how to make a good theoretical argument!
Dear friends,I enjoyed the discussion in the class this morning. I should say that I agree with many of you who
suggest that sociological anlalysis must be concrete, producing clear-cut, substantive outcomes. It is
also true that Habermas seems to be not so much interested as we wish in providing such hard
evidences in his argument. So, frustrations may come about with no surprise.
Yet what I argued in the class is that empirical evidences or historical facts do not make authomatically up a good theoretical argument. Theoretical argument differs very significantly from a normal type of
empirical investigation because it involves a reflexive understanding of a normative basis upon which we carry out an empirical study. Of course, it is good and important to use as many solid empirical
evidences as possible in theoretical discourse. Crucial for that latter is, however, the relevance of the
conceptual framework we use as well as the validity of normative presuppositions we usually take for
granted in our empirical research. So, it is important to think about how to make a good theretical
argument. We should not confuse, therefore, the presentation of empirical facts from a field research, for instance, and theoretical justification of the conceptual framework we use.
Take an example of our class discussion this morning. The tendency of a sharply intensifying polarization of wealth and power distribution in the global and domestic society is a subject to be thoroughly
investigated by sociologists. Habermas takes these investigations as supporting evidences of his
argument. He refers to Held's account of a shocking disparity between the rich and the poor today. Of course, it is to be discussed to what extent this analysis is true. Crucial to Habermas, however, is the
question why he takes a Kantian perspective. Somebody may take other perspectives as well. Here
we comes to the level where we are to provide justification of this perspective which is NOT identical with the fact finding of empirical investigation. To understand the former simply as ideological misses
the whole point of normative argument as an indispensable foundation of any theoretical discourse
without any exception. The manner in which we deal with this normative question is NOT the same
as the manner in which we deal with empirical research.
All these point to the reflexive dimension of theoretical discourse which is perhaps as important as, but
differs from, the empirical dimension of fact finding. I wish to emphasize this as visiting professor.
页:
[1]