Book Reviews

Explanation and Understanding in the Human Sciences. By GurpreetMaha- jan.Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. 124. $15.95 (cloth). Since the Enlightenment, Westernthought has emphasized the advancement of knowledge through reason and science. Earlysuccess in the naturalsciences was admired and emulated in the social sciences. As recently as 1968, May Brodbeck wrote, "The possibilityof a social science in principle as perfect as physics remains the unexamined premise of the vast majorityof present-day scientists."'Indeed, during the past 2 centuries, the traditionaldomain of the humanities, the study of people and society, has been increasinglyencroached on by scientists. With Auguste Comte's nineteenth-century formulation of sociology(also originallycalled socialphysics), a science of societywas envisioned in which explanations of human phenomena would be based on scientific laws verified through empirical and logical methods. This extension of the principles and methods of the natural sciences to the study of people and society was elaboratedespecially in the tenets of logicalpositivists in the 1920s and early 1930s. However, as early as the late nineteenth century, others such as Wilhelm Dilthey proposed an approach to human science quite different from that of the natural sciences. For Dilthey, a philosopher of history and culture, the focus was on human life as experienced in its unique complexity. Central to achieving understandingis the effort of sympathy (Verstehen)by the knower. The older philosophy of hermeneutics was extended by Dilthey as the methodology for all of the social sciences as well as the humanities. Although others before Dilthey (e.g., Johann von Herder) as well as after Dilthey (e.g., KarlPopper) argued for a separateapproach to historicalstudies that eschewed the notion of historicallaws, Dilthey extended his view of histori- cal method to all of the human sciences.Accordingly, while positive science set human studies on a course with close ties to the naturalsciences, hermeneutics moved human sciences away from the natural sciences and into the humani- ties. Ernest Nagel's proposal that interpretive methods such as Verstehenbe valued as exploratory methods for gaining insight preliminaryto the use of objective methods for verificationhas not resolved this debate. Advocates of a human science distinct from the methods of the natural sciences view the approachesto be incommensurable.These divergencescontinue into contem- porary philosophy of social science debates without resolution.

Permissionto reprinta bookreview printed in thissection may be obtainedonly from the author.

This content downloaded from 128.59.161.126 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:37:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Book Reviews 275

It is in the historicalcontext of these divergences that Gurpreet Mahajan criticallyanalyzes explanation and understandingin the social sciences. Her approach is consistent with those who have historicallyargued for a human science with methods distinct from those of the natural sciences. Four ap- proaches to scientificexplanation and understandingin the social sciences are examined. The mode associated with logical positivism, causalexplanation, is reviewed and found to be insufficient for the social sciences. The second approach, reason-actionexplanation, is among the oldest forms of explanation. Agreeing with common sense, it is the notion that the explanationfor a human action is the reason given by the agent. Hermeneuticunderstanding, as originally formulated by Dilthey and subsequentlyproposed by Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, is contrasted with causal explanation as well as reason- action explanation. Following W. B. Gallie, Arthur C. Danto, and William Dray, the narrativemode is discussed last. While there are several versions of the narrativemode, Dray has proposed that an event is explained when one can "tracethe course of events by which it came about."2Mahajan presents each of these four modes as framing the object of inquiry differently and asking qualitativelydifferent questions.After an analysisof each of these four modes, Mahajan, taking a relativistic stance, concludes, "Since there is no theoreticalgrid from which we can view the worldin itself and writeits history, we must allow points of view that offer new insights and uncover different aspects of reality some space to exist" (p. 101). Mahajan'sthesis is that logical positivismestablished causal explanation as the goal of all science, including the study of people and society.For Mahajan, this focus has resulted in a reductionistic science when applied to human science phenomena. Mahajan'sdiscussion of causal explanation in the social sciences repeats frequentlyexpressed limitationsincluding Carl Hempel's ob- servation that, because the social sciences are unable to specify general laws, completeexplanations of events are not provided in social science research. Mahajan presents the now familiar and widely accepted argument that any notion of causationimplying necessaryand sufficientconditions for the occur- rence of an event is inappropriatefor the social sciences. It is easily accepted that in the social sciences even contingently necessaryconditions are scarce, and, indeed, most events have multiple possible causes and can be said to be overdetermined.Especially pertinent to applied fields is Mahajan'sconclusion that, because these causalconditions are subjectto considerablevariation in the social sciences, the notion of complete prediction is untenable. Accordingly, Mahajan believes that causal explanation is thus undermined as a guide to future action. This discussionof causal explanationin the social sciences adds little to the extensive literaturealready available on the subtletiesof causation, a most elusive topic for both philosophers and researchers alike. Clearly, neither David Hume nor the logical positivistswere enamored with the meta- physicalconnotations of the term. Few contemporarysocial scientists, whether positivist or not, would take exception to Mahajan'smajor point, which is that answers to causal why questions in the social sciences are difficult to unequivocally generate and that, typically, social scientists are interested in answering questions beyond causation including other perspectiveson whyas well as questions pertaining to who, what, and when of social phenomena. However, many social scientists would take exception to Mahajan'sfailure to stress the significance of statistical-probabilisticexplanation, which adds considerablyto social science understandingand prediction. While adopting a pluralisticview, Mahajanasserts that the causal mode of explanation is especially inadequate for the social sciences because human action and meanings attributedto those actions are the subject matter. The

This content downloaded from 128.59.161.126 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:37:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 276 Social Service Review significanceof the hermeneutic mode lies in its distinctiveconception of social reality, history, and knowledge. Mahajan believes that the narrative mode should be contingently privilegedso long as it is creativelyinformed by herme- neutic philosophy. The narrativeis valued by Mahajanbecause it individual- izes human action, it considersthe actions of multiple agents, it addressesthe why question, and it recognizes the influence of both the interpreter (re- searcher)as well as the contemporarycontext on the descriptionprovided. In addition, the narrative mode is presented as transcending the dichotomies inherent in both causal explanation (and, to some extent, in hermeneutics) pertainingto such dimensions as knowerand known, subjectand object,exter- nal conditions and intentionality,description and explanation, understanding and explanation, and subjectiveand objectiveanalysis. Mahajan suggests that this narrative transcendence results in a refigurationof the prefiguredworld. Beyond methodologicalconsiderations, she also notes politicalimplications of the narrativemode:

The narrativeis essentiallya signifierof a new type of politicsand a protestagainst thedominant rationality of theEnlightenment. In placeof a singlepattern of individual, socialand historical development, it stressesdifference: indeed, it celebratesdifference. Andit is thiscelebration that finds an expressionin its emphasison the studyof history andconception of historicalevents as uniqueparticulars. ... Presentinga narrativeof particularevents, groups and communities,and bringinginto socialdiscourse voices thathad often been suppressed or marginalized,it has helped to empowerthese groups andplace them in themainstream of politicallife. ... Convincingand adequate accounts of eventswritten from the pointof viewof specificgroups-e.g., womenand peas- ants-can be placed beside one another, not because they supplement each other but becausethey revealthe complexityof our historicalbeing and disclose the limitations of eachaccount. ... Aswe privilegethe narrative contingently, we must take cognizance of thesepolitical implications and place them along with other methodological considera- tions.[Pp. 101-2]

Mahajan'sstudy is a useful addition to the reference works available to those wishing to give serious considerationto these epistemologicalquestions. She presents a strong argument for the relevance of qualitative,interpretive methods to many social science and social work questions. Although Mahajan avoids rejectionof traditionalquantitative-objectivistic methods that seek gen- eral causal explanations, her emphasis is clear. Mahajan prefers the term humansciences, yet her notion of scientific method seems narrowlyrestrictive in contingently privileging the narrativemode. As attractiveas the methods of the humanitiesare for gaining insight into human affairs,it would be quite myopic to lose sight of the past and potential contributionsof quantitative, controlled scientific methods to explanation and understandingin the social sciences and social work. Clearly, social work's research capacity is meager, and, despite rhetoric to the contrary,there is little danger that positivistically driven researchwill overcome the profession. What is possible is that a failure to nourish the meager researcheffort alreadypresent in the profession could result in a continued fading of the credibilityof the profession. A sincere and strong valuing of efforts to engage in scholarlyefforts to expand explanation and understandingof both quantitativeand qualitativeas well as nomothetic and ideographictypes of research is criticallyimportant. A pluralisticstance is necessary; explanation and understandingof important social science and social work concerns may be advanced through a variety of routes. Regretta- bly, Mahajan'swork does not provide that balance. Nevertheless, Mahajan's essay is a compact review of alternate modelsdeveloped in literaryand histori- cal disciplines.

This content downloaded from 128.59.161.126 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:37:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Book Reviews 277

It has often been said that philosophersof science and researchersproceed independently,with different interestsand different methods. Philosophers,on the one hand, are said to reconstructidealizations of how science should be conceptualized,with periodicreference to observationsof the actualconduct of science.Scientists, on the other hand,are thought to be drivenless by philosophi- cal abstractionsas to how they should do their researchthan by practicalinterest in answeringresearch questions. Because scientific activity is dynamicand rapidly changing, it is assumed that philosophersof science necessarilymust attend to contemporaryscientific work to avoid complete irrelevance.However, these characterizationsof the separateworlds of philosophersand researchersappear to be breakingdown, at least for socialscientists. The researchliterature is now repletewith philosophical discussions, written not by philosophersbut by working researchers.This is becausethe philosophicalissues are being framedin such a way as to create alternativesfor the selectionof researchquestions and research methods.Accordingly, it is now unlikelythat researcherswill be able to proceed unencumberedby these philosophicalconsiderations even as they continue to pursueanswers to pragmaticquestions. Clearly, as new generationsof researchers are educated,the interfaceof philosophyof scienceand research methods cannot be and should not be ignored. Researcherswould do well to keep an eye toward developmentsin the philosophyof sciencesuch as those presentedin Mahajan's essay.And although many philosophersand scientistswould agree with Maha- jan's argument for different scientificmodels for the naturaland the socialsci- ences, it is likely that, as in the past, developmentsin the naturalsciences will continue to contributeto the shaping of social science research.Concurrently, literaryanalysis and interpretivemethods nurturedin the humanitieswill surely enrich attemptsto illuminatethe meaning of human action.Their potentialfor contributionto descriptivescience is significant.When it comes to expanding and enrichingexplanation and understandingof human actions,there is much to be learned from perspectivesand methods developedin the humanitiesand the naturalsciences, as well as those more traditionallyassociated with the social sciences. For social work, a profession concerned with improvingthe human condition,understanding the past through historicalmethods is useful only to the extent generalexplanations of humanevents can provideunderstanding that will guide future action. Neither reason-actionnor hermeneuticmodes address questionsthat can providesuch understanding.Clearly, questions addressed in the causal explanation mode are pertinent to social work concerns, and the profession'sresearch knowledge base has benefited considerablyfrom answers to causalquestions. It is likelythat causalexplanations will continueto servethe profession well. As valuable as the hermeneutic and narrativemodes are for gaining insight into the meaning of many social phenomena, especiallyin the study of historicalevents, they cannot establishcausal explanations.Without causal explanation, the social sciences and social work would offer little to a society searching to prevent and amelioratesocial problems and little to the improvementof the human condition.

EdwardJ. Mullen Columbia University

Notes 1. M. Brodbeck,ed., Readingsin thePhilosophy of the Social Sciences (New York:Macmil- lan, 1968),p. 1. 2. W. H. Dray, Lawsand Explanationsin History(London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 68.

This content downloaded from 128.59.161.126 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:37:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions