A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO
JyuRGEN HABERMASAo
HERMENEUTICAL REFLECTION
AS A METHODOLOGY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara.
Jakarta.
Indonesia Email: tshahwirman@gmail.
Abstract: This paper aims to examine and evaluate HabermasAo thoughts on hermeneutical reyection as a methodology of social science based on his work titled Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften (On The Logic of The Social Science.
By starting from a theory of action approach focusing on the process of inquiring and understanding intentional action.
Habermas developed a hermeneutical reyection approach emphasizing the importance of communicative experience between the researcher and the subject examined.
This approach has emancipatory power because it encourages researchers to thoroughly identify the ideological elements of social reality researched.
Apart from all the advantages of HabermasAo methodological thought, his thinking should be evaluated critically because there are problematic aspects when viewed through the lens of ontology, methodology/method, and axiology.
Keywords: Habermas, hermeneutical reyection.
Theory of Action.
Critique of Ideology, intersubjectivity Abstrak: Tulisan ini hendak mengkaji dan mengevaluasi pemikiran Habermas tentang reyeksi hermeneutis sebagai suatu metodologi ilmu sosial sebagaimana tertuang dalam karyanya Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften (On The Logic of The Social Science.
Bertitik tolak dari pendekatan teori tindakan .
heory of actio.
yang berfokus pada proses menelusuri dan memahami tindakan yang disengaja .
ntentional actio.
Habermas mengembangkan pendekatan reyeksi hermeneutis yang menekankan pentingnya pengalaman komunikatif antara peneliti dan subjek yang diteliti.
Pendekatan ini memiliki daya emansipatoris karena mendorong peneliti untuk menelanjangi realitas sosial yang diteli257 Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
tinya sehingga unsur-unsur ideologis yang mengandaikan begitu saja kondisi subjek yang diteliti dapat teridentiykasi.
Namun, terlepas dari segala keunggulannya, pemikiran Habermas ini patut dievaluasi secara kritis karena memuat beberapa hal yang problematik ketika ditinjau melalui kacamata ontologi, metodologi/metode, dan aksiologi.
Kata-Kata Kunci: Habermas, reyeksi hermeneutis.
Teori Tindakan (Theory of Actio.
, kritik ideologi, intersubjektivitas INTRODUCTION In the yrst chapter of On The Logic of The Social SciencesAithe work of Jyrgen Habermas .
that is the focus of this paperAiHabermas argued that the distinction made by Neo-Kantian thinkers between the scientiyc research methodologies of the natural and social sciences had been forgotten by scientists,1 especially those who embraced the Logical Positivism.
2 Scientists of this movement3 latently only used the positivistic point of view for all types of science.
This made the positivistic viewpoint linking with a nomological approachAiwhich is closely related to Habermas .
8, pp.
referred to the thoughts of Rickert.
Cassirer, and Weber who yrst reyected the methodological distinction.
First.
RickertAiby taking KantAos transcendental philosophy as a starting pointAi considered phenomena as a nature that can be explained through general laws, while culture could be understood through the relationship between facts and value systems.
Unlike the general nature.
on the one hand is unique and unrepeatable, but on the other hand it can also be general and repeatable.
Habermas was not satisyed with RickertAos explanation.
Second, according to Cassirer, natural sciences .
omological science.
produced statements about reality in formally deyned symbolic systems so that reality is understood selectively within a certain frame of reference.
Different from the natural sciences, the social sciences .
ultural science.
are preoccupied with the formal relationship between symbolic forms that provide statements about pre-given information.
Third, in contrast to Rickert and Cassirer.
Weber combined the diverse methods, goals, and presuppositions of the natural and social sciences.
Weber combined explanation .
closely related to natural science and understanding .
connected to social science.
WeberAos methodology is considered suitable for understanding a purposive-rational action since it allows us to understand the intention of a person or group which can then lead us to a convincing empirical explanation.
Jyrgen Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans.
Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A.
Stark (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1.
, p.
According to Logical Positivism (Outhwaite, 1987, p.
, some positivists preferred the term Aological empiricismAo because they would like to avoid ComteAos positivism term which was strongly linked with metaphysical nuances.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 the methodology of natural-empirical scienceAias the main methodological reference for social scientists.
According to Habermas, natural and social sciences did have methodological differences so that the dualism between the two types of science should always be critically discoursed.
5 Natural sciences use a nomological approach to explain the pattern of regularity of facts in reality, while social sciences do not just stop there, but also give a meaning through a hermeneutical approach to the social reality inquired.
Nonetheless, these differences were rejected and considered unimportant by positivists.
Through On The Logic of The Social Sciences.
Habermas thoroughly explored the distinctive characteristics of social science methodology as a form of criticism towards positivists who ignored these methodological Habermas argued that positivists opposed this dualism since the methodologies in the social sciences are diverse, conyicting, and intermingled with each other.
This encouraged positivists to develop a uniyed science based on a natural sciences approach that is considered more certain than the social sciences.
Habermas disagreed with the positivists because the object of the natural sciences is not as complex as human beings as the predominant object of the social sciences.
6 This makes general theories and methodologies that apply to the natural sciences not sufyciently qualiyed to be fully applied to the social sciences.
Habermas pointed out the improper methodological treatment of social science by referring to the science of sociology practiced by scientists at the time he wrote On The Logic of The Social Sciences.
He asserted that sociological scientists had eliminated the historical-hermeneutical aspect Logical Positivism set a standard for scientists to make science produce scientiyc explanations that allow them to describe reality objectively.
According to Rosenberg .
2, pp.
, the power of scientiyc explanation came from scientiyc laws obtained through various observations and experiments which are then identiyed as a yxed pattern of regularity.
In other words, the task of science is to objectively describe the regularity of reality, not to explain why reality can occur and not to reyect it normatively.
Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
explaining the context of the speciyc conditions of a society as a social reality.
7 There are two reasons why they eliminated the historical-hermeneutical aspect of sociology.
First, positivists realized that they cannot draw an empirical uniformity in the midst of the concrete social facts.
8 Second, by referring to Joachim RitterAos analysis of society.
Habermas argued that the approach taken by positivists only aims to make sociology an instrumental tool that lucratively beneyts the advanced industrial society.
9 This epistemic orientation encourages sociology to adopt the natural science framework which fundamentally associates with instrumental value.
For advanced industrial societies, in the framework of natural laws, society exists as a system of needs that is exclusively based on the pure desire to defend themselves and fulyll the basic needs.
Habermas certainly found himself disagreeing with the positivistic By referring to Ernest Nagel.
Habermas stated that social science cannot rely on universal scientiyc laws as in the natural sciences to explain the causal relationship of social reality.
10 The premises in social science about concrete human situations that are often explained through statistical generalizations are ultimately pre-constrained by using general assumptions or suppositions.
Social scientists will eventually have serious difyculty in explaining concrete and complex social reality as a whole.
Consequently.
Habermas depicted two methodological implications.
First, as scientiyc explanations of social reality are substantially probable, it results in the difyculty of generating general scientiyc explanations, as such that repetitions and replications in the social science scientiyc inquiry are invariably required.
11 Secondly, the methodological difyculty Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
10 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
11 The probability in scientiyc explanation does not only apply to social science, but also to science in general, including natural sciences.
This thinking came from PopperAos reyection on the problem of Induction which was yrst popularized by Hume (Popper, 2009, pp.
According to Hume, empirical facts obtained through the process of induction reasoning could not describe a solid causal relationship of a phenomenon because phenomena are always concrete, not general.
The difyculty of the causal rela- DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 should drive social scientists to rely on historical judgmentAiwhich was ignored by positivistsAiso that social reality can be explained.
12 Hence, that kind of judgment implies that social sciences have to adopt hermeneutics approachAiHabermas then called this approach hermeneutical reyection.
Overall, this paper aims to not only describe HabermasAo thoughts on hermeneutical reyection as a social science methodology, but also to respond critically.
I would like to argumentatively exhibit whether HabermasAo methodological approach is reliable or not in the practice of social science scientiyc inquiry.
In narrating the theses.
I divide this paper into four parts.
Initially.
I will explain the methodological background underlying HabermasAo thinking about hermeneutical reyection.
Then.
I will present HabermasAo primary thoughts on hermeneutical reyection.
Next.
I will depict my arguments that critically show the strengths and weaknesses of HabermasAo methodological approach.
In the end.
I will conclude this writing and provide another consideration that can help us determine whether hermeneutical reyection approach is reliable or not.
In describing HabermasAo thoughts on hermeneutical reyection.
I conduct a literature review by using one of HabermasAo books entitled On The Logic of The Social Sciences (.
In addition, there are other literatures utilized to emphasize, comment, support, or criticize HabermasAo thoughts such as The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology .
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientiyc Inquiry .
, and The Constitution of Society .
tion makes causal laws seem difycult to construct.
Despite the problems of induction, humans always try to ynd something certain from the phenomena they observe.
According to Popper, humans have a psychological dimension that makes them always look for patterns or regularities from various phenomena or empirical facts so that reality can be explained with certainty.
In other words, in order for this problem to be resolved, humans need a universal law in science so that it makes it easier to explain phenomena even though the level of truth will always be uncertain.
Therefore, every scientiyc explanation needs to be refuted or falsiyed.
12 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
THEORY OF ACTION APPROACH AS A METHODOLOGICAL
BACKGROUND
Before exhibiting the methodological background adopted by Habermas in building his methodology.
I would like to describe Habermas analysis about three general approaches commonly used in the social sciences: normative-analytical approach, analytical-empirical approach in the behavioral sciences, and analytical-empirical approach in the theory of action.
Table 2.
Three Methodological Approaches in Social Sciences NormativeAnalytical EmpiricalAnalytical (Behavioral Science.
EmpiricalAnalytical (Theory of Actio.
Objective Describe .
escriptive purpos.
and predict .
ractical purpos.
social Construct scientiyc social reality descriptively, and help researchers make purposiverational solutions.
Gain an of the subjectAos true intentions .
ntentional actio.
and subjectively Orientation Strategic action that is purposiverational to obtain rational alternatives so that economic goals can be Instrumental action which is purposiverational aiming to overcome adaptive Subjectively intended meaning.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 Methodological Background Based on maxims .
ike a ceteris paribu.
that contain general laws regarding human actions and freedoms that are described Based on assumptions in the form of hypotheses that refer directly to the relationship between stimulusresponse behavior that works on the basis of a maxim that is decisive and Based on a of social facts focusing on symbolic behavior, especially in the form of linguistic that emphasizes ordinary or Example in Science Economics Psychology and Ethology Sociology and Cultural Antrhopology Source: Habermas .
8, pp.
HabermasAo position followed the empirical-analytical approach focusing on the theory of actionAiclosely related to the hermeneutic approach in interpretive sociologyAiwhich seeks to understand intentional Habermas argued that empirical facts and causal relationships of stimulus-response behavior in behavioral science are just data.
After data is collected and veriyed empirically, researchers need to understand .
the data hermeneutically so that the subjectAos intentional action can be fully understood.
Furthermore, according to Habermas, the use of maximsAiboth in normative-analytical and empirical-analytical approaches in behavioral scienceAiwhich act as a methodological supposition is also considered unreasonable as maxims can be easily refuted when empirical veriycation is carried out.
Thus, it can be concluded that theory of action, which is methodologically linked to hermeneutics, plays a very important role in the social science methodology.
Nevertheless, the original theory of actionAideveloped by Weber and ParsonsAiis insufycient due to at least two logical difyculties.
The yrst logical difyculty occurs when subjective intentional action statements are transformed into objective statements that are associated with the language of empirical statements.
Empirical language is extensional.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
in other words, an empirical statement has multiple meanings or refers to synonymous things.
The word AufurnitureAy can be an example of the empirical language extensionality because the word can refer to various objects such as chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.
The extensionality of empirical language is an implication of the empirical language purpose which focuses on the condition of truth-functionality.
The truth of an empirical statement is judged on the purpose for which the statements are used.
This cannot be used in understanding intentional action which is subjective and has its own form of logic.
Habermas stated that intentional action cannot be directly and clearly correlated with facts.
By following Neo-Kantianism.
Habermas argued that the intentional action statement does not refer to facts directly but refers to Austatements about factsAy.
13 In order for statements about facts to be concretely understood, empirical statements need to be further explored through a metalinguistic approach that explores the symbolic context inherent in the subject by focusing on ordinary language.
This approach became popular after Wittgenstein popularized the philosophy of language that focuses on everyday language through the concept of language games.
Thus, it can be concluded that linguistic communication has an essential role in understanding intentional action.
The second logical difyculty is that the original theory of action approach contains a conception of functionalism that emphasizes the importance of a hermeneutic approach that focuses on cultural traditions and value systems, but this approach will unfortunately only be effective if these traditions and values are always oriented towards the normative power possessed by society as an AuinstitutionAy.
14 In other words, sociology only focuses on institutionalized values.
As a result, the original theory of action, like the normative-analytical or empirical-analytical approach in behavioral science, purportedly presupposes a maxim that limits the process of inquiring and understanding intentional action.
13 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
14 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 The conception of functionalism is critically rejected by Habermas for at least two reasons.
First, this time.
Habermas agreed with positivists (Hempel and Nage.
who stated that the causal relationship between variables in the self-regulating systemAialso between the system and its external environmentAican be analyzed without the reference to the speciyc meaning or objective contained in the actual reality.
in other words, without the expectations of institutions.
15 Social systems cannot be equated with the human body systems in biology that inspire functionalism.
The conception of functionalism cannot be taken for granted in social science methodology owing to its complex and dynamic social reality.
Second.
Habermas was made aware that the goal .
eed-dispositio.
or ideal condition .
quilibrium stat.
that is considered important by society cannot be universally presupposed and descriptively explained without the concrete aspirations of the community.
The goal or ideal state is not just given for granted as Parsons stated, but found in a society that believes in the elements of utopia or ideology that are considered essentially signiycant by the society.
17 This condition is only possible through public discourses where members of society can communicate freely with each other without being dominated by certain parties .
ommunication free from dominatio.
18 The functionalism model used should be no longer based on a biological model, but a dramaturgical model that focuses on 15 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
16 Weber/ParsonsAo functionalism was inspired by the biological model.
In biology, systems are units .
ells, tissues, or organ.
organized around each other through self-regulation thatAiunder changing conditionsAiaim to maintain themselves in a normal The adaptive behavior of the self-regulating system in the human body can be interpreted as instrumental action by sociology.
In other words, social theory is considered meaningless if the theoryAior the elements contained in the theoryAidoes not support the achievement of a goal .
eed-dispositio.
or ideal condition .
quilibrium stat.
that is considered important by society as an institution.
(Habermas, 1988, p.
17 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
18 One of HabermasAo signature phrases is Ausystematically distorted communicationAy.
According to Allen and Mendieta .
9, pp.
, the expression refers to communication activities between subjects that are not oriented towards mutual understanding, but to conditions that seek to achieve a certain goal .
riented towards succes.
Distorted communication occurs when one subject tries to manipulate others in the conversation, whether through rhetoric or psychological manipulation, so that its ideological goals or intentions can be fulylled.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
the dialectical process between fellow community members.
This shows that intersubjective communicative experience is yrmly important in social science methodology.
In addition to the two logical difyculties described above.
Habermas also emphasized the importance of grammatical elements when researchers would like to understand intentional action hermeneutically.
HabermasAo argument was based on his criticism of other weaknesses possessed by the stimulus-response behavior approach.
His criticism is based on Noam ChomskyAos critical argumentation about language against learning theory established by B.
Skinner.
19 According to Chomsky in HabermasAo view, the process of learning language cannot be overcome by learning theory which emphasizes behavioral concepts .
timulus and response, reward and punishment, reinforcement and extinction, etc.
Learning theory was rejected by Chomsky because it reduces language to just a behavior that is derived based on stimulus and response without considering the grammatical elements that organize language elements.
Grammatical elements are important because they are always internalized in the subject, and this inyuences their actions.
This makes sense because grammar allows the subject to distinguish between correct and incorrect sentences.
Furthermore, it also helps subjects understand new sentences in certain situations and identify various ambiguities and expressions in language.
It affects the way subjects learn to interpret the reality they face and manifest it into concrete actions.
To recapitulate, theory of action needs to emphasize three important First, the role of everyday language-based intersubjective interactions that deyne Austatements of factAy over intentional action.
Second, intersubjective communication processes that are free from any domination.
Third, grammar as part of linguistic communication.
These three need to be further adopted by the theory of action so that hermeneutics as a methodological approach can truly explore and understand intentional 19 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 Habermas then calls this type of hermeneutics as hermeneutical reyection.
HERMENEUTICAL REFLECTION AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE
METHODOLOGY
Habermas adopted three major schools of 20th century philosophical thought in constructing his methodological thinking about hermeneutical reyection, namely phenomenology, philosophy of language, and hermeneutics.
HabermasAo thinking is synthetic since he not only adopted the ideas of other thinkers, but also argued vigorously with them.
Great philosophers such as Schutz.
Wittgenstein, and Gadamer were HabermasAo discussion and debate partners in On The Logic of The Social Sciences.
First, based on phenomenology developed by Alfred Schutz, hermeneutical interpretation in communicative experience can be implemented if the researcher understands the social lifeworld of himself and the subject under study.
Social lifeworld is signiycantly important in this matter since it is closely related to the worldview of the subject.
20 Worldview includes expectations, motivations, living conditions, historical conditions, and also how the subject views or interprets the social world .
ocial lifeworl.
around them.
21 Therefore.
Habermas emphasized that understanding the meaning of intentional action is only possible through a communicative experience between the researcher and the subject examined by involving a process of interpretation of the social lifeworld owned by both.
In HabermasAo view.
SchutzAos phenomenology, which he learned from CicourelAos writings, posits that the structure of the social lifeworld can only be understood through a process of reyection which focuses on the 20 The concept of social lifeworld cannot be separated from Edmund Husserl, who is known as a pioneer of phenomenology.
Habermas, in WolinAos view .
9, p.
, adopted this conception as a form of criticism of modern science and philosophy of science which he considered a misguided Aumathematization of natureAy since it yrmly disregards the contextual condition of individuals or society.
21 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
theory of culture as a methodological reference.
22 This encourages social researchers to seriously understand linguistic .
and nonlinguistic aspects .
on-language cultural symbol.
through a process of reyection on communicative experience.
In addition, the process of phenomenological reyection can only occur when we capture everything that is taken for granted in the communicative experience that binds the researcher and the subject under This indicates that participatory observation techniques that allow researchers to communicate using everyday language and immerse themselves with the subjects under study are inseparable techniques in understanding the meaning of intentional action.
Only through such reyection can the structure of the social lifeworld be identiyed and understood intersubjectively by social researchers.
Second, as mentioned above about the role of cultural symbols, especially language, linguistics plays a central role in hermeneutical reyection.
In adopting the philosophy of language.
Habermas referred to WittgensteinAos thinking in his famous work Philosophical Investigation.
Wittgenstein in HabermasAo understanding viewed language not only as a form of rules or grammar that regulates everyday grammar in communication, but also as a Auform of lifeAy that is immanent in a human being.
This immanent nature affects how human beings orient and carry out their lives.
other words, language determines the social lifeworld that underlies the way human beings understand or interpret something.
Language in this way lends itself to the praxis level, not at the theoretical one.
22 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
23 Although Habermas made language as one of the important philosophical aspects that he adopted in developing his methodology, he also criticized the language, both as a symbol of tradition which is the focus of study in hermeneutical reyection and as a medium of communicative interaction.
Language is often considered normative because language seems to act as a metainstitution in which social institutions depend on it.
Habermas argued that this made sense since social action is always expressed through language, especially everyday language.
Nevertheless.
Habermas seriously rejected this because all social actions cannot be reduced to normative relationships.
HabermasAo argument indicates that language has the potential to become a means of domination and social power.
In other words, language is ideological or contains certain interests.
(Habermas, 1988, p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 Language as a form of life cannot be separated from the conception of language games initiated by Wittgenstein.
According to that conception, linguistic analysis is not only about the grammar of everyday language, but also about the cultural symbols that surround the subjectAos social Language games are very diverse because they depend on the cultural context of a societyAos life.
24 In addition, language gamesAias a guide that regulates the use of everyday language as well as the cultural symbols in a particular societyAiare also implicit or unwritten so that the process of understanding the structure of the social lifeworld and the meaning of intentional action cannot be comprehended positivistically.
WittgensteinAos conception of language games is pragmatic.
25 The pragmatic aspect lies in the rules of language games which aim to achieve an intersubjective consensus among the subjects involved .
he researcher themselves and the subjects examine.
In language games, intersubjective consensus is extremely necessary since it indicates an internal connection between language and praxis that has implications for the way subjects understand the meaning of intentional action.
However, analyzing or reyecting language games in communicative experience is difycult because the experience involves two or more individuals.
Researchers need to intersubjectively ynd common ground between the language games owned by the subjects involved.
Habermas had the same opinion as Gadamer that mastering language is different from understanding language.
They disagreed with Wittgenstein who stated that mastering language games is the same as understanding the form of life of an individual formed through the process of Aulanguage trainingAy which is internalized through the socialization process since the subject has been living in the world.
According to Habermas and Wittgenstein, mastering .
eing skille.
a language game did not mean understanding life because language is only a medium so that the process of understanding can take place.
Habermas quotes Ga- 24 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
25 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
AuThus hermeneutical problem is not one of the correct mastery of language, but of the proper understanding of that which takes place through the medium of languageAy.
26 In order for researchers to truly understand the meaning of intentional action, after mastering the language, researchers need to carry out interpretation through hermeneutical reyection.
Therefore, the hermeneutic approach needs to be adopted in social science methodology.
Third.
Habermas adopted GadamerAos hermeneutics in developing his social science methodology.
GadamerAos thoughts adopted by him are the conceptions of AuhorizonAy and Authe history of a textAos inyuenceAy (Wirkungsgeschicht.
According to Gadamer in HabermasAo view, the process of understanding involves a AuhorizonAy which is a range of views on everything that underlies how a person views and interprets something.
27 On the one hand, the horizon is vertical because it contains historical elements that underlie the way the subject interprets facts.
on the other hand, the horizon is horizontal since it contains linguistic elements that are substantially cultural or geographical.
Horizons are open as they can widen as history invariably moves.
Each subject interacting in communication lives on their own horizon and this affects the way they interpret various facts expressed through language.
In the process of interaction or communication, the horizons of the subjectsAibetween the researcher and the researched subjectAimeet and fuse with each other to form a fusion of horizons, which is a synthesis of horizons that are different from each In the process of synthesis, the meaning of intentional action can be comprehended intersubjectively.
In HabermasAo view.
Gadamer stated that our conception of the present certainly contains historical elements that inyuence us in interpreting the facts that occur in the present.
In other words, we are always moving in history.
The inyuence of historyAiusually called the history of 26 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, p.
27 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 a textAos inyuenceAiis an embodiment of GadamerAos conception known as Wirkungsgeschichte.
28 Based on this conception, it is impossible to bring back everything that happened in the past and explain it objectively because we are always moving in history.
Everything we understand today is dialectical and synthetic, involving historical elements that contrast with each other, ultimately shaping our understanding of the present.
other words, the activity of understanding is not merely about the reproduction of meaning, but also the production of new meanings that are relevant to the present.
Figure 3.
How HabermasAo Hermeneutical Reyection Works How can Wirkungsgeschichte be illustrated by researchers? Habermas refers to Arthur DantoAos thoughts regarding his conception of narrative 29 Habermas argued that narrative statements allow researchers to explore and illustrate Wirkungsgeschichte since narratives can lead phenomena to be elements in a series of stories that have a beginning and an end that are intertwined with each other so that the plot can be According to Danto in HabermasAo view, narrative allows re28 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
29 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
searchers to implement hermeneutic interpretation or reyection.
This is possible because we can anticipate the conditions that will occur, either in the present or the future, when we trace everything that happened in the past.
Habermas stated that hermeneutical reyection has practical implications because this approach is not only about the process of understanding the meaning of intersubjective intentional action, but also about the Critique of Ideology.
This conception comes from HabermasAo criticism of Gadamer which stated that the prejudices or traditions that surround oneAos horizon will always be rehabilitated in hermeneutical reyection.
For Habermas.
Gadamer had failed to identify the power of reyection in the process of understanding .
In HabermasAo view, when we implement hermeneutical reyection, traditions that contain prejudices do not constantly have to be rehabilitated because we can break the relationship with them.
Prejudices do allow us to gain knowledge, but these prejudices can only become knowledge after we accept them through reyection.
31 In other words, we need to critically reyect on traditions to answer the question of whether or not they are worth maintaining as a basis for hermeneutical reyection.
If through reyection we do not agree with the values contained in the tradition, perhaps because they alienate us.
then the tradition can be rejected.
Thus, hermeneutical reyection is emancipatory.
Habermas brought back the power of reyection in social science methodology that had been ignored by positivists so that ethical considerations can be taken into account in social science.
This emancipatory hermeneutical reyection cannot be fully realized in an original interpretive sociology model, even if the process of unders30 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
31 The example given by Hardiman .
5, pp.
about contemporary democracy can concretely illustrate HabermasAo criticism of Gadamer.
In contemporary democracy, oneAos understanding cannot be isolated from the various opinions spread through the mass media.
Moreover, the operation of mass media cannot be separated from various networks of power that bend interpretations so as to direct peopleAos understanding.
This exhibits how hermeneutics operates within the medium of power.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 tanding the meaning of intentional action is still the main focus, considering that the research practice still engages the framework of a positivistic nomological approach.
32 This science still presupposes the existence of general theories that are concluded based on causal relationships such as stimulus-response behavior in behavioral sciences and their relation to the conception of functionalism criticized by Habermas.
This made Habermas adopt FreudAos Psychoanalysis model into interpretative sociology.
33 This is possible because psychoanalysis allows us to trace the unconscious motives that inyuence the way subjects act and behave in everyday life.
In this context, the subject experiences an internal disturbance or neurosis which is shown by his/her autonomously unwanted actions.
The internal disturbance is inyuenced by unconscious motives caused by external domination or disturbance that he has experienced throughout his life, such as trauma, bad experiences in the household, etc.
Knowledge of these unconscious motives allows the subject to recognize and shape himself as a whole and autonomously so that the various life decisions he lives can run according to the subjectAos ultimate In other words, the subject experiences emancipation since he is free from alienation that alienates himself.
CRITIQUE OF HABERMASAo HERMENEUTICAL REFLECTION Hermeneutical reyection as a methodological approach to social science offered by Habermas has given a new perspective for the development of social science methodology, especially in interpretive sociology.
His thinking contains methodological advantages because it offers a new way of thinking for social researchers to not only inquire and understand intentional action, but also critically uncover all ideological elements that are unconsciously taken for granted in the framework of thinking behind scientiyc search procedures.
In other words.
HabermasAo struggle with scienceAiin line with MedawarAos thinking34 in LiptonAos viewAiis not only 32 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
33 Habermas.
On the Logic of the Social Sciences, pp.
34 Peter Lipton.
AuThe Medawar Lecture 2004: The Truth About Science,Ay Philosophical Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
limited to discussions about methodology .
escriptive dimensio.
, but also about the ethical or practical implications .
ormative dimensio.
However, behind all its advantages, there are various things in HabermasAo thinking that deserve critical evaluation.
I identify some of the advantages and disadvantages of HabermasAo methodological thinking based on three aspects consisting of ontology, methodology/method, and axiology.
Based on the ontological aspect, the advantage of HabermasAo hermeneutical reyection lies in the ability to see the object (Sach.
or subject under study contextually or as it is without initially presupposing anything related to the subjectAiunlike the conception of functionalism of Weber/ Parsons in the original theory of action or the use of maxims in normative-analytical approach and empirical-analytical approach in behavioral With reference to Adorno,35 the weakness of normative-analytical and empirical-analytical approaches lies in their false claims of objectivity towards the object inquired.
These approaches claim that they can explain the overall reality in general or universal terms through empirical yndings, whereas the social reality consisting of concrete individuals is complex and contextual.
These approaches can explain and classify the concepts of social reality systematically, but they cannot describe the state of society as a social reality as it is.
Different from these approaches, hermeneutical reyection allows social researchers to inquire or understand the subjectAos true intentions .
ntentional actio.
entirely and thoroughly.
Moreover.
I also agree with HabermasAo criticism of the conception of Weber/Parsons functionalism which is inspired by the biological science Scientiyc explanation or reasoning in biological science is often associated with causal relationships that are mechanistic or related to a certain mechanism.
36 The mechanistic nature of biological functionalism Transactions of The Royal Society, no.
: pp.
Theodor W.
Adorno.
AuSociology & Empirical ResearchAy, in The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, ed.
Glyn Adey and David Frisby (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1.
, pp.
36 Lauren N.
Ross.
AuCausal Concepts in Biology: How Pathways Differ from Mechanisms and Why It Matters,Ay The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 72, no.
: pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 presupposes that there is a yxed causal relationship between one organ of the body and other organs so that a biological system that is presupposed can survive or run optimallyAifor example: the circulatory system, respiratory system, secretion system, etc.
In such an illustration, a mechanistic causal relationship can be called objective scientiyc reasoning.
Nevertheless, if we look at the development of scientiyc reasoning in biology, the mechanistic causal relationship is not even the only scientiyc reasoning used in biology.
There are other reasoning bases besides mechanism-based reasoning, such as pathway, cascade, trigger and process.
in biologyAias the basis of the social science functionalism modelAithere are other ways of reasoning, social science, which places humans as beings who have free will, should also be open to other ways of reasoning.
In addition, the problem of objectivity based on functionalism also lies in hidden subjectivity that is actually perched in the purpose of conducting scientiyc research.
Adorno illustrated a concrete example that can exhibit this objectivity problem, especially in the empirical-analytical approach, is market research in marketing management.
37 He revealed that any statistical data tracked in market researchAisuch as gender, age, income, opinion, behavior, etc.
Aiwould only be considered an important discovery if it met a presupposed administrative need or purposeAior functionalism in the context of business systems.
This approach claims to be objective, when in fact there is a subjective intent behind the market research practice.
Nonetheless, the process of understanding the condition of the subject as it is authentically in hermeneutical reyection without any suppositions or restrictions is not possible in scientiyc inquiry, both in natural and social sciences.
This is due to the very limited human ability to explain and understand the complexity of the world, whereas science essentially aims to always ynd a probable explanation in the midst of complex natural and social reality.
In this light, science needs to conyne the attributes that surround the object/subject being examinedAior in the economics term is referred to as ceteris paribusAiso that scientists can explain the regularity 37 Adorno.
AuSociology & Empirical ResearchAy, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
of the reality they inquire even though the explanation will never be perfect.
In other words, it needs to be invariably tested by other researchers.
Limiting various attributes within the scope of the object/subject under study does not mean eliminating the value or normative dimensions that Habermas considered important.
This argument was expressed by Popper when he refuted the argument stating that science must free itself from any values.
Popper upheld this view because science can never free itself from value.
He argued that what needs to be done is not to eliminate values, but to distinguish between purely scientiyc values and extra-scientiyc values.
Pure scientiyc values are all the regulative principles that enable researchers to ynd the ultimate scientiyc truth.
These values include the strength of correspondence with empirical facts .
, the signiycance of scientiyc statements to the scientiyc problem at hand .
elevance, interest, and signiycanc.
, success in achieving scientiyc goals .
, strength in explaining causal relationships .
xplanatory powe.
, simplicity of the resulting theory .
, and precision to the object inquired .
Aside from those, extra-scientiyc values are all things that are not related to scientiyc truth, such as ideology, public welfare issues, national security issues, etc.
I contend that this distinctionAibetween questions of truth and questions of actionAiremains necessary to disassociate science from the notion that it can explain everything with perfect certainty.
Distinguishing them does not mean that we can act immorally in the name of science, but it is an effort to explain factual reality in a clear In the aspect of methodology/method, hermeneutical reyection helps researchers achieve a condition of mutual understanding intersubjectively between the researcher and the subject under study without eliminating the peculiarities of the social lifeworld of each subject involved.
This is very reasonable in social science which does have a methodological 38 Karl L.
Popper.
AuThe Logic of The Social SciencesAy, in The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, ed.
Glyn Adey and David Frisby (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1.
, pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 characteristic in the form of double hermeneutics which is characterized by a dialectical relationship of mutual interpretationAilike the Danto dramaturgy model described in the previous sectionAibetween the researcher and the subject examined.
Double hermeneutics allows the description of social reality to be interpreted by the subject under study, so that the researcher gets feedback that will inyuence how the social researcher responds or operationalizes the research at a later stage.
The example given by Herry-Priyono can help us comprehend the dialectical style of social science embodied in the rules of double hermeneutics.
40 Herry-Priyono illustrated IndonesiaAos 1977 crisis when the exchange rate of the rupiah against the US dollar increased by 700%.
that time, people rushed to banks and ynancial institutions to exchange rupiah for dollars or vice versa.
This could not be separated from the role of ynancial analysts who observed and analyzed the behavior of foreign exchange traders and buyers.
The results of the analysis were described and presented to the public who were traders and buyers of foreign exchange.
The results of the analysis were then reinterpreted by traders and buyers to inyuence their next actions.
Then, their actions were analyzed again by ynancial analysts.
This reciprocal relationship happens continuously.
In this illustration, a dialectical relationship between the researcher .
nancial analys.
and the subject under study .
oreign exchange traders and buyer.
The illustration above indicates that social scientists cannot be completely separated from the subjects they examine and the relationship between the two is dynamic and reciprocal.
Hence, both the results of the analysis produced by social scientists and the subjects they study are in a continuous process of becoming .
n yu.
If there were a social theory that sounds outdated, it would not mean that the theory is poor, but that the theory is an integral part of the whole object researched.
39 Anthony Giddens.
Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1.
, p.
40 B.
Herry-Priyono.
Ilmu Sosial Dasar: Asal-Usul.
Metode.
Teori, plus Dialog dengan Filsafat & Teologi (Jakarta: PT.
Kompas Media Nusantara, 2.
, pp.
41 Herry-Priyono.
Ilmu Sosial Dasar, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
Methodologically, however, hermeneutical reyection can be considered inadequate, especially when juxtaposed with PopperAos thinking, which is often adopted by both natural and social scientists today.
Popper offered a formal logic of science, namely a regulative conception of truth and scientiyc explanation.
42 In the context of scientiyc truth.
Popper followed Kant since he conyned the discourse related to the scientiycity of a study to empirical phenomena.
Scientiyc reasoning can be considered objective if scientiyc propositions correspond to empirical facts.
Not only in the context of the discussion about truth, but scientiyc explanation also relies on empirical facts .
nitial conditio.
which are then deductively reasoned through a rule in the form of concepts that presuppose a yxed law.
There is a reason why PopperAos regulative conception makes more sense than HabermasAo hermeneutical reyection.
I argue that science essentially aims to always ynd probability in the midst of complex natural and social reality.
Although PopperAos scientiyc reasoning is only limited to the process of explaining .
reality, not the process of understanding .
as the view offered by Habermas.
PopperAos reasoning is sufycient in the context of scientiyc studies.
This is different from philosophy, which always seeks to understand the whole reality without certain epistemic boundaries.
However.
Popper was quite humble in proposing his views because he recognized that the scientiyc reasoning he offered was limited since it could not explain reality completely.
Therefore, theories as research products need to be refuted or falsiyed continuously, especially in the academic community.
43 A theory is reliable in explaining reality if there is no better theory to explain it.
In other words, scientiyc truth is never absolute and the reliability of a theory as a result of scientiyc inquiry is constantly tentative.
If a theory is closely guarded or not open to be refuted or falsiyed, then the science that underlies the theory is categorized by PopperAibased on PigliucciAos viewAias pseudoscience.
42 Popper.
AuThe Logic of The Social SciencesAy, pp.
43 Karl L.
Popper.
AuThe Logic of The Social SciencesAy, p.
44 Massimo Pigliucci.
AuThe Borderland between Science and Philosophy: An Introduc- DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 Critics of hermeneutical reyections argued that they run the risk of promoting pseudoscience, referencing FreudAos model of psychoanalysis as an example.
Pigliucci provided an illustration of an out-of-body experience that indirectly explains why FreudAos psychoanalysis can be said to be a pseudoscience.
she may question what it means to AuseeAy oneAos body from outside.
the best of our knowledge, seeing is something we do with a complex bodily apparatus that includes not just eyes, but a brain connected to them and capable of interpreting light signals.
But if one is disembodied, how would AuvisionAy work? Moreover, subjects who claim to have undergone out-of-body experiences usually talk as if their vision were of the same kind as ordinary vision, i.
, with a limited horizon.
But if vision were somehow possible outside of the constraints imposed by biological structures, why would people not be able see at 360A? 45 The patientAos propositions did not show correspondence with facts and coherence between one proposition and another, so research results based on the patientAos propositions could not be veriyed and falsiyed.
A true scientist would examine the patientAos body condition or the condition of the room where the surgery took place to empirically trace the cause of why the experience occurred .
, and examine the phenomenon argumentatively like a philosopher to examine the coherence of the patientAos proposition.
By exploring the axiological point of view.
HabermasAo contribution was reyected in his criticism of Gadamer, who always revived the status quo through prejudice and tradition.
I argue that Habermas had brought back the power of reyection in science through his hermeneutical reyection focusing on the conception of the Critique of Ideology, so that the distinction between Auwhat isAy and Auwhat should be doneAy can be clearly distinguished.
I agree with AdornoAos statement that epistemological debatesAiespecially since Bacon and DescartesAihave only focused on tion,Ay The Quarterly Review of Biology 83, no.
: p.
45 Pigliucci.
AuThe Borderland between Science and PhilosophyAy, p.
46 Pigliucci.
AuThe Borderland between Science and PhilosophyAy, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
conceptions related to how science works, both inductive and deductive 47 They had forgotten the importance of reyection in epistemology, which is also an essential aspect in the process of humans understanding their world.
HabermasAo criticism of the type of science that only ceases at the methodological stage without emphasizing the aspect of hermeneutical reyection should be appreciated.
I agree with HabermasAo view that hermeneutical reyection is needed in science because science is often motivated by ideological human interests, so we need to dismantle it.
This is important since the impact of the rapid development of science not only generates positive impacts on human life, but also tremendously negative The development of smartphones as a result of the development of science is one clear example in which it is like a double-edged knife.
Smartphones do make human life more efycient, but excessive use of it can cause mental illness such as Attention Deycit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children.
48 The illustration is a reminder for scientists, policy makers, or businessmen, to reyect on the impact of the development of Moreover, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the end of the Second World War is one concrete example that the reyective power of science emphasizing ethical struggles must be wholeheartedly adopted.
The event involved renowned physical scientists such as Ernest O.
Lawrence.
Arthur H.
Compton.
Robert Oppenheimer, and Enrico FermiAisome of whom were Nobel laureates.
49 More than 200,000 people were killed in the event.
In this case, the distinction between Auwhat isAy and Auwhat should be doneAy must be made and this will not 47 Theodor W.
Adorno.
AuOn The Logic of The Social SciencesAy, in The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, ed.
Glyn Adey dan David Frisby (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1.
, p.
48 Youl Pyo Hong.
Yeon Ok Yeom, dan Myung Ho Lim.
AuRelationships between Smartphone Addictions and Smartphone Usage Types.
Depressions.
ADHD.
Stress.
Interpersonal Problem, and Parenting Attitude with Middle School Students,Ay Journal of Korean Medical Science 36, no.
: p.
49 Barton J.
Bernstein.
AuFour Physicists and the Bomb: The Early Years, 1945-1950,Ay Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18, no.
: pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 happen, as emphasized by Habermas in his methodological approach.
in the natural sciences alone such reyection can take its toll, how about in the social sciences that involve the human mental world? However.
HabermasAo conception of the Critique of Ideology needs to be critically evaluated.
On the one hand, the Critique of Ideology does have emancipatory power because it encourages social science to not only help us understand social reality, but also change social reality for the but on the other hand, this conception does not explicitly help scientists deyne prejudice or traditionAias an element criticized by HabermasAiwhich is considered good or bad.
The ethical problems above at yrst glance seem to be overcome by HabermasAo methodological approach which involves intersubjectivity in hermeneutical reyection, both between the researcher and the subject under study as well as between one researcher and another in the academic Long after On The Logic of The Social Sciences.
Habermas later developed his ethical thought called Discourse Ethics in Faktizityt und Geltung (Between Facts and Norms, 1.
which emphasized the principles of intersubjectivity and universality in ethics.
50 HabermasAo views on ethics cannot be separated from the foundation of the intellectual thought he developed in On The Logic of The Social Sciences because his conception of ethics emphasizes the important role of intersubjectivity.
Discourse Ethics is concerned with a practical discourse that brings together people from different backgrounds.
They come together to discuss claims of accuracy for the conditions that make the various norms governing their behavior rationally and intersubjectively intelligible according to the true will of all I nevertheless argue, despite the sophistication of HabermasAo ethical conception, the conception is not still effective in deyning good and bad prejudices or traditions, especially in the context of a multicultural society like Indonesia.
The discourse about good and bad accepted intersubjec50 F.
Budi Hardiman.
Demokrasi Deliberatif: Menimbang AoNegara HukumAo dan AoRuang PublikAo dalam Teori Diskursus Jyrgen Habermas (Yogyakarta: PT Kanisius, 2.
, pp.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
tively in Javanese society is certainly different from the people of North Sumatra.
Likewise, the conception of human rights in the Western and Islamic worlds is different despite the universal values that can be agreed In a concrete reality, this kind of conception is not as effective as Habermas hoped about the universality of intersubjectively agreed values.
The conception of ethics still has the potential to be trapped in the relativity of ethical truth in the context of the life of the nation, so that many public policies that have been agreed upon intersubjectively in the discourse, but still cannot be accepted by some parties.
If the ethical deynition of good and bad prejudices or traditions is difycult to determine, how can scientists know whether Critique of Ideology is an appropriate approach or not in social science? CONCLUSION AND ANOTHER CONSIDERATION HabermasAo thoughts on hermeneutical reyection offers a signiycant contribution to social sciences despite the various shortcomings of his Hermeneutical reyection provides a methodological alternative in the midst of the triumph of normative-analytical and empirical-analytical approaches in social science that have forgotten the emancipatory However.
I conclude that hermeneutical reyection is inadequate since it still contains various methodological weaknesses that make the approach less relevant in the practice of social science inquiry.
I have two considerations related to these methodological weaknesses.
First.
I agree with Ralf Dahrendorf, the debate moderator in The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, who stated that the debate between positivists (Popper & Alber.
Aior more precisely mentioned as critical rationalismAiand critical theorists (Adorno & Haberma.
did not provide any methodical contribution in the form of technical research procedures for social researchers.
51 Both, especially Habermas with his hermeneutical reyection, did not help social researchers deyne concrete scientiyc research procedures, whereas the function of methodological debate should help 51 Ralf Dahrendorf.
AuRemarks on the Discussion of the Papers by Karl R.
Popper and Theodor W.
AdornoAy, in The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, ed.
Glyn Adey and David Frisby (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1.
, pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 social researchers determine these concrete steps.
In addition.
Habermas repeatedly did not emphasize social science .
specially interpretive sociolog.
as a science that deals with empirical yeld research.
He kept science trapped in a mere theoretical approach to social reality.
In the context of hermeneutical reyection, which in this case focused on interpretative sociology.
Habermas did not clearly explain the process of data collection, data analysis, and conclusions that can indicate whether an understanding .
of social reality can be considered valid or I argue that positivists are more relevant in this regard, both through normative-analytical and empirical-analytical approaches, because they were able to explain more concretely these methodical stepsAisuch as the use of maxims, ceteris paribus, deductive-nomological reasoning, etc.
Aiso that social reality can be yrmly explained .
despite all its shortcomings.
I consider that the hermeneutical reyection is not relevant since it does not provide a clear picture for researchers in determining methodical steps in conducting scientiyc social research.
Secondly, although the various scientiyc approaches already explained above are different from each other and each has methodological advantages and disadvantages, they can potentially be integrated without having to betray their unique methodological theses.
This can also overcome any difyculties which hermeneutical reyection has so that this approach can become more relevant in the practice of social science inquiry.
According to Longino, this can be methodologically implemented by distinguishing and integrating the constitutive and contextual dimensions of The constitutive dimension regulates the procedures or methods that ensure the reliability of a scientiyc inquiry, while the contextual dimension considers ethical values and human interests in science as well as debating the constitutive dimension itself, so that the research methodical procedures taken can be in accordance with the context of the subject being studied.
53 I argue that the normative-analytical or empirical-analyt52 Dahrendorf.
AuRemarks on the DiscussionAy, p.
53 Helen E.
Longino.
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientiyc Inquiry (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1.
, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
ical approach can be considered as an approach that can strengthen the constitutive dimension because of its rigor in determining the appropriate scientiyc procedures for researchers in explaining .
social reality, while HabermasAo hermeneutical reyection approach can enrich the contextual dimension that helps researchers understand .
social reality which is contextual in fact.
Longino differed from Popper who merely distinguished between the two, which in PopperAos conception are expressed through the terms purely scientiyc values and extra-scientiyc values.
Longino stated that the constitutive and contextual dimensions have reciprocal relationships or interactions that inyuence each other in the practice of scientiyc research.
To quote Longino.
AuI will argue not only that scientiyc practices and content on the one hand and social needs and values on the other hand are in dynamic interaction but that the logical and cognitive structure of scientiyc inquiry requires such interactionAy.
54 In other words, scientists can remain faithfully obeying scientiyc principles despite their particular contextual intentions or goals in science.
If we establish a reciprocal relationship between the constitutive dimension .
ormative-analytical and empirical-analytical approache.
that aims to explain .
social reality and the contextual dimension (HabermasAo hermeneutical reyectio.
that is tasked with understanding .
social reality.
This will help researchers fulyll the whole function of scienceAias mentioned by OkashaAiwhich aims to gain understanding, explanation, and prediction of the world around us through various methodical searches that can be scientiycally accounted for, such as experiments, observations, and the construction of general theories.
55 If we establish such a reciprocal relationship or in other words adopt erklyren and verstehen together, then the tasks of science can be better fulylled.
54 Longino.
Science as Social Knowledge, p.
55 Samir Okasha.
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2.
, pp.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 How is such interaction possible in the practice of scientiyc research? Longino provided a real-life example of this.
The practice of ynancing scientiyc research can illustrate the concrete interaction between the constitutive and contextual dimensions.
56 Research ynancing, which is part of the contextual dimension, is not only able to inyuence researchers in determining scientiyc objectives or orientation, but also the methodical procedures of the research, such as determining how to collect data, determining the number of respondents, determining the demographic proyle of respondents, etc.
onstitutive dimensio.
Otherwise, the constitutive dimension will be largely determined by the contextual dimension.
Researchers cannot determine the methodical steps of the research if they do not know the purpose of the research and the budget plan that will ynance the operations of the research.
LonginoAos thought above can also fulyll the expectations of Habermas in On The Logic of The Social SciencesAias well as Adorno in Sociology and Empirical ResearchAiabout how empirical social science should also be critical of the aspects of ontology .
and axiology (Critique of Ideolog.
contained in the individual or society inquired.
To quote AdornoAos critique of empirical science practice.
AuEmpirical Methods have ignored societal objectivity, the embodiment of all the conditions, institutions and forces within which human beings act, or at most, they have taken them into account as accidentalsAy.
57 By adopting LonginoAos methodological proposal, researchers can determine ontological and axiological aspects more contextually before conducting scientiyc research.
In other words, science does not lose its reyexive power or merely limit itself to methodological struggles.
By adopting HabermasAo thoughts on hermeneutical reyection and LonginoAos thoughts on the reciprocal relationship between the constitutive and contextual dimensions of science.
I offer a framework that not only allows social science to remain rigorous to the method .
onstitutive 56 Longino.
Science as Social Knowledge, pp.
57 Adorno.
AuSociology & Empirical ResearchAy, p.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
, but also to be critical .
ontextual dimensio.
, both towards the methodology and methodical steps of science .
ethodology & method.
and the contextual condition of the individual or society examined .
ntology & axiolog.
In other words, hermeneutical reyection can help researchers be able to determine the aspect of ontology, methodology and methods, and axiology in a more contextual and critical manner in social science (Figure 4.
By adopting this framework, researchers can explain .
and understand .
social reality simultaneously.
Figure 4.
Hermeneutical Reyection in Social Science Hermeneutical reyection can help researchers be critical of the subject under study .
as well as the relevant contexts which surround them.
The individual or society as the examined subject is no longer arbitrarily determined by nature, such as Weber who determined the structure of society as the Division of Labor.
Researchers can ask critically to ynd out who the individual or society really is.
In addition, through hermeneutical reyection, the researcher can also determine more yexibly the scientiyc approach that is suitable for the research.
The methodological/methodical approach utilized to examine the intentions behind cultural symbols in the hinterland of Java certainly differs from the coastal DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291 communities of the Sulawesi sea.
In the aspect of axiology, hermeneutical reyection can critically criticize the epistemic orientation of research.
If the research results have the potential to cause community divisions, researchers or policy makers can further consider whether the research should be carried out or not.
The process of examining the phenomenon of IndonesiaAos economic growth, which is often undertaken by many social researchers and policy makers, can be a clear example of how the contextual dimension in social science is often ignored, resulting in consequences that adversely affect peopleAos lives.
Indonesia is a fortunate country in the contestation of economic ygures.
We can see this achievement when observing IndonesiaAos economic growth ygures from 2000 to 2019 .
efore the Covid-19 IndonesiaAos economic growth managed to grow from US$ 02 Billion .
to US$ 1.
12 Trillion .
Overall growth has been steady and has tended to increase at around 5-6% per year, touching 6.
59 The ynancial crisis in 2008 did not make IndonesiaAos economy falter at a time when advanced economies were paralyzed.
The economic growth rate is often the main reference or basis for the government in considering and determining various public policies that are not only related to economic aspects.
When we take a closer look at these economic phenomena.
IndonesiaAos economic growth is an achievement on the one hand, but on the other, it hides an unhealed wound.
The economic gap between the rich and the poor has widened in the last twenty years.
This is depicted by the Gini Ratio, which increased from 0.
, and even 4 in 2013.
60 In other words, the distribution of wealth is unequal and tends to beneyt only the rich.
58 World Bank.
AuGDP Growth (Current US$) - Indonesia,Ay https://data.
indicator/NY.
GDP.
MKTP.
CD?locations=ID .
iakses 1 September, 2.
59 World Bank.
AuGDP Growth (Annual %) - Indonesia,Ay https://data.
indicator/NY.
GDP.
MKTP.
KD.
ZG?locations=ID .
iakses 1 September, 2.
60 World Bank.
AuGini Index - Indonesia,Ay https://data.
org/indicator/SI.
POV.
GINI?contextual=aggregate&end=2021&locations=ID&name_desc=true&start=2000&view=chart .
iakses 1 September, 2.
Inquiry and Critique of Jyrgen HabermasAo Methodology of Social Science (Tiza.
Observance for human rights is also not as impressive as economic growth ygures.
Indonesia was ranked 16th out of 194 countries in 202161 as the country with the highest economic growth, but in 2022 Indonesia was ranked 84th out of 163 as a country that respects human freedom (Freedom Inde.
62 The same goes for environmental issues.
In September 2023.
Indonesia ranked second out of 107 countries with the worst air pollution.
63 This is a strong warning for social researchers and policy makers to be more critical in considering various contextual aspects that surround real conditions of the community.
In my opinion, the problems we face go beyond these illustrations.
The symptoms and implications we face are more complex and absurd.
There is a core problem that has yet to be identiyed, either by the empirical facts or mathematical economic calculations.
Hence, this makes hermeneutical reyection very relevant as a methodology of social science because this approach not only seeks to describe reality clearly through its constitutive dimensions, but also to reyect critically and seriously on the contextual dimensions behind the lives of the people or individuals who are the subject of social research.
Moreover and most importantly, this approach is able to put human beings just the way they areAinot as a production factor which is instrumentally utilized to contribute to the certain system as illustrated by WeberAileading to practical implications which uphold greater emancipation.
61 Statistics Times.
AuWorld GDP Ranking,Ay https://statisticstimes.
com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.
iakses 1 September, 2.
62 World Population Review.
AuFreedom Index By Country 2022,Ay https://worldpopulationreview.
com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country .
iakses 1 September, 63 IQ Air.
AuAir Quality in Indonesia,Ay https://w.
com/world-air-quality-ranking .
iakses 1 September, 2.
64 Paulo Vitorino Fontes.
AuCritique of Positivism.
Hermeneutics, and Communicative Reason in Habermas,Ay Meta: Research in Hermeneutics.
Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 13, no.
: p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 19.
Nomor 2.
Oktober 2023: 257-291
REFERENCES