PCN 500 Grand Canyon Week 2 Discussion 2

While there are many neoanalytic writers, they can be divided into two general categories. Some are objective positivist thinkers while others are relativistic/constructivist thinkers. Philosophically, what is the difference among objective positivist neoanalytic writers and relativistic/constructivist neoanalytic writers?

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Positivist thinkers and relativistic/constructivist thinkers

Introduction

Positivism is a method of investigating social reality by using scientific methods. It is a school of thought that holds that society can be explained using the scientific method and objective observation. The key difference between positivist and relativist approaches is that relativists say that there are no objective facts about the world or society; instead, everything depends on individual perception (interpretation). On the other hand, positivists believe that there are certain things about our world which don’t depend on personal opinion but rather on scientific facts about how things work in reality: for example, natural laws describing how heat flows around objects as they get warmer—or colder!

Positivist thinkers include Marx, Weber, Durkheim

The positivists are a group of social scientists who believe that we can get an objective view of social reality. They include Marx, Weber and Durkheim.

Marx believed that there is no such thing as society – only individuals acting in society. This means everything we see socially is really just one person doing something at another time or place (such as when someone talks about “the economy”). That’s because it’s impossible for people to have meaningful relationships with each other if they don’t exist at all; for example, if you talk about ‘society’ then you’re talking about yourself and me!

Weber believed that societies change over time based on people’s ideas: these ideas are generated by humans through their interactions with each other (such as when someone says “I like this new restaurant”), so they must be considered subjective rather than objective truths which may not fit into any particular theory or model (like how Marx thought).

They see the world as deterministic and meaningful

Positivists believe that there are patterns and regularities in society. They believe that society is a system of interdependent parts, which can be understood through the same methods used to understand any other system or system of parts. Positivist thinkers see society as a self-regulating system with feedback loops between groups, individuals and institutions (e.g., government). The social sciences attempt to explain how these systems work by studying them empirically and theoretically at once; they also try to predict change based on past experience and trends observed over time.

Positivist thinkers believe that people’s behavior reflects their values rather than being determined by external forces—for example: if you act selfishly then you’ll end up unhappy because your actions will cause others around you to suffer consequences (such as being hurt). This belief underlies many theories associated with individualism/collectivism which positivism supports but also critiques when it comes down too far into relativism territory (i

They are also called realists

Some positivists believe that social reality is objective, or real. They believe that people can get an objective view of social reality and understand it in the same way that they can understand any other kind of object or phenomenon. This is contrasted with interpretivism, which claims that all human knowledge has its own subjective dimension—that there are no facts independent of interpretation.

Their aim is to uncover the structures behind things that cause or determine them

The positivist approach is to study the “facts” of a situation. It looks for causal relationships and effects, not just for what happens but also why it happens.

The relativist/constructivist approach is to look at the relationships between things instead of trying to find out whether or not there are causes or effects in these situations. For example: if I say that my cat has two legs and that you don’t believe me, then we could talk about how your belief makes sense because your brain is built differently from mine (i.e., yours uses more neurons than mine). This would be an example of a relationship between us rather than an example where we talk about what’s true or false independently from each other (i.e., regarding our cats’ bodies).

They believe that they can get an objective view of social reality.

Positivism is the belief that we can get an objective view of social reality. It is a philosophy of science, which states that there are facts and truths about the world, and that you can use these facts to make predictions about the future. For example: if I am wearing red clothes today, then tomorrow my shirt will probably still be red. This means that positivism believes in objectivity—the idea that our perceptions do not influence our beliefs or actions. This may sound like it’s just another way of saying “true,” but there are some key differences between objectivity and truth:

The followers of this approach are sometimes called classical sociologists.

• The followers of this approach are sometimes called classical sociologists. They believe that social facts can be studied in a scientific way, and they see social life as consisting of measurable elements, such as wealth or power.

• Classical sociologists also believe that these facts are objective and not just subjective perceptions by individuals. For example, if you have more money than someone else does—that’s an objective fact about your situation; it may be based on how much you earn or how much your company pays its employees (or both). As long as there is some kind of standard against which we measure our possessions and abilities (like the price tag on something) then we don’t need to worry about whether it’s true or not—it just exists!

It is a kind of structural-functionalism

Structural-functionalism is a sociological perspective that looks at the structure of society, not the individual. It holds that social structures exist to maintain stability and order in a given community or group. The theory was the first to identify how these social structures operate on an interpersonal level (i.e., they affect how people behave), but it also looked at broader societal issues like poverty and unemployment as well as larger economic issues such as trade policy or foreign policy decisions made by governments around the globe.

The positivists’ view is contrasted with interpretivism.

The positivists’ view is contrasted with interpretivism. Interpretivists, or the relativists, believe that social reality is subjective and that it is impossible to be objective about things. They think that we can never get an objective view of social reality because our own perceptions and biases affect what we see in the world.

They are called postmodernists because they think that you can’t get an objective view of society; instead, you have to look at everything through your own set of lenses (or “lenses”). This means that everyone sees things differently—even if they’re telling you something straight-up!

Interpretivists think that it is impossible to be objective about things because we are bound by our own perceptions and biases.

Interpretivists believe that it is impossible to be objective about things because we are bound by our own perceptions and biases. They believe that the meaning of things is not fixed, but depends on the context. Social reality is constructed by humans, so there’s no objective truth (for example, if you think women are oppressed by men in society). They are also called postmodernists.

Postmodern thinkers use social science as a critique of society instead of trying to understand it on its own terms as positivists do; this means they often focus more on how people interpret data than what actually happens within their specific contexts.

Conclusion

So these two approaches are polar opposites, right? Well, not so fast. There’s a lot more going on here. Both positivism and interpretivism aim to inform social science by providing an objective account of human interaction, but they do this in different ways. Positivists see the world as deterministic and meaningful; they want to uncover the structures behind things that cause or determine them. Is this science or philosophy? I don’t know! But it’s definitely important because it helps us understand how society works at large scale levels (like countries) rather than just individual relationships between people within those societies