Two left turns to science: Gramsci and Du Bois on the emancipatory potential of the social sciences

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History of the Human Sciences Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1177/09526951231221675
Charles Battaglini
{"title":"Two left turns to science: Gramsci and Du Bois on the emancipatory potential of the social sciences","authors":"Charles Battaglini","doi":"10.1177/09526951231221675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article identifies two tendencies in left-wing approaches toward the social sciences. The first expresses skepticism towards science as a kind of product of the ruling ideology that solely reproduces the status quo. The second worries about the capacity of scientific inquiry to actually change people's ingrained beliefs and prejudices. Antonio Gramsci and W.E.B. Du Bois are representative of these two diverging approaches. Their views on science, however, offer more commonalities than at first meet the eye. They are both critical of sociological traditions that seek to discover universal laws of society, arguing that such an approach fails to grasp the complexity of causality and the role of human action in shaping their lives and history. On the other hand, both see the potential for rigorous and nuanced scientific analysis to offer grounds for concrete action and warn off wishful thinking. By combining their views, this article presents a conception of the role and potential of social scientific inquiry for progressive movements toward social change that navigates between the double-sided concerns represented by Gramsci and Du Bois.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of the Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951231221675","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article identifies two tendencies in left-wing approaches toward the social sciences. The first expresses skepticism towards science as a kind of product of the ruling ideology that solely reproduces the status quo. The second worries about the capacity of scientific inquiry to actually change people's ingrained beliefs and prejudices. Antonio Gramsci and W.E.B. Du Bois are representative of these two diverging approaches. Their views on science, however, offer more commonalities than at first meet the eye. They are both critical of sociological traditions that seek to discover universal laws of society, arguing that such an approach fails to grasp the complexity of causality and the role of human action in shaping their lives and history. On the other hand, both see the potential for rigorous and nuanced scientific analysis to offer grounds for concrete action and warn off wishful thinking. By combining their views, this article presents a conception of the role and potential of social scientific inquiry for progressive movements toward social change that navigates between the double-sided concerns represented by Gramsci and Du Bois.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两次向科学的左转:葛兰西和杜波依斯论社会科学的解放潜力
本文指出了左翼对待社会科学的两种倾向。第一种倾向是对科学表示怀疑,认为科学是统治意识形态的产物,只能维持现状。第二种则担心科学探索能否真正改变人们根深蒂固的信仰和偏见。安东尼奥-葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)和杜波依斯(W.E.B. Du Bois)是这两种不同观点的代表。然而,他们对科学的看法却有更多的共通之处。他们都对试图发现社会普遍规律的社会学传统持批评态度,认为这种方法无法把握因果关系的复杂性以及人类行动在塑造生活和历史中的作用。另一方面,两人都看到了严谨细致的科学分析为具体行动提供依据的潜力,并警告人们不要一厢情愿。本文结合他们的观点,提出了社会科学探究在社会变革的进步运动中的作用和潜力,在葛兰西和杜波依斯所代表的双面关切之间游刃有余。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History of the Human Sciences
History of the Human Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: History of the Human Sciences aims to expand our understanding of the human world through a broad interdisciplinary approach. The journal will bring you critical articles from sociology, psychology, anthropology and politics, and link their interests with those of philosophy, literary criticism, art history, linguistics, psychoanalysis, aesthetics and law.
期刊最新文献
In the shadow of the tree: The diagrammatics of relatedness in genealogy, anthropology, and genetics as epistemic, cultural, and political practice Who reads Renan The specter of authenticity: Social science after the deconstruction of Romanticism On heritage pharmacology: Rethinking ‘heritage pathologies’ as tropes of care Low on the Kinsey scale: Homosexuality in Swedish and Finnish sex research, 1960s–1990s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1