Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

The place of the sciences of man in the system of sciences 33
the form of fairly systematic attempts at building up abstract models (in the
language of logico-mathematical symbolism, but sometimes also by methods of
simulation). Others amount to combining structuralism with functionalist
analysis within the detailed field of social relations or actions. Thus T. Parsons’
general sociology, which he himself calls ‘structural-functional’, is concerned not
only with types of overall balance of society, but also with reconciling levels
by means of an analysis of elementary ‘social action’ (values, etc.). Similarly
A. W. Gouldner’s or P. M. Blau’s ‘neo-functionalism’ seeks, through the study
of ‘reciprocities’ and exchanges, a tool for co-ordinating sub-systems which wil
lead from inter-individual relations to the stratifications themselves.
The fifth method has been little used, but remains open in the eyes of many
authors: since the training of the rising generation by its predecessors is a
necessary (although not sufficient) condition of all social life, any comparative
study of the development of human beings in various social environments
provides decisive information concerning collective contributions to human
nature. On every question that arises - social, mental or biological character,
logic, moral sentiments, semiotic or symbolic systems, etc. - this method of
analysing the formative processes is undoubtedly rewarding and has already
revealed the deep natural identity of the ‘operations’ of individual thought with
those which occur in any social ‘co-operation’.
5. The sciences of man and the great philosophical or ideological trends
After reviewing some aspects of the sciences of man and the main difficulties
they encounter in their definition and development, the moment would appear
to have come to fit them into the general system of sciences as suggested in the
heading to this chapter. But to all the previously-mentioned obstacles which have
to be surmounted if we are to reach an objective understanding of human reali-
ties there must be added yet another, perhaps one of the most important and in
any case the most specific in terms of the differences between the sciences of
man and those of nature. It is therefore necessary to deal with this now, before
we compare the two groups within the complete system of scientific disciplines.
This overriding difficulty, closely connected with those of intellectual de-
centering which have already been discussed under 2 and the hold of the ‘we’
over the cognitive matter which creates a science (see under 3), simply derives
from the fact that a scientist is never completely objective but is always at the
same time committed to some philosophical or ideological attitude. This point
is only of secondary importance in mathematical, physical or even biological
research (we already reach a frontier region in the latter case), but it may have a
great influence in some of the problems dealt with in the sciences of man. Lin-
guistics is approximately the same thing in every country. Psychology varies
somewhat more according to the cultural environment, but with no disturbing
contradictions, as the variations in question depend more on the variety of
schools than on ideologies. The oppositions become sharper in economics and
especially in sociology. Broadly speaking then, we are faced with a problem
which we should now consider.