A Philosophy of Social Science and Literature

Riley Pritchett

Professor Jessica Lavariega Monforti

MLS697 Methodology

13 November 2016

A Philosophy of Social Science and Literature

The question of knowing others is an ancient one. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in one of his letters “who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?” (English Standard Version, 1 Cor. 2.11a). In the time since Paul assumed the privacy of thought, rationalism, interpretivism, and related philosophies have attempted to explain why people do what they do, and to what extent we can truly know each other.

In literature, knowing the main character gives depth to the storytelling process. Knowing the people on the page or screen taps into humanity’s longing for likeness and emotional intimacy. The thrill of sharing grief, excitement, or horror with a character is an integral part of what makes storytelling compelling.

This work will examine rationalism, interpretivism, and how to form a balanced philosophy of human knowledge that can direct literary criticism and storytelling in a positive way. Without such a philosophy, the actions of others devolve into meaninglessness.

1. Rationalism

The first stop on the journey of human explanation is rationalism, which assumes that actions can be explained through intent—through rationale. For example, I went to the store to buy eye drops because my eyes were dry, and I wish to avoid pain. My actions can be explained through my reasoning and through my beliefs. I believe that my condition will not subside on its own, that eye drops will alleviate my discomfort, and that the appropriate product will be available at the store. I am acting rationally. Moreover, the reasons for my actions can be divined by someone who observes me.

By assuming rationality in human behavior, rationalists avoid the historical mistake of assuming that people who are difficult to understand are simply irrational. Culture, race, sexuality, gender, and experience all influence how someone thinks. Without rationalism, those important contexts may be ignored, instead resorting to the philosophically lazy conclusion that someone different is simply illogical, bigoted, irrational, or ignorant.

1.1 Irrational Behavior

And so rationalism assumes human behavior (barring insanity) can be explained. Humans behave rationally, and we can assume that they will continue to do so. But what of truly irrational behavior? If irrational behavior exists, rationalism must be modified lest it is rejected in favor of self-centric philosophy on the one hand, or it becomes intensely causalist on the other hand, seeking explanation for behavior which may not have an explanation. In his Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science, Brian Fay outlines such a modification. According to Fay, even irrational behavior has rational underpinnings. The thought behind an action, though flawed, may still resemble rational thought. He argues that we cannot assume everyone is perfectly rational, but that in general humans are rational in how they behave (110).

If seemingly irrational behavior must have deducible reasons, we are forced into stranger and stranger explanations for irrational behavior. Legitimizing the need for unconventional rationale reduces the meaning of all rationale. That is, if truly irrational behavior must be explained through backwards and complex logic, there is nothing stopping someone from using that logic on rational behavior. This opens the gate for sophism and manipulation in a way that can be avoided simply by accepting Fay’s reasonable moderation of rationalism.

In the context of storytelling, rationalism assists in creating believable characters. Modeling characters with logical reasons for their behavior gives believability to a story. Likewise, allowing for flawed thinking that mimics rational thought can give a flavor of authenticity, for true literature is able to demonstrate both humanity’s strengths and weaknesses.

2. Interpretivism and Deconstruction

Before going into the details of storytelling and human knowledge, it is necessary to discuss interpretivism, an extension of rationalism which emphasizes the context of actions. Unless we understand a person’s culture, the interpretivist argues, we have no chance of adequately understanding his or her motivation. Indeed, observation of culture is the primary goal of intepretivism. So not only do humans behave according to rationale, but they do so in the subjective context of culture. Without understanding of situation, culture, and self-identification, an observer has no guarantee in understanding the motives of another person.

2.1 Limitations

The weakness of extreme interpretivism is it loses out on the potential to explain cultures themselves. An interpretivist intends merely to observe, whereas a complete deconstruction attempts to unlock the patterns and rationale behind the phenomena being studied. Without deconstruction, interpretivism is insufficient to fully explain cultural behavior. Indeed, without deconstruction, cultural behavior can seem irrational, the very problem rationalism and interpretivism attempts to solve. Philosophers cannot use “because the culture is that way” as the end-all for behavioral interpretation. Deconstruction gives tools with which in which to examine behavior, as well as giving license to examine the cultures themselves (Fay 131).

2.2 Deconstruction

Deconstruction is “a theory used in the study of literature or philosophy which says that a piece of writing does not have just one meaning and that meaning depends on the reader” (Merriam-Webster, no page). Ironically, the subjective nature of deconstruction gives a more objective framework in which to study culture and identity. By opening the space for multiple meanings in culture, deconstructionism produces the space to find underlying principles that shape culture and how it relates to the world, whether intended or not.

Simply accepting the culture’s status quo without examining its underpinnings gives up potential meanings that may lurk in the undercurrent of the culture. For example, take American gay culture. Established in a climate of oppression and turmoil, many of its underpinnings are in explicit defiance of traditional society. This inherent deviance may direct the thinking of some members of the community while simultaneously alienating others. Deconstruction allows for both groups to behave rationally in reaction to their community’s historically derived mores and stereotypes. With this in mind, let us explore human knowledge in the context of literature.

3. Directional Knowledge and Literature

Rationalism, interpretivism, and deconstruction each contribute a piece of social understanding. But what of the practical question: Can someone be known by another? Is it even theoretically possible? After all, one can spend an immense amount of time with a close friend, yet still discover new facets to his or her personality. The dictionary definition of “know” is “to perceive directly” or “to be aware of the truth or factuality of” (Merriam-Webster, no page). For the purposes of this discussion, to know means to have intimate and predictive knowledge of another human being which, once attained, would render it difficult to surprise the knower with unexpected or seemingly irrational behavior.

This kind of complete knowledge of a person is in a sense impossible. A writer hardly expects a time to come when all of humanity is explained and there is nothing is left to write about. New facets of self and of others always remain to fuel literary creation. But is it reasonable to expect to learn more of others if arrival at the truth is impossible? If it were fruitless labor, marriage and friendship, reading and writing, conversation and silence would all lack meaning. If there is no goal, no ability to improve, what point is there in trying to love or know?

For this conundrum, let us again adopt the moderate attitude of Brian Fay. As he defines objectivity, let us define knowing:

So, can we objectively understand others? No, if objectivity is interpreted in an objectivist fashion to mean “as they are in themselves.” But Yes if objectivity is interpreted in a falliblist way to mean “in an open-minded, responsive to evidence, accountable, criticism-seeking manner.” (221)

This humble approach to objectivity offers an appealing open-ended solution to the coin that is objectivity and relativity. Rather than landing on one side and dismissing the other, Fay defines objectivity as a direction rather than a destination.

Returning to the subject of knowledge, it is quickly apparent that a precise definition could be debated ad nauseam. It is more useful instead to think of knowledge not as a golden threshold, but as the direction of knowing more about others. There is no destination of empathy, but there is a practice of it.

3.1 Literary Criticism

What does this mean for literary criticism? When investigating the meaning of literature, it is necessary to employ the principle of directional knowledge as discussed above. While multiple meanings may exist (as in deconstruction), perhaps one may be better than the other in the light of directional knowledge. We cannot assume perfect knowledge of story characters, or of the author who penned them, but we can in a spirit of objectivity arrive closer to ideal operational knowledge of characters.

Critics’ perception of truth is evolving. The meaning of Raskolnikov’s redemption in Crime and Punishment may change as society advances. Perhaps Pride and Prejudice may fall out of style in literary circles, but return with the return of analogous social hierarchical structures. Directional knowledge allows for the preservation of the possibility of improving understanding or of fresh contemporary understandings.

3.2 Philosophy of Storytelling

The open-ended nature of directional knowledge is perhaps the greatest boon of literature. After all, no one asks, “Are you going to write the last great American novel?” He or she asks, “Are you going to write the next great American novel?” Because there is no arrival, there will always be literature and literary characters to explore. This principle can be used as a framework to formulate a philosophy of social science in the context of storytelling and character knowledge.

Storytelling must be founded on rational characters. Even characters struggling with insanity need rational elements. It is their connection to us that we cherish, and the tragedy of their loss of that connection that we lament. By presenting generally rational characters (in the context of their own culture), authors provide delight to the senses and an expansion of the human experience.

Storytelling offers a context of character knowledge. The desire to know another is not unique to the real world as we experience it. Characters, offered in a vacuum, are of academic or esoteric value first, but when placed in a story, the story brings alive the character and the desire to know him or her. Lacking this, the story will leave its reader dissatisfied in the quest for knowledge of other (the character) and of self (in contrast with the character).

Storytelling points rather than arrives. As we have defined knowledge of others as direction rather than finite goals, so must storytelling be defined. Knowledge of character and subject-matter is not absolute, and great storytellers realize this on some level. It is not the business of the novelist to enumerate every meaning of his or her work, nor to perfectly elucidate the motives of his or her characters. Instead, stories point toward greater truth, toward a more complete view of humanity.

4. Summary

If complete knowledge of another person (real or fictional) is not perfectly possible, it is possible to strive to know someone. As objectivity is most effectively defined as a direction rather than a destination, so knowledge of others should be viewed. This satisfies rationalism in that assumes there are discoverable underpinnings to human action. Likewise, it fits with interpretivism in that it allows for different views based on elements such as culture and self-identification.

In the context of literature, holding knowledge of others as ever-evolving complements the ever-evolving nature of literature and storytelling. Without the assurance that men and women can be better known (if not perfectly know), literary criticism is completely defanged. And without that knowledge, confidence in creating relatable and discoverable characters is similarly undone.

While common sense rather than extensive study may have instructed the Apostle Paul, his observation about human knowledge offers an encapsulation of the mystery of man, a mystery that humanity will spend the rest of its days studying—or in the words of dramatist W. S. Gilbert, “Hop and skip to Fancy’s fiddle, / Hands across and down the middle – / Life’s perhaps the only riddle / That we shrink from giving up!” (Green 645)

References

The Bible. English Standard Version. Crossway. Web. 2016.

Green, Martyn. Martyn Green’s Treasury of Gilbert & Sullivan. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1961. Print.

Fay, Brian. Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1996. Print.

Merriam-Webster. “Merriam-Webster Online.” Web. 2016.