on creating a scientific analysis of behavior and rejecting the unobservable. Operant
72
conditioning, schedules of reinforcement, and successive adaption were some of his major
contributions to the field of psychology. There use established the use of rewards and punishments to shape animals and people’s behavior. These have had application across all fields of study and have been used particularly in educational and correctional settings.
Skinner wrote a book entitled Walden II, based on the utopian society created in Walden.
The book depicted a society of individuals that was constructed on the principles of his radical behaviorism. The basis for his understanding is that individuals can be encouraged to behave in any way given the right conditions. His deterministic views were so strong that he received major backlash for not including the possibility of plasticity in behavior (Naour, 2009). This view was scored as 0.
Bruno Bettelheim
Bruno Bettelheim (1903-1990) work was largely focused on disturbed children. He applied Freud’s psychoanalysis techniques to better understand the working of children.
Bettelheim taught at Chicago University as a professor of educational psychology. His works varied across topics often focusing on children, however, he also discussed his time in concentration camps in Nazi Germany and the group behavior in extreme situations (“Bruno
Bettelheim,” 1961).
Bettelheim’s understanding of human behavior derives from a basis of anatomical determinism. His examples are in that of women’s maternal instinct. There as biological drive for women to have children. In this case the decision to have a child is not an actual choice. The only times in which this drive is suppressed is when other factors such as feminist movements suppress the natural behavior (Hacker, 2003). This view is scored as 0.
Alfred Binet
73
Alfred Binet (1857) was a French psychologist often mistaken as the inventor of the IQ.
While he did not, he did devise the first measure of intelligence. His intelligence test was
revolutionary not only to psychology, but a variety of other fields that are now able to measure
the capabilities of individuals minds. His other work included labeling a variety of forms of
memory and creating methods for measuring them (“Alfred Binet,” 1991).
Binet clearly states that he is a physical determinist. He sees the consciousness as the
mechanistic functioning of nervous system. He justifies his point in claiming that it does not
have the errors of other causes of the mind. His determinism is not only able to explain mental
processes, but also coincide with the known causal forces (Binet, 1907). This view is scored 0.
C. Lloyd Morgan
C. Lloyd Morgan (1852- 1936) was a British psychologist who was of immense
importance to the field of comparative psychology. He studied animals in their natural settings
and later studied trial-and-error learning. His work describes how animals make attempts at a
task, until it succeeds and their attempt is reinforced. Morgan’s was elected as the first
psychology Fellow of the Royal Society. He later developed precise procedures to avoid
anthropomorphism (“C. Lloyd Morgan,” 2000).
Morgan’s views were strongly based in determinism. He discussed the acts of
individuals and the very reason they have meaning. They have meaning, he believes, because
they are determined. Just as a bird pecks at a tree to get food, so too do individuals act to
achieve ends. These behaviors are not the product of the free will, but rather the determined act
by antecedent conditions. Without determinism, behavior would have no meaning (Morgan,
1905). This view is scored 0.
Carl R. Rogers
74
Carl R. Rogers (1902-1987) developed “client centered therapy” for psychoanalysis.
This system was a change from patient-doctor therapy to person-person therapy. This technique
enabled the patient to determine the time, method, and course the therapy would take. He became a founding member of the American Association for Applied Psychology and served as
president from 1944-1945 (“Carl R. Rogers,” 1962).
Rogers (1961) describes that the strongest reality many patient’s see is there free choice.
As a therapist however, he recognizes that the individual is in fact not free. The scientific
methods which he abides by assert complete determinism. Thus the individuals thoughts and
actions are not free, but rather the product of the previous thoughts and actions. For Rogers, this
is a dilemma faced by many fields of study, the individuals perceive freedom when there cannot
be. This view is scored 0.
Clark L. Hull
Clark L. Hull (1884-1952) created a theory of behavior while at Yale University. The
theory focused on the interaction between an organism and its environment. The theory focused
on other variables that occur in between a stimulus and the response. He included explanations
on how responses could be modified and strengthened according to the stimulus provided, the
length of time, and physical needs (“Clark L Hull,” 2000).
Hull’s focus was to explain behavior and motivation based on mechanistic processes.
Using the law of stimulus generalization, he was able to produce a model for learning without
including supernatural forces. The soul and free will were not necessary in order for Hull to
explain human behavior. Organisms did not have any regulation of learning within them,
learning only occurred as response to environment (Weidman, 1999). This view is scored 0.
Daniel Kahneman
75
Daniel Kahneman (1934-) is an Israeli psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in
Economics. His work centered on applying human psychology to economic decisions. The
traditional economic thought presumed individuals were rational and weighed positives and
negatives. His work showed that this was a false assumption and that when individuals were in
situations of uncertainty, they acted irrationally. Kahneman’s work began the formation of
behavioral economics, a blend of psychology and economics (“Daniel Kahneman,” 2007).
Kahneman supposes free will as a sometime thing. Individuals are rational, however, not
always and incompletely so. Kahneman supposes that rationality suppresses the natural urges
and drives. It is not able to do so always and therefore free will is not always present (Bargh,
2008). This view is scored 1.
Edward Bradford Titchener
Edward Bradford Titchener (1867-1927) was a British psychologist who studied under
Wilhelm Wundt. When he moved to the U.S. he brought the experimental techniques of his mentor. In 1904 he founded the Society of Experimental Psychologists. He strayed from
Wundt’s methods of introspective and developed very clear guidelines for studying introspection. His other areas of work focused on feeling, perception, and thought processes
(“Edward Bradford Titchener,” 1997).
Titchener believes that all of the processes of the mind can be found in the processes of the body. With all of the mental processing being ruled by the physical, there is no place for a will. He eliminates the idea from his work as even if it existed, it could not be studied using the scientific method (Ash & Woodward, 1987). This view is scored 0.
Edward L. Thorndike
76
Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949) is best known in psychology for his work in education
and his intelligence test. The intelligence test was created for the U.S. Army in WWI. He is also
known for his Law of Effect which states that any situation that is followed by a pleasurable
result will be repeated. Thorndike found this theory to be essential to how individuals learn. He
served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, New York
Academy of Sciences, and the American Psychological Association (“Edward L. Thorndike,”
1941).
Thorndike describes free will as not possible based on a scientific understanding, and yet
he proposes that the goals for which free will is meant to pursue are possible. In his writing
while he eliminates the possibility of indeterminacy, he proposes that it doesn’t particularly
matter. Free will is meant to enable people to choose to do the right thing, but those same things
can be achieved in a deterministic system (Thorndike, 1908). This view is scored 0.
G. Stanley Hall
G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) developed more rigorous techniques to apply psychological
studies in a laboratory setting. He also had a strong impact on the fields of educational and child
psychology. In 1887 he founded the American Journal of Psychology and helped found the
Journal of Applied Psychology in 1917. He is best known for his books on adolescence, as well
as his other areas of interest including psychopathology and sex (“G. Stanley Hall,” 1996).
Hall was a biological determinist. He supported education systems meant to reach the
wide variety of skills children had. This system typically focused on gender and race differences
in the capacity and ways in which children learn (Paludi, 2010). This view is scored 0.
John B. Watson
77
John B. Watson (1878-1958) was one of the leading proponents of behaviorism. He
believed introspection should be eliminated from the field and that only the observable should be
studied. Watson is perhaps best known for his work with “Little Albert” in which he displayed
how fears can be taught. This study was revolutionary in the field because it not only showed
how behaviors were learned, but how they were generalized. He covered many other topics in
his career, but his focus on child rearing and care were his most important (“John Broadus
Watson,” 1942).
Watson saw no difference between man and animal. As the founder of behaviorism, he
believed that all behavior was a response to stimuli. Human nature and free will were nothing
more than an illusion. Individuals could be intentionally conditioned certain ways, and the environment does the same to every individual (Bradshaw, 2009). This view is scored 0.
Otto Rank
Otto Rank (1884-1939) is best known for his work with Sigmund Freud and his eventual departure from his teachings. Rank believed that the cause of neurosis was the trauma caused as an individual was born. Rank is also known for his study of myths and the psychological significance they held. Rank is known also known for his influence on other leading psychologists and theories including Carl Rogers, Gestalt Psychology, and action learning (“Otto
Rank,” 1997).
Rank believed that the feeling of guilt or indebtedness was proof of free will. He saw free will as enabling an immense amount of possibilities and with each of them a sense of responsibility. Individuals will act freely, however they modify their acts to ensure they do not have a feeling of guilt (Rank, 1996). This view was scored 1.
Steven Pinker
78
Steven Pinker (1954- ) is best known for his theories of how language is obtained. He
believes it is a biological adaption and shaped by evolution. His other works focus on how
cognition works, specifically visual perception. Pinker has written several technical pieces, but
has also introduced several mainstream books discussing research on the mind, language, and
thought. He often receives great attention for challenging Noam Chomsky, while siding with
thinkers such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins (“Steven Pinker,” 1998).
Pinker (1997) opposes free will in that there can be no scientific explanation for it. If science was to look for it they would have to perhaps find randomly firing neurons that are amplified to action. This for Pinker does not satisfy the main idea of free will in that it is a cognitive decision and not a random event. Without a different understanding of free will, science will always be able to continually undermine its possibility. This view is scored 0.
William McDougall
William McDougall (1871-1938) served as a Professor of Psychology at Harvard. He
then transferred to Duke where his work focused on parapsychology. He opposed behaviorism and adopted a theory known as purposive psychology. This theory focused not on the response to stimulus, but rather behavior goal-oriented. While he is not a popular individual, his work
was influential to the development of social psychology (“William McDougall,” 1997).
McDougall (1921) takes a teleological view in his understanding of human behavior. He
asserts that psychology cannot accept there is no free will simply by the difficulty in locating its source. There seems for him a clear volition in behavior which has some source of energy that is
directed towards moral ends. This is scored as 1.
79
Geography
Geography developed during the “golden age” of exploration from the fifteenth to the
nineteenth centuries when ships became capable of travelling the globe. The field was a
conglomeration of studies including cartography, biology, and geology (Holt-Jensen, 2009).
While geography may share some of its focuses with other fields, it specifically studies places.
Apart from only studying places, the field further developed to blend the study of humanity with
the environment. As such, geography is typically divided into human geography and physical
geography. Physical geography draws much of its knowledge from the hard sciences, whereas
human geography is similar to the other soft sciences. Geographers typically locate an area with
a pattern that appears to be related to the environment and then attempt to develop an explanation
for the phenomena (Holt-Jensen, 2009). While geography may include numerous areas of study,
its primary focus is the study of places and the relation of those places to the people who live
there.
Carl Ortwin Sauer
Carl Ortwin Sauer (1889-1975) became the professor of geology and geography at
Michigan, and later a professor of geography at the University of California, Berkeley. Sauer
was a major influence for the development of geography in the U.S. including practical
applications including changes in Michigan’s destruction of pine forests. At Berkeley in 1925,
Saur wrote The Morphology of Landscape in which Sauer’s view became that of a possibilist
(Gesler,1991). While at one point a determinist, Sauer’s new view includes a human agentic
element apart from the determinism of geography. This view is scored 1.
Karl Ritter
80
Karl Ritter (1779-1859) became Professor of Geography at Berlin in 1829. Earth Science in Relation to Nature and the History of Man discussed human relationship with his environment and the critical role of geographies influence. Along with his other work on comparative geography, Ritter influenced the movement of geographic determinism within the field of geography (Gesler,1991). This view is scored 0.
Ellen Churchill Semple
Ellen Churchill Semple (1863-1932) is recognized geography for her work in the
Kentucky highlands. She also brought recognition to the field as a skilled writer and speaker.
She became a professor at the University of Chicago during the beginning of its geography program. One of her most known topics discussed the inevitable movement of Americans across the continent. Semple derived much of her influence from Friedrich Ratzel. Ratzels geographic determinism heavily influenced Semple’s basis for her work. In Influences of Geographic
Environment she describes how humans are the product of the geography. Her geographical deterministic views were pivotal in the development of geography, anthropology and sociology
(“Ellen Churchill Semple,” 1971). This view was scored 0.
Ellsworth Huntington
Ellsworth Huntington (1876-1943) traveled to Asia and the Middle East while attending
Harvard, which he later used as the foundation of his work. He focused on the influence of geography on the determination of cultures. Later he began to research climate and the influence of geography on economics. He served as President of the Association of American
Geographers in 1923 and over 29 books discussing climate and eugenics. Huntington became one of the foremost defenders of geographic determinism. His determinism later led him to
81
serve as President of the Board of Directors of the American Eugenics Society from 1934 to
1938 (Gesler,1991). This view was scored 0.
Paul Vidal de La Blache
Paul Vidal de La Blache (1845-1918) became the first Professor of Geography at the
Sorbonne. He is considered the founder of French geography and encouraged the focus of
geography to study small geographic regions. Blache both founded the Annals of Geography
and served as editor for over 25 years. Blache is also known as founding the concept of
possibilism, which became a prominent theory in geography. The possibilist belief incorporates
the influences of geography as setting barriers, but human develop emerging as a role of culture
(Gesler,1991). The possibilist belief directly opposes the foundations of geographic determinism
in that individuals are open to all possibilities. This view is scored 1.
Isaiah Bowman
Isaiah Bowman (1878-1950) received his Ph. D. in Geography from Yale in 1909 and
became a geographer and educator. He led a series of expeditions to South America to collect
data, as he believed geography must be based in both science and application. Bowman served
on the directorial boards of a variety of institutions and served as an adviser of foreign affairs to
President Roosevelt. As the director of the American Geographical Society for 20 years, he
increased the library and map collection of the society and enabled its publication, the
Geographical Review to become a leading scientific journal. With his leadership, geography
became a vital role in the post WWII era. His position on a long list of societies, advisory
committees, and universities reflects Bowmans impact on geography in America. Bowman’s
works support many of the traditional geographic views of the time, however he did not believe
that individuals were not an influential factor in the equation. As a possibilist, his influence
82
encouraged the divergence from the geographic determinism within the field (Gesler, 1991).
His views not only influenced American geography, but also encouraged the public to take part
in the pursuit of peace. This view is scored 1.
Giovanni Battista Ramusio
Giovanni Battista Ramusio (1485-1557) studied at Padua and became ambassador for the
Venetian Republic so he could travel and pursue his interest in geography. While there is little
information discussing his life work, Ramusio’s book Delle Navigationi became a top geography
book in the 16th century. The book covered ancient times up to his own travels in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The book became the leading geography book of the century and was published in several languages. The book was then used as a basis for others to write about geography, including Richard Hakluyt. Within Rumusio’s writings he enters a philosophical discussion of the importance of the will. The work covers the importance of the mind and man being able to choose to disregard his bestial nature and pursue virtue. Rumusio clearly describes his belief that man is different from other animals in that it has free will and the ability to choose
(Gesler, 1991). This view is scored 1.
William Morris Davis
William Morris Davis (1850-1934) studied at Harvard University where he became
Professor of Physical Geography from 1875 to 1912. He joined an expedition to Turkestan where he studied erosion of rain and glaciers, development of rivers and reefs, as well as the elevation of land. Davis also discussed the major features of Europe which stirred debate in the field. His work in erosion also contributed to the field of meteorology (“William Morris Davis,”
1997).
83
Davis’s characterization as a geographic determinist has been drawn from his lectures
and writings of the role of geography (Chorley, Dunn, & Beckinsale, 1973). He describes the
environment and organic life reinforcing one another in development, however an understanding
can only be developed when it is recognized that the environment shapes the development of the
inhabitants. He goes on to say the human races are determined by the geographic landscape they
develop within, which excludes the influence of free will. This view is scored 0.
Political Science
Political Science as a field was developed in the U.S. and western European
nations as a means to understand the turbulent political changes occurring. Much of its basis
derives from the founding ideologies of the Greek philosophers of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle
(Bealey et al., 1999). Political science is typically divided into a few areas of study including:
politics, the role of leaders and citizens, and differences between nations (Danker, 2003).
Politics are naturally the activities of politicians focused on activities and decisions in a political
system. The role of the leaders and citizens focuses on participation, elections, and the structure
of the government. Finally, comparative politics or international relations examine the
differences between nations and their modes of government and politics. As many of the topics
of study cannot be tested scientifically, their means for study are often derived from case studies,
ethnographic research and surveys. These studies are often based from the perspective of
democracies and republics as the field primarily exists in these political systems (Bealey et al.,
1999).
Arnold Brecht
Arnold Brecht (1884-1977) is best known for what is called Brecht’s law. This idea
focused on distributing payments equally among the states of Germany. Brecht is also well
84
known for his work Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century Political Thought.
The book bridged the gap between the old and new forms of political science. It also accepted
the possibility of external sources to develop the field further (Nelson, 1980). Brecht’s
understanding of the mind’s role in causation, varies from the typical scientific understanding.
Brecht suggests that while there are causal forces, the mind is at times able to interfere. He
suggests that the mind may seen be the cause of some of the causal chains that are observed
(Nelson, 1980). In this view, Brecht allows the agent to have control of choice and action and enables moral values to exist as well. This view is scored 1.
Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) is distinguished as the first women to be a full professor at
Princeton University. She describes labor, work, and action as existing in all political systems, however, each received different attention depending on the society. Her book “The Origins of
Totalitarianism” secured her position as a writer and scholar (“Hannah Arendt,” 1959).
Arendt describes the will as the enabling force that allows for individuals to be held responsible or praised for their actions. It is the foundation of ethical and legal systems. Her understanding of the will is mainly drawn from the works of Augustine, John Duns Scotus, and
Kant, who all believe in the freedom of the will in slightly different ways. Arendt main position is that the will enables the potential for agents to create new lines of events (Jacobitti, 1988).
This view is scored 1.
Hans Joachim Morgenthau
Hans Joachim Morgenthau (1904-1980) is one of the most respected individuals in the field of political science. He met controversy for his realistic approach to foreign policy. In particular he encouraged the U.S. to focus on self interest and not become involved in foreign
85
affairs. In his numerous books he criticized several prominent theories of the time and encouraged military preparedness. He also addressed America’s lack of focus on its foundation and encouraged a return to its fundamental beliefs. Morgenthau also directed his work at current events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and developing policies to deal with the events (“Hans
Joachim Morgenthau,” 1963).
Morgenthau’s belief system is far more complicated than many of those previously
discussed. He describes deterministic elements in order to account for human nature’s
predictability and stability. For the areas which cannot be accounted for by determinism, he
includes indeterministic elements which provide account for unpredictable events (Algosaibi,
1965). While Morgenthau clearly enables room for free will, his reasoning is based on
unexplainable events. Using indeterminism as a cause for the unexplained is a flawed line of
thought, and his primary basis of determinism will be the basis of his score of 0.
Quincy Wright
Quincy Wright (1890-1970) was one of the foremost leaders for international law and
conflict between nations. His book “The Study of War” is well recognized despite it’s
unspectacular conclusion. Wright proposes that nations not deny nor propose war, but rather
judge the situation in relation to that point in history. He is also recognized for his study of the
League of Nations, proposing that it could be effective, however with out military support it
would not (“Quincy Wright,” 1943).
Wright describes free will as being affected by coercion which makes the will appear less free. In moral matters however, he sees individuals as being free from coercion and being able
to make choices. This choice and inability to be persuaded or influenced by external factors
enables the will to act freely (Wright, 1955). For this reason, this view is scored 1.
86
Robert A. Dahl
Robert A. Dahl (1915- ) earned his Ph. D. in political science from Yale where he serves
as a professor. He is well known for writing, many of which are used as textbooks for political
science classes. These works are not only popular in America, often his focus, but have also
been translated into several other languages. Dahl has also served as the President of the
American Political Science Association (“Robert Alan Dahl,” 1995).
In Dahl’s book Democracy and It’s Critics (1989) he clearly indicates his view of
humans capability for decisions. He describes people as both metaphysical beings as metaphysically free and capable of reasoning. In this way he perceives individuals as autonomous and self-determining. They are capable of directing themselves in whatever way they choose. This view correlates to one of free will and is scored 1.
Samuel P. Huntington
Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008) is most recognized for his book The Clash of
Civilizations, which discussed the post-cold war era. His first work, The Soldier and the State:
The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military relations, received much criticism during it’s introduction, however is know a notable work. Huntington also served as the White House
Coordinator of Security Planning for the National Security Council under President Jimmy
Carter (Jaquette & Lowenthal, 2009). Huntington (1988) describes the need for the social sciences to serve as both intellectual and moral beacons. He discusses the value of democracy, liberty, and justice. In order for these principles to be met as he suggests, individuals must have a soul to choose to do good or evil. This view is scored 1.
Sarah Wambaugh
87
Sarah Wambaugh (1882-1955) is considered the world authority on plebiscites. She is
recognized for her work in the League of Nations and as an expert adviser to the Peruvian
Government for the Tacna-Arica plebiscite of 1925-26. She also served as a consultant for the
Foreign Economic Administration during WWII. While Wambaugh is noted for her applied
work, she also taught as a professor of history and government (“Sarah Wambaugh,” 1946).
Wambaugh writes extensively on the subject of national self-determination which
suggests nation be able to select internally, without external influence, the form of government
they will have. This system typically enables individuals to vote freely in elections to select the
rule they will have. The theory rests on the assumption that individuals to will act freely in their
selection of the government which will rule them. The nations are supposed to have free will,
however as the nation is composed of people and their views, the freedom must come from the
people (Wambaugh, 1919). This view is scored 1.
V. O. Key, Jr.
V. O. Key, Jr. (1908-1963) is recognized for his study of American politics as well as his
empirical approach to studying elections. His analysis of voters led him to write several books
not only analyzing electoral returns, but also addressing public opinion and the rational of voters.
Key also served as president of the American Political Science Association in 1958-1959. His
works serve as a guideline for emerging political scientists interested in making the field more
scientific (Lucker, 2001).
Key is described by some as positivist, however, a closer look at his work shows his
belief in a rejection of dualism. This rejection is further supported by his belief that individuals
are capable of considering their own interest and the interest of those around them. These
88
individuals can then make rational choices and vote accordingly (Black & Reed, 1984). This
view is scored 1.
Sociology
Sociology is considered the scientific study of social structure. It studies both societies
and their influence on individuals as well as the influence of individuals on the whole of society
(Shepard, 2010). The field is divided into two main divisions, with multiple sub divisions within
each of those. The two main divisions include macrosociology and microsociology.
Macrosociology studies the societies as a whole as well as the societal structures and groups
within a larger society. Microsociology studies people and their relation to the greater social
structures within which they live and work. Sociology developed in the mid 18th century from
thinkers such as Adam Smith attempting to grapple with the constantly changing and evolving
social systems of the time (Shepard, 2010).
C. Wright Mills
C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) was an American sociologist known for his controversial
works discussing social class. His works not only discussed the middle class, but the elite class
of the country which perpetuated its control. Mills is recognized not only as being a leading
sociologist, but also a social critic. His accomplishments are also recognized for the brief period
in which they were completed, as Mills died at the age of 45 (“C. Wright Mills,” 1996).
Mills supports the theory of agency for individuals. While they are bound by some
forces, these forces can change or disappear opening new choices for individuals to select from.
He sees individuals as full of conscious thought that is capable of making voluntary acts
(Brewer, 2003). This view is scored 1.
Charles Horton Cooley
89
Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929) was a founding member and president of the
American Sociological Association. He is credited with the development of the looking glass
self, a theory describing and individuals development apart from the social structure within
which they develop. Cooley served as a professor of sociology at Michigan University where he
developed his theories of social psychology, a now well developed field (“Charles Horton
Cooley,” 2000).
Cooley rejects determinism on the basis that he perceives individuals as developing
organisms which not only receive influence but give it. His organic view of freedom suggests
that it is dangerous to support absolute freedom as a person cannot achieve something they have
not worked towards, and thus freedom should be regarded as the ability to be creative. Cooley
also specifically rejects fatalism as a dangerous position that disregards an individuals creativity
(Cooley, 1918). This view is scored 1.
Daniel Bell
Daniel Bell (1919-2011) was an American sociologist whose works focused on post-
industrial development. Two of his books were ranked in the top 100 most influential books
since WWII. Bell also predicted the computer revolution and discussing the failure of
ideologies to be useful in the developing time. The majority of his work focused on using
sociology to make predictions about society and politics (“Daniel Bell,” 1980).
Bell finds difficulty in resolving idealism and determinism. Later he challenges radical
determinist viewpoints. He suggests that the sciences measure predictable elements, whereas
individuals being the study of social sciences are free and unpredictable, which marks the
distinction in the sciences. While society is able to avoid the restraints of natural determinism, it
90
is left to subjectivity (Brick, 1986). Bells views rejecting determinism and support of free will
classify him as 1.
Emile Durkheim
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was a French sociologist who is considered the founder of
modern sociology. His work on the autonomy of societies is considered highly influential to the
field and is noted as one of the leaders of the structuralist movement. He also focused on
creating a more scientific means of studying society. Durkheim wrote many prominent books,
and discussed the structure of developed and undeveloped societies. While there was solidarity
in undeveloped societies, developed nations were highly intertwined in a form of organic unity
(“Emile Durkheim,” 1996).
Durkheim believes that sociology does not need to take as stance between free will and
determinism, however it must accept the causal forces. The causal forces, which are prevalent in
all other sciences must be included as a natural result of induction. He acknowledges the
findings of the physical sciences, biological sciences, and psychological sciences encouraging
the assumption of no free will. While Durkheim supports the findings of the sciences, he
proposes that he it cannot be known whether the causal link excludes all other possibilities
(Durkheim & Lukes, 1982). This position receives a score of 0.
Gabriel Tarde
Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904) is a French criminologist recognized as one of the founders of
social psychology. He varied from Durkheim’s belief of social facts and believed that social
phenomena were the result of interactions between individuals and the repetition of behavior.
He saw social behaviors as reducible to their elements. Tarde’s beliefs are now mainly used as a
91
historical pieces, however his work provided the beginnings for criminology and social theories
(“Gabriel Tarde,” 1998).
Tarde saw individuals as imitators of those around them. To him, society was bound by
the laws of imitation and not the free will of the individual. He stated that religious ideologies,
legal views, and moral values were all derived from previous individual’s behaviors. He
proposed that imitation was the basis of the beginning of society. He saw free will as a useless
explanation when imitation could describe the same events (Morrison, 2006). This perspective
was scored 0.
Jean Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard (1929- ) is recognized as a leading postmodernist. He received his Ph.
D. in sociology from the University of Paris in 1966. Baudrillard’s numerous books have
received criticism for their radical views, particularly his support of Marxist ideas. He then
developed his ideas into a post-industrial theory, which causes the inevitable collapse of reality.
He denies the rational order of events and believes that reality is developed in the form of media
(“Jean Baudrillard,” 1993).
Baudrillard perceives free will as an illusion that blinds individuals of the true influences
of their behaviors. He describes the idea of free will as a way to add meaning to life and to
enable individuals to feel as though they have control over the events that occur. For
Baudrillard, individuals can act without the need for a will to be the cause of action (Baudrillard,
2005). While it appears that they are the cause, truly they are the product of the influences on
their biological form. This view is scored 0.
Lester Frank Ward
92
Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913) is considered the “Founder of American Sociology”. His
book “Dynamic Sociology” is said to have been the beginning of American Sociology. The
book proposed a social science based on science and focused on planned society which provided
education, freedom from poverty, and happiness. His later works were fundamental textbooks in
the developing sociology degrees. Ward later became an advisory editor for the Journal of
American Sociology (“Lester Frank Ward,” 1985).
Ward discusses in detail the historic view of free will as similar to wishing. While
individuals may act a certain way, he believes the old doctrine of the will supposes that men may
not only have wished to do otherwise, but indeed may have done otherwise regardless of external and internal influences. For Ward this is a dilemma as it eliminates the ability for scientific prediction and study. For him, the studies of humans become meaningless if free will exists as there would be no pattern but rather a random occurrence of wills. As he sees it, there is a predictablility to human behavior and this predictability eliminates the possibility of the will
(Ward, 1903). This view was scored 0.
Mary Parker Follett
Mary Parker Follett (1968-1933) is recognized for her work as a social worker and developing the idea of reciprocal relationships. Her work was initially unrecognized, however, it’s reprinting gained it recognition for its influence in the development of the humanization of the workplace. Follett’s proposed that the competition between labor and management would only lead to conflict, and unification was needed. Her work influenced not only the field of sociology, but the organizational development (“Mary Parker Follett,” 1971).
Follett views free will as a product of the social process because within it, it provides the means for which the will can be expressed. She perceives the will being free based on her belief
93
that she is not controlled by the whole, because she is the whole and she is not controlled by
others because it is an intermingling of thoughts and not a domination of one over another. She
further states that there is no will other than action, and thus the expression of free will is in the
action an individual takes (Follett, 1920). This view scores a 1.
Max Weber
Max Weber (1864-1920) was a German sociologist who is one of the founders of
sociology. He recognized that there could be no objectivity to the nature of the social science;
however, he attempted to minimize confusion by using a strict methodological approach in his
writing. His most notable work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” addressed the
ethical background for the development of the modern economic system and social order.
Weber’s later works address issues in a variety of fields, but his influence to sociology is most
notable (“Max Weber,” 1997).
Weber is often perceived as rejecting determinism, however his beliefs in causality are
based on the functions of probability. This view does not support any assumption of free will or unpredictability, but rather on the difficulty in accounting for the immense amount of possibilities. For Weber, the only time it appears that individuals are completely unpredictable is in the case of the mentally insane. For all other individuals, the feeling of freedom derives from the conscious awareness of actions and giving rise to subjective freedom. Weber concludes that the best option is to follow all of the known causal chains that influence an individuals actions
(Coser, 1977). This view is scored 0.
Robert E. Park
Robert E. Park (1864-1944) is recognized creator of the Chicago school of sociology.
Here he implemented his model of participant observation methods. Park is also known as the
94
founder of urban sociology. His other works focused on race relations, which discussed the
assimilation of immigrants into the culture of the U.S (“Robert Ezra Park,” 1997).
Park derives his views from meetings with different cultures, particularly Japanese where
the ideas they expressed were as though he was discussing with an American. These meetings led him to support ecological determinism. His foundation of natural processes enabled him to conclude that while races and cultures die, civilizations continue on. In doing so, the focus on differences between race and cultures will be eliminated (Ross, 1991). This view is scored 0.
Robert K. Merton
Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) is recognized as the founder of the sociology of science.
He blended abstract theories with empirical data. He refined models of self-fulfilling prophecy,
role models, and social dysfunctions to name a few. Mertons work also revolutionized the use of focus groups which are now central to the political and market research. His focus on socially deviant behavior was praised in multiple works and earned him further recognition as a sociologist (“Robert King Merton,” 1965).
Merton critiqued science as having declared influence on society and yet never acknowledging the reciprocal affect of society on science. He saw science as based on based on meeting the need of technology and economics which created bias within the institution. For
Merton, science was ignoring certain aspects, particularly that of society and the individuals forming it and thus rejected deterministic views. He believed the sciences should include the moral values of the society and in order for it to be truly effective (Merton, 1998). This rejection of determinism is scored 1.
Talcott Parsons
95
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) is recognized for his development of action theory and for
introducing Max Weber’s work to American audiences. He attempted to create a single
framework for the field of sociology combing both European models and American empirical
models. This attempt emphasized his desire to create a unifying theory in the field of sociology,
which he felt it lacked. The varying theories prevented the field from developing a
methodological and scientific approach to the study of society (“Talcott Parsons,” 1961).
In Parsons early work he believed in voluntarism, yet as he developed he strived for a
more objective basis. He rejects mechanical determinism, but views structure as influencing the
individuals in what is considered cultural determinism. The individual does not influence the
society, but rather the society determines the person (Levine, 2010). This view is scored 0.
William Julius Wilson
William Julius Wilson (1935- ) is considered the authority of American intercity low
socio-economic class. He has written three prominent books and has been used as a consultant
for the mayor of Chicago and President Clinton. His beliefs were met with controversy as he
discussed the declining importance of race, and its replacement with social and economic
inequality. Wilson also served as president of the American Sociological Association and has
received wide recognition and awards for his work (“William Julius Wilson,” 1996).
Wilson views culture as adding meaning and to the understanding of human behavior.
With meaning, comes the rejection of the simple determined responses. Wilson attempts to
discuss culture without including a deterministic element as to avoid denying meaning and
purpose for decisions and actions. In particular he is concerned that following a deterministic
view, individuals in poverty will be seen as abnormal or lacking in certain capacities (Choi et al.,
1995). This view is scored 1.
96
Law
Law is the system of rules and guidelines that shape many facets of society and includes
the enforcement of the guidelines. Laws can be traced back to the beginning of civilizations.
Many of its foundations are found in religions as these formed the moral code individuals were
expected to abide by (Walston-Dunham, 2009). As many of the individuals studied derive from
American and European courts, focus will be directed to these areas. The origin of American
law began with the naturalist theory. This assessed that every individual innately held the
knowledge of what was right and wrong. Once the nation developed further, several main areas
as the source of law developed including: statutory law and judicial law. Statutory laws are
created by legislature or congress, while judicial law is the interpretation of law and at times the
creation of legal standards. The purpose of laws is widely debated as it often includes the
elements of naturalistic theory. Regardless, law serves as the standard for behavior, and its enforcement is used to punish or shape the behavior of citizens (Walston-Dunham, 2009).
Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy (1936- ) is the 104th Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He
served as a professor of constitutional law and as a federal appellate judge. Kennedy is
considered a conservative, however, he has taken bipartisan positions on several issues. He
earns respect for focusing on issues pertaining to a single case and respecting precedent
(“Anthony M. Kennedy,” 1988). Kennedy believes that liberty is based on the belief that
individuals have autonomy. If left free, they will make decisions of action, thought, and belief as
a free agent. He supports this idea of liberty in his decisions (Savage, 2004). This view is scored
1.
Anthonin Scalia
97
Anthonin Scalia (1936- ) is currently the longest serving Associate justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court. He was nominated by President Reagan, and is viewed as the anchor for the
conservative wing. He served as a lawyer in a firm, before entering the University of Virginia as
a professor. Scalia attempts to make decisions based on the understanding of the constitution as
it was written (“Antonin Scalia,” 2010).
Scalia presents an open view of determinism, however, believes it cannot be fully proven.
When discussing the use of the term mental abnormality, he believes that it is defined by lack of
control. This implies that people normally have control to change and behave differently. While
he acknowledges in some cases such as the mentally abnormal, people have no control; those
who are not, have control (Faigman, 2004). This view is scored 1.
Catharine A. MacKinnon
Catharine A. MacKinnon (1946- ) is known as a lawyer and feminist. Until Meritor
Savings Bank v. Vinson, the U.S. Supreme Court had not faced a sexual harassment case.
MacKinnon served as cocounsel and defended the position that sexual harassment was a form of
discrimination. The court voted unanimously in her favor bringing sexual harassment into the
focus of the legal field. MacKinnon next major undertaking was pornography and attempting to
legislate morality, which has been met with some disagreement (“Catharine A. MacKinnon,”
1994).
MacKinnon’s views are strongly motivated by essentialism and determinism. While
these may be competing views they exclude free will. MacKinnon’s work primarily focuses on
describing the lack of freedom for women, in that their actions and beliefs are determined by
men and the world men created (Smart, 1989). This view is scored 0.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
98
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935) served as an Associate Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court. He is known as “The Great Dissenter” for regularly dissenting against majority
decisions. He challenged the traditional notions of the time by declaring the U.S. constitution to
be an experiment. His opinions clearly supported this idea as he proposed that free speech
should be always be permitted unless there is clear danger (“Oliver Wendell Holmes,” 1993).
Holmes is a determinist in his views of human behavior. He does not doubt that an individual who commits a crime is unable to do otherwise. Holmes justifies punishing people in the necessity to prevent others from breaking the law. He sees the threat of potential punishment as a deterrent for others, but leaves the other individual as the subject of bad circumstances (Pinker, 2003). This view is scored 0.
Roger Brooke Taney
Roger Brooke Taney (1777-1864) served as Chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He is best known for his decision in the Dred Scott Case. He ruled that African Americans were not considered U.S. citizens and therefore could not sue. The case became monumental with the onset of the Civil War. His unpopularity grew as he challenged Abrahams Lincoln (“Roger
Brooke Taney,” 1994).
Taney draws on the racial determinism of the time for his decision the Dred Scott Case.
As he understood the founders and as he understood the science of the time, African Americans were perceived as inferior and not capable of becoming U.S. citizens (Faigman, 2004). His reliance on science and belief in racial determinism excludes free will. This view is scored 0.
Sir Mathew Hale
Sir Mathew Hale (1609-1676) is known for his work on English common law and his impartiality. He is particularly recognized as not accepting of bribes and prone to unpopular
99
decisions even during Britain’s civil war. Hale is also credited law reform that led to restoring
Charles II to the throne (“Sir Matthew Hale,” 2011).
Hale considered the implications of the science that suggested individuals as
mechanisms. His work following these ideas focused on making God more than creating
machines that had no choice of there own. If people were only machines, either naturally or
morally, then their actions would be nothing more than predetermined responses. He rejects this
notion and searched for a spirit that was free (Cromartie, 1995). This view is scored 1.
William Brennan
William Brennan (1906-1997) served as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
He was considered liberal in his views and believed the constitution to be a living document. His
long tenure on the court enabled him to contribute to decisions on abortion, free speech, and
religion in public schools. He is well known for writing the opinion of Baker v. Carr. Brennan’s
legacy is also strongly attached to his desire to outlaw the death penalty, though the court never
accepted his opinion (“William J. Brennan,” 2000). Brennan’s views are similar to that of Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr. Brennan does not fear the implications of determinism rather he accepts
them (Pinker, 2003). This view is scored 0.
William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist (1924-2005) served as 16th chief justice of the United States Supreme
Court after serving as an Associate Justice for fourteen years. Rehnquist served as a lawyer
before his position and is considered a conservative judge. He upheld the death penalty and
believed the 14th amendment was being applied too broadly. Rehnquist is known as one of the
longest serving justices and for his views in limiting federal power (“William H. Rehnquist,”
2003).
100
Rehnquist may be considered a Hobbesian. He views people as subject to their human
nature and the influences of their environment and society. As individuals are subject to these
external influences, everyone is a potential lawbreaker. A strong police force can maintain order
by being an opposing force to the natural whims and influences that may cause illegal activity
(Cummings, 2001). This view is scored 0.
Philosophy
Philosophy is considered the activity of questioning. It is derived from a Greek word
meaning “love of wisdom” (Warburton, 1999). Philosophers examine the fundamental questions
at the basis of knowledge. These questions examine god, morals, knowledge, truth, etc. Often at
the foundation of these questions is deriving the meaning of existence. The development of
philosophy is often traced back to the Greek philosophers of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Their
techniques are still studied as the basis of modern philosophy. Modern philosophy still addresses
many of the same questions as agreement is rarely found. There are numerous sub-fields of
philosophy often defined by the basis of logical arguments. Philosophy is found at the basis of
many modern studies as questioning is the purpose of most forms of academia (Warburton,
1999).
Alfred North Whitehead
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) is best known for co-authoring Principia
Mathematica with Bertrand Russell. This book is considered to be influential to logic and
analytic philosophy. His philosophical focus began after the Newtonian Physics were challenged
by Einstein. Whitehead focused on Platonic views and the metaphysical. The world of space
and time were abstractions that emerged as a quality of nature, but were not elements of it
(“Alfred North Whitehead,” 1996).
101
Whitehead (1925) rejects materialism in favor of a transcendent understanding of
organisms. This theory describes the organism as the self-determining agent. Any material that
passes within the being follows the nature of the being, including the mind. This view enables
free will and eliminates the deterministic understanding. This view is scored 1.
Benedict de Spinoza
Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677) is known for “Ethics” which discusses morality. He
derives his philosophy from Descartes, however rejected the concept of Cartesian dualism.
Spinoza proposed singular infinite substance. Perceived limitations are only the failures and
illusions of the senses. He denies immortality and supports determinism. He also addresses natural rights and the need to yield some to enter into a state. The state exists then to secure and protect liberty, not to withhold it (“Benedictus de Spinoza,” 1996).
Spinoza’s point of view is that God has determined the natural laws. All events are the product of events that have occurred prior, which naturally leads to an infinite regress. For
Spinoza, even the will of god is unable to intervene in the natural course of events. Therefore, while individuals may feel they can choose or attempt to change the course of events, even their feelings and attempts are predetermined to have occurred (Charleton, 2008). This view is scored
0.
Denis Diderot
Denis Diderot (1713-1784) is known as a French philosopher and encyclopedist. He is recognized as one of the most prominent minds of the enlightenment, though some of his work is only recently gaining interest. His work in philosophy reflected on free will, but his views were materialistic and determined. Diderot’s work was rooted in experimentation and probabilities
(“Denis Diderot,” 1967).
102
Diderot struggles to incorporate the moral element into beings of material physiology.
Eventually he concludes that the world is determined by the laws of matter and this excludes the
possibility of free will. With this foundation, society can create a system which encourages
behaviors that are beneficial to the whole, but man can not be a moral creature (Crowther, 2010).
This view is scored 0.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher and poet. His works are
considered controversial for criticism of Christianity, politics, philosophy, and science as well as
his well known statement “God is dead”. He is also recognized for his concept of the
Ubermensch, the ultimate goal of humanity. Nietzsche’s work were not widely recognized until
his mind began to deteriorate. Following his death, his work found interest within the Nazi
military and was distributed to soldiers (“Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche,” 1967).
Nietzsche argues against free will stating that a free agent would have to be self-causing, however, because individuals are caused their can be no free will. He sees the idea of an agent with free will and responsibility as the product of society trying to move man from animal
behavior into a civilized person (Spinks, 2003). He further disregards moral and religious values
for their fundamental flaws on the understanding of human behavior. This view is scored 0.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher who taught at
the University of Berlin and was considered the leading philosopher of his time. He has been
compared to the Reformation for his influence in religion, philosophy, politics, and literature.
The center of his thought derives from Plato’s dialectic though, in which everything develops as
103
an evolution with both a positive and a negative. This theory encompassed his work as
everything was formed on the basis of this principle (“Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,” 1967).
Hegel defines the difference between the will and the free will. The free will exhibits itself when it wills itself. In this instance for Hegel, the will is no longer subject to the influence
of nature. Simply willing an action is not acceptable as an individual will be unaware of the
forces of necessity. A will that wills itself, however, determines the multitude of possibilities
and sees itself as truly free to make them (Hegel, 1833/2008). This view is scored 1.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a mathematician and philosopher. His
contribution to mathematics include the creation of calculus, while in philosophy he is
recognized as a prominent rationalist. His work in mathematics enabled him to develop a system
of symbolic logic. Leibniz also is credited with his work on “monads” and their combinations to
eventually form God. Leibniz also served as president of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in
Berlin (“Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,” 1997).
Leibniz appears to prescribe a system similar to that of Spinoza. While he claims there is
free will, his system is deterministic. The only space he leaves room to allow free will in is that
even if an individual knows all of the laws of physics, they cannot know what will happen in the
future as there is no way to account for the metaphysical. Despite this, Leibniz redefines free
will as being an act that cannot be known and not being caused by an autonomous agent
(Kavanaugh, (2007). His redefinition appears to be an attempt to justify his determinism. This
view is scored 0.
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
104
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) is one of the best examples of the German
enlightenment. Much of his work centered on literature and drama. His work in philosophy
centered on the problem of religious miracles. As there can be no proof, other than historical,
they cannot be used to prove the metaphysical realm. Lessing changed focus of work, and
eventually settled on theological controversies and attempting to solve the dilemmas (“Gotthold
Ephraim Lessing,” 1967).
Lessing rejects causal necessity, but in turn accepts moral necessity. In his discussion
with Jacobi he states that he does not mind the implications of determinism. He thanks God that
he must follow the moral codes established. In his moral determinism he recognizes that
regardless the situation, he will always choose the most moral, eliminating any freedom from the
choice. (Lessing, 2005). This view is scored 0.
Henri Bergson
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher who became famous for his
lectures and speeches. In 1914 he declared that WWI was a struggle between “civilization and
barbarism”. His works focused on intuition as a better source of knowledge than science. He
opposed the Darwinian theory of the time and also challenged prominent philosophers such as
Russell. In 1927 he won the Nobel Prize in Literature and became an influential individual for
many of the century’s thinkers and writers (“Henri Bergson,” 1996).
Bergson lays forth an extremely complicated view of how free will exists. He proposes
that our perception of reality is flawed . Just because the world appears to be caused in many cases does not exclude the cases where it is not caused. Bergson also objects to physical determinism in that the laws of mechanics can be reversed. Humans gain something in their
experience in the form of memories which can not be reversed. He further argues a point of
105
different forms of time, where time and space do not flow evenly and enables free will to take
action (Bergson, 1889/1913). This view is scored 1.
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher who served as a professor of
philosophy at Konigsberg. His most noted piece of work, Critique of Pure Reason, which
supported physics as a real science. It challenged many traditional views that there were true
forms of knowledge. He maintained that knowledge could only be obtained by experience and
sensations. Despite being elected as a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences and of St.
Petersburg Academy, he never received any awards for his work (“Immanual Kant,” 1967).
Kant (1979/1798) accepted the dilemma of a causal universe and the free will. His view
is based on the knowledge that any individual who presupposes their freedom must have it and
that there is no proof that there cannot be free will. At this point, no data could be provided to
show that individuals could not make autonomous decisions. Kant’s use of non-natural qualities
to explain human behavior, regardless of contention, enables him to apply free will to human
behavior. This view is scored 1.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a French writer and philosopher who was of
significance during the French revolution. His works focused on the rights of people over the
government as well as supporting equality, justice, freedom, and rejecting property. He fled
France due to the reactions against his writings. While his works lack a coherent basis, he is
recognized as one of the most influential writers in history (“Jean-Jacques Rousseau,” 1967).
Rousseau supports freedom in that man is an autonomous agent. While animals and
machines are bound by nature, man is metaphysically free and able to choose. He does concede,
106
however, that there are some forms of freedom man does not have, such as when he enters into a
society (Wolker, 1995). The metaphysical nature of the will however enables Rousseau’s man to have free will. This view is scored 1.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French philosopher and novelist who won the Nobel
Prize in Literature, but refused the award. Sartre is known in philosophy as a leader in French existentialism and Marxism. His literature and philosophy dominated French thinking for nearly
25 years until it was eventually overtaken by structuralism. Sartre is recognized for both his philosophy and attempt to become a Marxist as well as his skills as a writer (“Jean Paul Sartre,”
1996).
Sartre rejects determinism in that if man was wholly determined consciousness would cease to exist. He proposes that man exists and then defines himself. In doing so, man is not bound by human nature or any other determining factors as he makes himself what he wants to
be. He is classified as an existentialist in that there is no god determining man’s nature and there
is free will (Webber, 2009). This view is scored 1.
John Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) is recognized as one of the most important English
philosophers. He is also credited as the founder of epistemology. For Locke, the mind was
automatically assumed, a point from which all other things could be analyzed. He did not
attempt to account for the origins of the mind, but assumed it and made all discussion of
knowledge based on this point. Locke is also known for his idea of the blank slate in which the
mind contains no knowledge at birth, but is rather gained through self-reflection (“John Locke,”
1952).
107
Locke’s understanding of the will is that of soft determinism. His view is of both
causality and volition. Locke seems to redefine free will similar to Hobbes. His understanding is
that a man is free if he is doing what he wants, apart from external influence (Rickaby, 1906).
Within this definition, individuals are free, however as he believes the mind is created on causal
factors, even preferences are determined. This view is scored as 0.
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a British philosopher whose works influenced the
realms of politics, society, and especially economics. On Liberty discussed the power that
society can hold over citizens and the freedom individuals to do anything so long as they did not
harm others. He also discusses the importance of proportional representation, as true
democracies are not rule by individuals, but ruled by everyone else. Mill’s works are continued
to be used for free markets, utilitarianism, and feminism (“John Stuart Mill,” 1998).
Mill maintains a doctrine of determinism based on a mechanistic understanding of the
world. He proposes that molecules are random or ordered. If random, then they do nothing for
explaining bodily processes and if they are ordered they eliminate freedom. For Mill volitions
are the product of motives, which are subject to antecedent states (Whitehead, 1925). This view
is scored 0.
Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky (1928- ) is a linguist, philosopher, and political activist. His impact on
modern philosophy has been compared to Darwin and Descartes. His philosophy rejects the
modern empiricism, and is more closely compared to rationalism. He believes that the mind has
innate ideas that are beyond the study of science to uncover. Chomsky has also received
108
attention for his political activism, opposing the Vietnam War, and claiming that the U.S. is more
concerned with self interest than establishing democratic values (“Noam Chomsky,” 1995).
Chomsky describes his view of free will as similar to that of Descartes. He believes there
is not a scientific grasp of what free will is and while it may be an illusion, he does not see any
reason for it to be. Science would have to provide extremely compelling evidence to convince
him otherwise on such an obvious truth (Chomsky & Otero, 2003). This view is scored 1.
Rene Descartes
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was a French philosopher and mathematician who set out to
find truth. He believed that in order to do so all preconceived notions had to be disregarded and
a basis of logic and science had to be applied. His most famous work, Discourse on Method,
explored the notion of truth. His later work, Meditations, and his development of the Cartesian
plane in mathematics earned him popularity as a leading European philosopher. His fame
eventually earned him an invitation to tutor the Queen of Sweden, where he grew ill and died
(“Rene Descartes,” 1993).
Descartes (1988) declares “I think therefore I am”, which he then correlates to existence.
The ability to question existence leads him to conclude that there is free will. He also
understands, however, that the body is governed by the laws of physics and thus there can be no
free will unless there is an external agent, unbound by the laws of physics. Descartes finds this
interaction between the mind and soul in the pineal gland. The mind, with free will and the
power of decision making, interacts with the body to give individuals thought and action. This
view is scored 1.
Thomas Hobbes
109
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher whose reputation was much
greater abroad than in England. His work was based in a physical understanding, which he
focused on at the base and built up. In Leviathan, he discussed the individual first and later
addressed the structures deriving from the individual. He rejected the individualist notions of the
Renaissance and proposed that an individual’s duty was to the government, whatever it declared.
Hobbes influenced Spinoza and Leibniz and remained one of the most influential individuals
until Darwin (“Thomas Hobbes,” 1952)
Hobbes rejects the traditional view of free will and redefines freedom as doing what one
wishes. His view is based on an understanding of material causality and determinism.
Individuals who act could not have acted otherwise. Their behavior was determined by the
situation they are placed in and their nature, none of which are controlled by them (Rickaby,
1906). This view is scored 0.
Economics
Economics is considered the science of scarcity. It draws resources from a variety of
fields such as history and mathematics to make predictions (Baumol & Blinder, 2009). These
predictions are largely based in theory as the unit of measure, typically human behavior, is too
complex to make predictions on a large scale. In order to account for the vast amount of
variables, assumptions are made about human behavior. These are typically broad
generalizations to determine how individuals or groups of individuals will behave (Louca, 2007).
Economics is often reduced to microeconomics and macroeconomics to describe individual
decision making and entire economies respectively. Economics also analyzes markets between
nations as well as the political and legal systems within which they develop. Economics not only
110
analyzes scarcity and money, but often includes policies for which to apply the models (Baumol
& Blinder, 2009).
Alan Greenspan
Alan Greenspan (1926- ) served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006.
The position is considered the second most important position in the U.S. government as the
Federal Reserve presides over money supply and is responsible for protecting against inflation
and controlling economics growth. Greenspan opposed government intervention in economics
and supported deregulation. He is recognized as a well known economist for handling “Black
Monday”, the economic boom of the 1990’s, and has been criticized as enabling policies which
led to the housing collapse in 2008 (“Alan Greenspan,” 2009).
Greenspan follows the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While he acknowledges that patterns
emerge and individuals have certain limitations, the philosophy he holds is that of free will.
Individuals have the choice to think or not. They are active contributors to their environment
and are capable of making autonomous decisions (Greenspan, 2007). This view is scored 1.
Alfred Marshall
Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) was a British Economist who is considered one of the
founders of neoclassical economics. He founded the Cambridge School of Economics, which
became the source of many influential economists including Keynes. The Principles of
Economics became the most influential text in British economics. He combines the theories of
supply and demand, marginal utility, and production cost (“Alfred Marshall,” 1998).
Marshall focuses on two factors to account for human behavior, evolution and
mechanical determinism. His system accounted for the genetic basis of the individual as well as
the interaction of the individual in the society. While deterministic, Marshall’s view was
111
optimistic and promoted raising the poverty level to improve the entire system (Fouraker, 1958).
This view is scored 0.
Amartya Sen
Amartya Sen (1933- ) is an Indian economist who pioneered the field of welfare
economics. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 for his work. He developed
more advanced methods of measuring poverty which has been implemented in the United
Nations Human Development Index. Sen has taught at the London School of Economics and
Harvard. He is acknowledged for having developed social choice models and drawing attention
to the poor (“Amartya Kumar Sen,” 2002).
Sen explored some philosophical ideas in his writings. While exploring free will, he sees
individuals as autonomous agents capable of making choices that oppose their well being. While
individuals often appear to be bound by determinism, their choices are not. Choices can be made on the basis of their conception of good, which many times seems a rationally determined choice, and other times not (Sen, 1985). This view is scored 1.
Carl Menger
Carl Menger (1840-1921) was an Austrian Economist who developed marginal utility analysis with William Stanley Jevons and Leon Walras. He is also considered one of the founders of neoclassical economics. Menger also founded the Austrian School of economics which has developed a strong reputation based on his work. The school and his students have produced many known economists. His book The Principles of Economics, became fundamental within the field not only as a development of economic thought, but a review of historical economics (“Carl Menger,” 1998).
112
Menger holds some views that may be considered deterministic, particularly in his
methods. He does, however, still hold that individuals have free will. He believes that human’s
have metaphysical and biological needs that must be met to survive, however, individuals are not
determined by them (Menger, 1883/1985). They have the potential to choose otherwise. This
view is scored 1.
Irving Fisher
Irving Fisher (1867-1927) is considered the greatest American economist. He applied
physics and mathematics in his work making him America’s first economic mathematician.
Fisher further developed an analytical method which he applied to economics and statistics. He served as President of the American Economic Association in 1918 and founded the
Econometric Society in 1930. His influence is still seen in many of modern neoclassical models as well as monetary models (“Irving Fisher,” 1998).
Fisher (1892/2007) based his view of human behavior on mathematics and a mechanistic understanding which led to the development of econometrics. His view of individuals being causally determined by their desires eliminates the potential for free will. This view is scored 0.
John Kenneth Galbraith
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) was a Canadian-American economist who gained
popularity through his many books and articles. His most famous American Capitalism, The
Affluent Society, and The New Industrial State were the most popular of his nearly 50 books.
Gailbrath was a Keynesian whose work influenced the nature of American politics as he served for several democratic U.S. presidents. Aside from his work in politics, Galbraith was a professor of economics at Harvard University (“John Kenneth Galbraith,” 1975).
113
Galbraith argues against the compatabilist view that individuals can have free will and
still be influenced by external events. He believes the desires and characters of people are
formed by social influences. He explains the instances of the manipulation of these influences in
two cases. He claims manipulation of these forces by the government to be social engineering,
and when it is done by business it is considered advertising. He further explains that choices
only caused by psychological factors are free, whereas all others are not (Guilfoy, 2010). This
view is scored 0.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) was a British economist who is known for
international influence. He opposed the Treaty of Versailles and supported the full employment
theory. He served as the financial advisor to the British treasury and became vice-president of
the World Bank and fund. Keynes policies have been implemented by western democracies for
the last 60 years. He opposed laissez faire and encouraged government involvement and welfare
policies. While Keynesian economics have been central to policy making such as FDR’s welfare
programs, the theories are now being reexamined (“John Maynard Keynes,” 1996).
Keynes view was similar to that of Fisher. For Keynes, chance was a determining factor
in the effects that occurred. While chance was at the heart, the hard sciences are able to describe
functions in terms of probability. Keynes was an economic determinist who saw humans as
animals and bound by the same influences (1920/2007). Humans were subject to the influences
of factors and chance, none of which were accounted for by free will. This view is scored 0.
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman (1912-2006) is an American economist recognized for his support of
free markets. His ideas have been central to the development of Chicago’s School of
114
Economics. He became an advisor for President Nixon and earned the Nobel Prize in economics in 1987. Friedman opposes Keynesian theory, supporting deregulation, elimination of social security and minimum wage. He supported simple economic models that were effective at
prediction. His name is one of the most important in economics in the 20th century (“Milton
Friedman,” 1987).
Friedman is viewed as a positivist and a determinist. He recognizes that many
circumstances about individuals are factors that are out of there control. In Friedman’s
conception, free acts are those that are not directly and intentionally influenced by outside
sources (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Within this understanding there is no reason to
rationalize a free will as the influence behind action is based on factors uncontrollable an agent.
This view is scored 0.
Paul Samuelson
Paul Samuelson (1915-2009) is an American economist known as the writer of the best
selling economic text Economics: An Introductory Analysis. He served as a professor at MIT and
developed the economic program to prominence. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in
1970 and served as an advisor to President Kennedy and Johnson. Samuelson served as president
of the American Economic Association and the Econometric Society. He revolutionized areas of
economics such as utility maximization by providing a means of measurement. His use of analytic economics in his book Foundations of Economic Analysis has made it a standard textbook (“Paul A. Samuelson,” 1987).
Samuelson’s work focused on using mathematical principles to explain the neoclassical
economics of the period. He became a main supporter of Cartesian economics, based on the
ideas of Descartes. His conception of human behavior was that they are all rational and
115
considered the same principles for decision making. In this system, external influences do not
matter, and individuals make autonomous decisions (Hum, 2002). This view is scored 1.
William Stanley Jevons
William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) was the first to treat logic as a form of mathematics.
He is perhaps best known for the creation of the Logical Abbacus which is considered an early
ancestor of the computer. In economics, he wrote several influential books. His most notable idea was the theory of marginal utility. Marginal utility states that as quantity of a good increase, its benefit decreases. The Theory of Political Economy, served as his most influential book
discussing his theory of marginal utility and the business cycle (“William Stanley Jevons,”
2003).
Jevons holds similar views to that of John Stewart Mills. He saw the natural laws as capable of explaining human behavior. While he holds true to this belief, he also acknowledges the limits of measurement and the inability to accurately account for all variables. As people are bound by an immense amount of influences, Jevons uses averages to account for behavior (Maas,
2005). This view is scored 0.
History
History is often considered the recording of events; however it cannot be defined so simply. Historians do not record history, but rather write about history. It is the collection, organization and presentation of the past (Oakeshott, 2004). The field is not considered to have many sub-fields. While historians may focus on economic or political history, their means of writing about history do not change. Historians do not write history as they are either not present at the time of its occurrence, or are participating members, biasing their perceptions. Their focus
116
is therefore relegated to analyzing sources and deriving meaning. Documents are not always
accurate and may even conflict with one another. In order to write about history, historians
must choose between conflicting facts and decide which is more likely given the events that
preceded and follow. History is central to knowledge of past events and important as a guide for
the future (Oakeshott, 2004).
Fernand Braudel
Fernand Braudel (1902-1985) is considered the greatest living historian. His work is
considered revolutionary by encompassing the entire world in his historical analysis. Braudel is
a leading member of the Annales school and served as the editor of the journal Annales:
Economies, Societies, and Civilizations. His most original idea includes looking at history in
three forms: long term, medium term, and short term. Long term encompasses all of history and the cyclical path history takes as a function of environment, medium term is the economic and social cycles that occur, and short term, which is simply the history of events (“Fernand
Braudel,” 1985)..
Braudel’s description of geohistory is that man appears to have free will, however he is bound by the forces of power. Man becomes fixed in repetitive behavior and unable to break free of the fixed system for which he lives. Braudal attempts to both support and refute determinism (Clark, 1999). This view is scored 0.
Francis Parkman
Francis Parkman (1823-1893) was a historian known for traveling the Oregon trail and living among Native Americans. The Conspiracy of Pontiac, described the conflict between the
French and English, including the role of Native Americans. His work is best noted as not
117
glorifying Native Americans, but rather describing how they were as he had learned from
experience (“Francis Parkman,” 1938).
Parkman denied that man was bound by laws of necessity and rather focused on the
passions of individuals. He saw people as possessing free will which could shape their lives. He
acknowledged that man must exist to fulfill his nature, but that nature included the freedom
(Farnham, 1910). This is scored as 1.
Henry Adams
Henry Adams (1838-1918) was the grandson of John Quincy Adams. He published
Democracy, anonymously describing the inner workings of Washington. His other well known
work History of the United States, is regarded as a thorough lengthy discussion of Americas history. Despite being considered a failure for not carrying on the family tradition of politics,
Adams became well known as a historian, serving as president of the American Historical
Association (“Henry Adams,” 1938).
Adams asserts that he believes that the forces that move animated beings are the same as those at work in inanimate objects. This reduces man further in explaining him as nothing more than a manikin. Anyone who mistook the manikin as anything more than what it was, were victim of false logic (Levenson, 1956). This view is highly deterministic and is scored 0.
Hippolyte Taine
Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893) was a French historian and the first to practice historical criticism. His book Les Origines de la France Contemporaine described the French revolution.
Taine also wrote a book discussing the history of literature. It was praised for literary style, but received immense criticism as failing to accurately represent history. His most enduring works are his history of modern France and articles on English society (“Hippolyte Taine,” 1967).
118
Taine describes himself as a determinist in his own words. He draws his thinking from
his own observation and experience as well as psychological thought. He believes people are
misled by words and that free will is not what it is believed to be (Taine, 1902). This view is
scored as 0.
Jacob Burckhardt
Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) is a Swiss historian known as a founder of cultural
history. He was less focused on objectivity, but pursued the understanding of culture.
Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy covered the evolution of the Mediterranean world from
Dante to Michelangelo and significantly impacted the way in which the Renaissance was studied.
Burckhardt is also recognized for his study of Greek cultural history and for denouncing
democracy as threatening to liberty (“Jacob Burckhardt,” 1967).
Burckhardt is able to reject deterministic views and support an understanding of the
human spirit similar to that of Hegel. He does not see individuals or the course of history as
bound by a series of causal chains, as he sees it as two dimensional and neglecting the interplay
and complex connections. Burckhardt’s views included an individuals self-concious, and that
individuals perception and action in the world (Burckhardt, 1999). This view is scored 1.
Jules Michelet
Jules Michelet (1798-1874) was a French historian known for his study of the history of
France. His works including Introduction a l'Histoire Universelle and Histoire de la Republique
Romaine were foundational to the development of the science of historical criticism. Michelet
served as a the professor of medieval history at Ecole Normale and head of the historical section
of the National Archives. Later in his career he accepted a position at College de France (“Jules
Michelet,” 1967).
119
Michelet rejects the inductive methods and is criticized by Taine. While the two became
friends, their methods are opposed. Taine writes that Michelet is a great poet, however he fails
to meet the objectivity and scientific thinking to truly represent history (Williams, 1982). This
view is scored 1.
Marc Bloch
Marc Bloch (1886-1944) was a French historian whose work focused on France and the
middle ages. He criticized other historians for focusing on facts, rather than explanations.
L'Etrange Defaite was written from his own experience between the World Wars and described
how politicians, businessman, and bankers put their interest ahead of those of the people and
nation. Bloch’s work is recognized as instrumental in changing the way history is recorded by
considering the different ways of recording and perceiving history (“Marc Bloch,” 1996).
Bloch rejected all forms of determinism for relying too much on little details. The small
rivers and streams, economic forces, and biological explanations did nothing to explain the
whole. Humans for Bloch were more than just the some of the influences and parts, they became
more with the capacity to think, reason, and choose (Bloch, 1988). This view was scored 1.
Studs Terkel
Studs Terkel (1912-2008) is recognized as the most recognized broadcasters of the 21st century. He hosted several popular shows, but is credited as making oral history an accepted literary form. Terkel ‘s books include oral histories and interviews of individuals’ experiences on topics of from WWII to the age of 70. He also composed books of conversations he met with individuals on his travels across the country. Not only was Terkel a recognized historian, but his techniques revolutionized the way history was recorded and accepted by the public (“Studs
Terkel,” 1974).
120
Terkel recognizes that he is unable to explain some of his most fundamental beliefs.
While he is unable to explain these beliefs, he still believes that they are there. Free will he views as the most important thing of all. It gives his life meaning and purpose regardless of the illogical nature of it (Terkel, 2001). This view is scored 1.