Reflections on the Subjectivist Stances
April 9, 1998
Outline
1. The Many Subjectivist Stances
2. Subjectivism in Social Science
3. The Nature of Mental Processes
Reflections on the Subjectivist Stances
A stance refers to a viewpoint on some phenomena. A subjectivist stance is a stance taken by
someone whose goal is to comprehend human beings (homo sapiens -- subjects) who have the
characteristics that one associates with being distinctly human (homo agens). The aim of this
note is to discuss some basic ideas relating to the subjectivist stances.
1. The Many Subjectivist Stances
In order to understand the meaning of subjectivism in social science, one must achieve a particular state of mind. That state can be reached by adopting different stances and by reflecting on the mental process one uses to adopt those stances. The first stance is that of an isolated human actor. By reflecting on his position as an isolated actor, a normal human being(1) canunderstand her action. Indeed, the meaning of self-understanding is derived from one's reflection on her own action. If you (a normal human being) say that you understand yourself, you mean that you have engaged in self-reflection.
It is not important at this stage to specify "the stuff" that you understand. We are only concerned here with the state of mind of a person who is engaged in an effort to understand herself. We also do not need to be concerned with whether a person engaged in self-understanding draws on her experiences with or "understanding" of other human actors. It is sufficient that we agree that the stance we have in mind must include the process of self-reflection that each person employs when she tries to understand herself.
The second stance is that of the person who recognizes that she can self-reflect in order to help herself achieve self-understanding. In this stance, she reflects not only on her action, as in the first stance. She also reflects on her self-reflection. When she does this, she becomes aware of her first stance.
The third stance is the stance of a second party who observes a person attempting to achieve self-understanding. There is one person (B) who observes another person (A) reflecting on her (A's) action.
Now the second and the third stances are regressive, although in different ways. Referring to the second stance, we can conceive of a person reflecting on her reflecting on her action. Referring to the third stance, we can conceive of B observing A reflecting on her reflecting on her action, and so on. Or we can conceive of B observing A who observes B reflecting on himself and so on.
We can drop the idea that self-reflecting is occurring. For example, we can conceive of B observing A, of A observing B observe A, of B observing A observing B observe A, and so on. We can call this the fourth stance.
The fifth and sixth stances involve a third party. In the fifth stance, we conceive of C observing B observe A. Then we can conceive of C observing B observe A observe B. And so on. This stance is regressive also. In the sixth stance, we conceive of the trio observing each other and each others reflections.
Reflect now the mental state achieved by our attempts to comprehend these various stances. Such
a reflection is a necessary beginning point for understanding subjectivism in the social sciences,
but it is not sufficient. In addition, one must grant as a matter of principle the possibility that the
subjects of social science can achieve any mental state we can imagine.(the principle of adequacy)
2. Subjectivism in Social Science
We are now ready to understand subjectivism in social science. To do so, we (you and me) adopt the role of outsiders. As such we see the social scientist as a person who is trying to understandthe actions and interactions among some number of social subjects. The social scientist assumes that she can know something about the self-reflection performed by others through her own self-reflection and from her observations. And she assumes that she knows something about how subjects attempt to understand each other. Since her task is to understand interaction, she must in effect try to understand their understanding. In other words, she must try to understand each subject's understanding of himself and of other subjects.
We can deduce from this discussion that the social scientist must employ various fundamental assumptions when she proceeds to understand subjects. She must assume that she can form a useful understanding of others by assuming that the results of their self-reflection are in some way similar to the results of her own self-reflection. If the social scientist could not assume this -- if she thought that his self-reflection led to different results than the self-reflection of her subjects -- she would have no basis for believing that she could understand his subjects. Social science would be futile.
Subjectivism is nothing more nor less than the recognition that when the social scientist seeks to understand the actions of subjects, she must make a priori assumptions about the nature of human action. She must assume that she and the subjects she studies undergo similar cognitive processes.
In adopting subjectivism, one cannot be satisfied with the mere observation of behavior. To
assert that one can understand behavior without having made hypotheses or assumptions about
the mental processes of the subject who behaves is to misuse the term understand. To understand
behavior in the subjectivist sense means to make hypotheses or assumptions about particular
mental processes that may, but need not, operate in conjunction with the behavior.
3. The Nature of Mental Processes
What mental processes are these? They may be any conceivable mental process. One mental process is a simple choice among alternatives. A second is choice to adopt a habit, thereby closing off certain choices that one otherwise would have the option of making. A third is a disjunctive mental process such as the choice of a different behavior than the one preferred. A fourth is a non-normal mental process such as that we can conceive being employed by a psychopath, a child or by someone who is otherwise mentally deficient.
The prediction of any particular subject's behavior may require the social scientist to assume or hypothesize only one of these mental processes. It might even be correct in the vocabulary of some readers to say that the social scientist can "understand" behavior in this way. The subjectivist, however, cannot rule out the possibility that to understand the actions and understandings of a randomly-selected subject, she must adopt a difficult and complex stance. Indeed, because of the social scientist's own mental limitations, she cannot rule out the possibility that she will never be able to understand the actions or plans of some individuals.
The social scientist not only attempts to understand subjects, she also tries to communicate the results of her efforts. As a member of a "community" of social scientists, she must employ words that have common meanings. When a social scientist makes an hypothesis that she understands a subject's behavior, she communicates this by describing the hypotheses along with other hypotheses that she feels are less adequate. To do this, her social scientific jargon must contain the implication that subjects can adopt any of the stances described above and that the abilities of subjects may range from mentally deficient to superior in relation to the abilities of social scientists.
Notes
1. Mises refers to the normal human being on p. 252 of Human Action.
References
von Mises, Ludwig (1966). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
Copyright © 1998 by James Patrick Gunning
Send comments to:
Gunning’s Address
J. Patrick Gunning
Professor of Economics/ College of Business
Feng Chia University
100 Wenhwa Rd, Taichung
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Please send feedback
Email: gunning@fcu.edu.tw