Human Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 441–458 | Cite as

Pluralism, Indeterminacy and the Social Sciences: Reply to Ingram and Meehan

  • James Bohman


This article defends methodological and theoretical pluralism in the social sciences. While pluralistic, such a philosophy of social science is both pragmatic and normative. Only by facing the problems of such pluralism, including how to resolve the potential conflicts between various methods and theories, is it possible to discover appropriate criteria of adequacy for social scientific explanations and interpretations. So conceived, the social sciences do not give us fixed and universal features of the social world, but rather contribute to the task of improving upon our practical knowledge of on-going social life. After arguing for such a thorough-going pluralism based on the indeterminacy of social action, I defend it from the post-modern and hermeneutic objections by suggesting the possibility of an epistemology of interpretive social science as a form of practical knowledge.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bohman, James. 1991. New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems of Indeterminacy. Cambridge: MIT/Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bohman, James. 1996a. “Causal Pluralism Without Levels,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 32 (supplementary volume of the Spindel Conference 1995): 115–128.Google Scholar
  3. Bohman, James. 1996b. Public Deliberation: Democracy, Pluralism and Complexity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bohman, James. 1997. “Do Practices Explain Anything? On Stephen Turner's The Social Theory of Practices,” History and Theory 36(1): 93–107.Google Scholar
  5. Bohman, James. Forthcoming. “Practical Agency and Cultural Constraint,” in R. Shusterman (Ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bohman, James and Terrence Kelly. 1996. “Rationality, Intelligibility and Comparison: The Rationality Debates Revisited,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 22(1): 88–100.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fay, Brian. 1993. Review of New Philosophy of Social Science, American Political Science Review 87(3): 197–198.Google Scholar
  14. Geertz, Clifford. 1986. “The Uses of Diversity,” Michigan Quarterly Review 10(2): 105–123.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume I. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. “Questions and Counterquestions,” in R. Bernstein (Ed.), Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume II. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. “Reconstruction and Interpretation in the Social Sciences,” in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hacking, Ian. 1982. “Language, Truth and Reason,” in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. McCarthy, Thomas. 1985. “Reflections on Rationalization in The Theory of Communicative Action”, in R. Bernstein (Ed.), Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. McCarthy, Thomas. “Doing the Right Thing in Cross-Cultural Representation,” Ethics 102(2): 635–649.Google Scholar
  22. Roth, Paul. 1995. Review of New Philosophy of Social Science, Metaphilosophy 12(3): 440–448.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Bohman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySaint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations