Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3y
Johan Galtung
t. fntroduction
The title of this chapter is pretentious and the reader wil-l soon
discover that there is neithen philosoohical depth nor any real
effort to immerse oneself into the richness of the contemDorlarv
Po siti vi s musstneit. This is e n t ire lv d e lib e ra t e for the purpose
is diffe:.ent: to explore some aspects of positivism and dia-
lectics from the point of view of rnethodologrcal tools. Tools
not only serve to define what one can do with some objects, but
also to define these objects. And that leads straight to the
two domains of the present inquiry: ;-,rethodology and ideolog- v,
what are the ground-rules of the scientific enterprise, and rvhat
is the nature of the reality to which these gnound-rules apply?
Put somewhat differently: what ar"e the basic tooIs, defined
through the rules of using them, and what are the basic properties
of tre ohiects to which these toolS can be annl'icd?
t" at. =ense of being implicit and in the sense of being mislead-
ing) on ideology and something stnong on ideology (both explicit
and well-directed) but weak on methodology. But this formulation
overlook s the important and obvious relation there i-s between
methodology and ideology in the sense these tenms are used here.
fn the case of positivism there is an underlying ideology, a
{
Methodology
rr') (2 )
L X D I]-c ]- t - -) rmp lic it
1
I
,t
+
(,l- r )
(3 )
'Implicit
- .- | E*pr icit
TAoal
+vuvrvSy an,,
(
been caDtllred in a Jrid feafrrr"ins thnqe aSDeCtS that rjo not ohanse
over time, do not change with position in space, are intensub-
jectively comnunicabte and nepnoducible (do not depend on the
scientific subject), and do not depend on the individuality of the
object of inquiry (through abstnaction): orr its consciousness.
Let us now move one step deepen and try to point to an even
more fundamental tenet of positivism: the idea that the'ridea of
invar"iancerris itself i.nvaniant, of variations in time, space,
S ubi ect an fl of r i en' l- M ano n:
yqt
nl- i L nrrl :nl rr thefe iS the famOUS lOW
with any specific author. The question then becomes: what would
be the basic tenets of belief on which dialectics could be said
to be based, as opposed to the thr.ee ideas presented above fon
positivisn (that the epistemology is invariant of time, space,
qrrh ian t : nr l . tLhaJ - i+ iLso m ettrar l Slnui n o f r r .
^hiaal- rrqu l tr u q l tO SeafCh fOf inVafianCeS
What about holism? The positivist world view would not deny
interdependence, but would probably seem to feel that the
degree of dependency is highly unevenly distributed. More parti-
cu1ar1y, the assumption woul-d be that it is possibl-e to isolate
I
:lome units and some variables, often two at the time, because of
a :teep decnease in interdependency relative to the outside. A
dialectical view woul-d probably distribute the degree of inter-
dependence somewhat more evenly in social (and also physical?)
'l
sD.rcc- eading to neiections of bivariate analrzses-
q tr q r j ruo.
Po s i ti v i s m D i al ecti cs
f i nst c hant ens ane n o tl i i n g h rrt a D reD A rati on for w hat is now
.:
u
^ vi
^ - Llr r"-, 6.
-
.
Grr = l
^ ffo r^ t to ma k e use of w hat has been done to try to
e xrlr/IvI
un nr e u qr lm p
Jvlrlc o
U-f th e m An v i s -" ^ - -1^--
CLJ\JrlEi
+Llls
1-p nosi ti rri
u sm-di
f V rorrl]al -ecti cs
-Jbt-tCJ I/vor
nh, an t a r ^ q hr r qv
: rgr a o yr .) r ^ r n rrrrt
vuL of a
s n.)e'i f i rz'i st tn:rl i tr'nn -t not
Jr vL onl rr in
6tvwrt
th o . ar r f ohir - Lr or ,.rrh
pLVE) q I / ! r r e-i
s r r,,a l sense re
! ul! q atiu rns
r16 to thF arl fhnr,- hrrt in the
can be retained also when values are brought explicitly into the
process. And we have tried to indicate that increasing the com-
plexity of propositions by increasing the number of variables is
nnr mara] .' can be used to obtain a hisher
- tool that level of vvL u r r r q r r r Sr r L !
-these foui: the finst one is already within the acceptable posi-
tivist onbit s ince th is i s the way 't synthet icrf compounds are
bro ug nt int o em nir ". i r-:-l r "c : l r '. r - r r {- h r n r r n l - r rr *h e o r r . 'd e s for
Lllv tiu_uur rvt action
l4ctrIezl 1 7 i',()()iet'./ ) lreinq 'thr-' f,ocus; o f :;"Lrrdent nevol,t- iltt.rcl,,. fn ,genr .r.al,
the: Lrigher the level of integnation, the mone valid the proposition.
But this also means that ModelI[ science can su::vive fon some time
in Model IfI society, pnovided the level of isolation is sufficient.
And this throws some perspective over. the cultural nevolution in
China. Just as the student r"evolt in Western Europe at the end of
the sixties could be seen as an effort to synchnonize the academic
structune with Mode1 fI society, the cultural- revolution in China
at the same time was an effont to do the same, with an academic
structur:e that probably was a mixtune (like in Western Europe) of
Model I and Model ff elements but this time to align it with a
Model III soc iety. fn Westerp Eunope there were also efforts in
that dinection, but they failed since there was no surnounding
Model rrr society to align it with.(1r)
se n e r al s 4
o--.--
s oc r ' al c n r' o n n o n^n is it si ven the i mol i cati OnS
r r r r l /r r e u L t attri -
buted to th is type of analysis in e c o n o mic s . T h e b a s ic d is t in c -
-1 5
O ne i nte:resting point in t h is c o n n e c t io n wo u ld b e t h a t t h is
o p en attitud e to theory formati o n is mo n e t y p ic a l of lib e ra ls
w o r ki ng in the positivist tradi t io n then of ma n x is t s wo rk in g in
a dia le cti cal tnadition. It lo o k s a s if it is the la t t e n nather
than th e fo n men who are engage d in a constant seanch to o b t a in
c l o se d th e o n y systems, and who a n e mo s t o p t imis t ic wh e n it c o me s
to th e po ssibility of obtaining s o me t h in g lik e that. We h a v e , in
8.2, po in ted to another similan it y b e t we e n ma rx is m a n d p o s it iv is m
(th e t enden. \ / to nesancl th e tra
q! nscendence
q r r o u vr r u 9 r r vL nf
vr n:ni
u q Pr t:' l
L q r !o i stL soei
o vvl v etri
LJ
Conclus ion
14. llee Plerre I,. van den Berghe, ttDialectic and F\rnctionalisn:
T o w a r d a syn th e si g rr, i ri Deper ath and. Peter son, op.elt,, pp.z 95- r o6.
We agree $tith his poigt, that there Ls room forffitiresis, but
feel that nelther cllalectics, nor fwrctionalism are stated wftfi
uu.ch clari.ty ln his presentation.