Sociology and Empirical Research
Sociology and Empirical Research is an essay by Theodor W. Adorno , first published in 1957, which presents Adorno's criticism of the sociology and empirical social research of the 1950s.
content
Adorno on the tension between critical theory and positivism
According to Adorno, sociology is the combination of different methods of investigating social phenomena :
- “ Some apply to social totality and its laws of motion ; other, in pointed contrast, individual social phenomena , which are ostracized as speculative to relate to a concept of society. "(P. 196)
Adorno also describes these two opposing approaches ( macro level and micro level ) as the humanities sociology and the formal sociology . In doing so, he opposes his critical theory to his (controversial) view of positivism .
Critical theory
The critical theory of Adorno is this explicitly faced already in its early stages by immanent critique of the traditional view of science. It aims at the structural conditions of the social totality and thus understands society itself as a subject. Critical theory seeks to look beneath the surface of social appearances and analyzes the prevailing order as unreasonable and unbearable. The core of her is the critique of the matter itself that goes beyond mere description. In doing so, she works outside the traditional empirical understanding based on experience and criticizes with Hegel the separation of method and content. Critical social theory therefore does not develop any hypotheses to be checked, since these always remain in the current social appearance. The principle that shapes society should rather be abolished instead of a hypothesis based on the principle being verified on the future appearance.
positivism
The positivism analyzed contrast, according to Adorno, Einzelphänome in summary intent and holds a theory-based concept of society for speculative. Adorno hereby defines the term “ positivism ” more broadly than is customary in the traditional understanding. At best, this would give rise to general classificatory concepts, never concepts of the life of society itself. B. in the fact that , in terms of classification , differentiated levels of abstraction are possible, but these are not directly linked to increased knowledge gain:
- " The category ' society based on the division of labor ' is higher, more general than the ' capitalist society', but not more essential , rather less essential, says less about people's lives and what threatens them, without a logically lower category like ' Urbanism 'said more about it. Sociological levels of abstraction do not simply correspond to social cognitive value, either up or down. That is why there is so little to be hoped for from their systematic standardization through a model like the 'functional' one from Parsons . "(P. 198)
So far theory and empiricism have not been combined in sociology. On the one hand, a purely classificatory theory remains in the wrong whole. On the other hand, empirical proofs for structural conditions recognized from theory are always empirically refutable solely through the peculiarities of empiricism.
- “ The point is not to smooth out and harmonize such divergences: only a harmonistic view of society can be mislead. Rather, the tensions must be carried out fruitfully. "(P. 198)
Problems of Empirical Sociology
Today [meaning: 1957], positivistic-empirical sociology is generally preferred. It is practically usable and has an affinity for administration. However, empiricism is only one of many possible methods, the limits of the methodology follow from the limits of the matter. The subject of empirical social research is (in addition to statistical data such as age, income ...) the subjective: opinions , attitudes and behavior . Statistics in a methodological sense result in objective statements about the subjective: about how subjects see themselves and the world. This abstracts from social objectivity. For example, the unreflective framework of research in the mass media or the cafeteria of preformed questions lead to an ignorance of the circumstances or even to their support. The assumption that opinions shape society, for example, ignore the power structures in society, which in turn are only considered statistically. Socially primary (non- personal relationships and structures , personal power ) are thus degraded to secondary. The idea of people as formative subjects instead of shaped objects of totality is a fetishization of one's own research objects in empirical sociology. Accordingly, the methodology fetishizes itself: consequently in empirical sociology more pressing questions are discussed methodologically than content-related.
The method itself forms its object of knowledge, e.g. For example, if the research motivation results indifferently from the methodological possibility instead of being directed towards the knowledge goal, or if the concept formation (e.g. for the term “ conservatism ”) proceeds mathematically instead of argumentatively, which is how these statistically “clean” definitions are but then would refer directly to their conventional counterparts and would thus be wrong.
Empiricism as an epistemologically false science
“Social science” in the sense of Adorno cannot be pursued like natural science. But this is not because of a dignity of man, which would remove the natural sciences: Regarding the reception of mass media, the simple scheme of stimulus and response meet objectively. The social science, which classifies from atoms to generalities, hits a truth insofar as it represents the Medusa mirror of the atomized, administered world, i.e. the means of taking a closer look at this horrific world without turning to stone. However, she lacks self- reflection . The methods of induction and deduction are considered by Adorno as a scientific substitute for the dialectical approach that is necessary in contrast . He regards quantitative and qualitative research as belonging together. Blind factual statements and formal sociology therefore did not capture the “essence” of society; they were blind to the relationship between the general and the particular and wanted to use a uniform system to remove the permanent tension between the general and the particular from the inconsistent world.
The tension between society and scientific considerations
Because of these tensions, society is not homogeneous, as it should be for a scientific investigation (direct conclusions from the partial to the general). In particular, in the scientific treatment of society, unlike in that of nature, there is no pure object; knowing subject and society are to a certain extent intertwined via the social totality. Laws of social science never produce a seamless general, but a historically concrete relationship between the general and the particular. This necessarily reflects the anarchic character of previous social development and the spontaneity of the people. For Adorno, this statement is not an unscientific transfiguration, but an indication of the antagonism that is lost in the numbers and, for example, B. can feed from reason or a specific interest situation.
Human beings do not correspond to atoms in physics. But empirical research she treated in this way and thus produced a new individualized form of " character mask " ( see. This social role ). In contrast, in a liberated society, empiricism is a tool for managing things, not people. ( Compare with Karl Marx the "Reich of Freedom" as the result of the last (proletarian) revolution .)
Empiricism and totality
According to Adorno, sociology is an inhomogeneous discipline, consisting of theory, the (critical) analysis of relationships / institutions and (positivistic) social research. The knowledge goal of society required their connection, since theory and empiricism are dependent on one another. The essential question of totality should not be excluded because of its methodological incomprehensibility. As an example, Adorno cites the exchange principle : on the one hand it is only a non-empirical term, on the other hand it is a really prevailing phenomenon with severe consequences. If empirical sociology only counts facts and holds derived rules for the relevant formative laws, it produces ideology and justification. She is even afraid of research hypotheses , as these could generate statistical systematic errors ( bias ). They follow the superstition or fetish of the tabula rasa of requirements and 'neutral' data collection.
- “ The sentence that a researcher needs ten percent inspiration and ninety percent perspiration, which is so often quoted, is subordinate and aims at prohibiting thought. For a long time now, the scholar's self-indulgent work consisted mostly of giving up thoughts, which he did not have anyway, for bad pay. Today, as the better-paid office manager succeeds the scholar, the lack of spirit is not only celebrated as a virtue of those who incorporate themselves into the team in an indecent and well-adjusted manner, but also institutionalized through the establishment of research programs, which hardly any spontaneity of the individual other than know as a coefficient of friction. "(P. 211f)
According to Adorno, thoughts crystallize slowly, through experience , intuition and thinking against common sense . Sociological work is not a stupid process, but a conceptual effort; Science is therefore the working out of the truth and falsehood of what the phenomenon would like to be.
Mediation of research and theory in appearance and essence, using the example of the “worker” term
The empirical investigation of the subjective must be combined with the analysis of social objectivity. The worker must z. B. be examined for his self-image, but also for his position in the production process and his means of power. This serves primarily the criticism of ideology , but also the analysis of changes in the objective through the subjective: if no one knows that he is a worker, that changes the concept of the worker, even if his separation from the means of production remains the same. The appearance of the thing can therefore act back on its essence.
Empirical social research and theory should therefore serve one another as corrective measures in sociology: the consideration of the appearance could critically relativize the cognitive value, the analysis of the essence demythologize the appearance.
graduation
Sociologically determined facts are shaped by society and therefore not immediate and ultimate. Refined empirical methods (motivation analysis) could include this imprint, but only reveal functional, not causal relationships. Adorno sees an opportunity in the development of indirect questioning methods. Pure opinion research is to be respected and despised at the same time, but not to be opposed to general opinion in a determinative way by general truth. This has already caused too much harm in history.
- The " average opinion [represents] no approximation of the truth, but the socially average appearance. It shares what unreflected social research thinks its ens realissimum , the interviewees themselves, the subjects. Their own nature, their being a subject, depends on their objectivity, the mechanisms to which they obey, and which make up their concept. But this can only be determined by becoming aware of the tendency in the facts themselves that is driving over them. That is the function of philosophy in empirical social research. If it is missed or suppressed, i.e. if only the facts are reproduced, then such reproduction is at the same time the falsification of the facts into ideology. "(P. 215f)
criticism
Adorno's essay is not easy to understand and, after 50 years, very much in need of interpretation. Because the situation in which Adorno wrote it down was characterized by two specific front positions:
First , he himself had presented a (rather qualitative) empirical study in the USA in 1950, namely together with Else Frenkel-Brunswik , Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford The Authoritarian Personality , and thus implicitly opposed the much more rigorous and previously Marx-oriented Paul Lazarsfeld , who, beyond America, has just become a protagonist of quantitative methods. This front position was also important because in the Federal Republic of Germany, in which Adorno was trying to gain an academic foothold, the very influential René König already successfully founded the method-oriented Cologne School and even more successfully the emerging Helmut Schelsky in 1953 his empirically richly documented changes in the German family had submitted to the present .
Second , critical theory relied heavily on Marx in relation to both of them , and Adorno neither wanted to hide nor explicitly problematize this. For in 1957, taking Marx seriously as a sociologist in the course of the East-West conflict in the Federal Republic of Germany was extremely impractical in terms of career.
So he chose the way of expressing himself very generally in all points using Hegel- Marxian expressions, which also suited his scientific style preferences. The result was a pending critical text, the background of which was present to the expert readership, but which was difficult to argue for discussion, which was what Hans Albert in particular, succeeding Karl Popper, attacked grainily and sharply. Furthermore, as the controversies of that time moved away, this text became more and more difficult to read.
Further objections and counter positions are presented in the following articles:
literature
Theodor W. Adorno: Sociology and empirical research . In: Collected Writings , Volume 8 Sociological Writings I, WBG licensed edition, Frankfurt am Main 1998 (1972)