SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH IS A "RECONSTRUCTIVE SCIENCE" by Stephen Chilton Department of Political Science University of Minnesota - Duluth Duluth, MN 55812-2496 (U.S.A.) REF: RECONST PRINTED: November 9, 1997 REVISED: November 9, 1997 (Approximate number of words: 1481) DRAFT Not for quotation or citation without author's permission To be presented at the panel, "xx", at the annual meeting of the xx Association, xx place, xx date. I am indebted to xx for encouragement and intelligent commentary. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH IS A "RECONSTRUCTIVE SCIENCE" ABSTRACT Research into social development is a reconstructive science, in Habermas's terms. There is a dialectic between the philosophical foundations of the field (normative justification in particular, but also other things?) and empirical research. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH IS A "RECONSTRUCTIVE SCIENCE" Chilton (1994:Appendix I) refers to social development as a "reconstructive science", a term Habermas uses to refer to sciences in which there is a dialectical relationship between the philosophical bases of the field of study, on the one hand, and the empirical results of research in the given field. This paper claims that the study of development is such a field. Section 1 describes the nature of a reconstructive science. Section 2 lays out the two poles of the dialectic, and Section 3 describes their interaction, with particular emphasis on the theoretical difficulties that arise from privileging either pole. Section 4 draws out the implications that these considerations have for future research directions. 1. What Is a "Reconstructive Science"? xx * Sciences have two elements: a theoretical-philosophical definition-conceptualization of the field and the empirical research based on it. * The former guides the research: states what the significant elements are, says how to study them, how to interpret the data obtained. * The latter uses the former as a basis for knowledge. * The relationship between the two is often seen as "monolectic" [non-dialectic]: >> In "normal science", the conceptualization of the field is privileged and untouchable. However, even if one doesn't see it as unquestionable, in one view of science, conceptualizations are still seen as privileged in that they are subject only to philosophical analysis, not to empirical refutation or reformulation. >> In some cases (although this position is no longer much seen), data-gathering is privileged and the conceptualization of the field is seen as emerging from the results obtained. * A "reconstructive science" contemplates an explicitly dialectical relationship between the two: xx. * It is called "reconstructive" because it attempts to reconstruct the process by which something came to pass. 2. The Dialectic of Development Research xx * Let's now apply this to the field of development. * One pole: theoretical definition of the field: "What is development?" * Dominant idea is economic development, Westernization, modernization, industrialization. Political development xx * This has been taken for granted since the 50s, so seems to be transparent. * Some challenges >> from the left >> from the "basic needs" theorists * But basically taken for granted. Now even more entrenched, apparently, with the success of capitalism and the "end of history" arguments. * However, recent events around the world (esp. the rise of ethnic nationalism) raise questions, present anomalies. "If development is XX, why are so many people choosing to pursue YY [organization around ethnic nationalism] instead?" Many different areas. Apparently freely chosen, or relatively freely chosen. * It's time to reexamine our foundations. 3. The Interaction of Philosophy and Empirical Research in Development xx 4. Implications for Development Research xx BIBLIOGRAPHY xx (19xx). xx book. xx: xx. xx (19xx). xx article. xx xx:xx-xx. xx (19xx). xx paper. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the xx, xx. xx (19xx). xx book chapter. Pp. xx - xx of xx, ed. xx. xx: xx. June 6, 1994 PROBLEM: The "normal science" of development is being violated by the post-cold war world. Formerly there was widespread agreement that development ð (is equivalent to) economic growth through Westernization or modernization or industrialization; there might be other, related changes, but the key element, the element with the normative valence, and thus the element everything else focused on, was economic growth. E.g., how did the political system help or hinder or affect the economic system? This theoretical theme / goal was practical, in several ways: (1) It provided both policy directions and, more generally, an indication of how society should be organized. (2) It had immediate, prestigious models of its success in the West--the so-called "demonstration effect". (3) It provided legitimations for the policy-makers. By attaching themselves to a goal of such mass popularity, they could remain secure. Even if the mass popularity evaporated in the face of the difficulties attending such policies as structural adjustment, the elite themselves could remain convinced of the value of the bitter medicine (which they did not have to take). As a result of these factors, there was a sense of unity between Western and other elites: what we had to offer, non-Western elites wanted. Because of this unity, normative issues were seen as solved, as unproblematical. As long as the "developing nations" wanted what was offered, it was difficult for anyone to dispute the desirability of the direction. Of course some did dispute the direction: leftist critics of exploitation / dependency / imperialism, and the more moderate critics of the "basic needs" approach. However, these critics could be dismissed as ideologues, parochials, romantics, or merely political. Currently, the worldwide victory of capitalism seems to spell the final defeat for such critics. Now, however, and despite the victory of capitalism, the older sense is being challenged by ethnic nationalism. People are voting with their feet. People are organizing around other themes and goals: debate about economic structure is being displaced by debate organized around ethnicity and culture. The list of examples is long; here are a few: >> the former Yugoslavia >> the former Soviet Union >> Iran, organized around religious ideas My first point, then, is that the "normal science" of development is facing a crisis. My point is NOT that economic development is/was necessarily wrong (although my sympathies lie more with its critics, to be honest), but that we have to restructure the field within a larger framework, one that embraces both goals and understands why they are pursued. SOLUTION: We have to broaden our analysis to "ways of relating": the question of how society is to be organized is always present: how are we to relate to each other. Narrowly understood, economics, politics, society, and religion each have their answers. But the question asked goes beyond any one of them: it's the "open question", which can be asked any time, anywhere. Our interpersonal understandings (including broad social understandings under "interpersonal") are always open to challenge, to negotiation. Social forces can suppress such questions, or make change hard to achieve, but the issue is always potentially open. The question is not solely practical / prudential in nature; it is also irreducibly a normative question. In other words, we can always ask not just "What way of relating to others is it prudent for me to employ here?" but also "What way of relating is it RIGHT for us (esp. me) to employ here?" Philosophers of ethics term the question, "Is it right?" the "open question"; the same thing is true of interpersonal action. In the past, the tenets of capitalist economic development gave broad answers to the normative aspect of this open question; its prudential aspects were dealt with by standard social sanctions. Now, however, the normative aspect of the question is open not just potentially but also in fact, and the loss of normative legitimacy undercuts the social sanctions dependent on it. In other words, I'm thinking that social sanctions are interdependent on the legitimacy of the system they support. When the system is no longer legitimate, the sanctions disappear or weaken: police stop being impersonal enforcers of a system they no longer see as relevant; social groups stop demanding compliance with norms they no longer believe in; etc. In order to approach the diverse problems of today's world, we have to reconstruct political development to preserve what is best in what has gone before, to admit what is happening now, and to situate each within a coherent theoretical framework. My claims are: * the old unity around p.d. is crumbling in the face of forces: (1) ecological problems mean unrestrained capitalism is no longer seen as good, so we have to organize around sustainability, not wealth; (2) revived ethnic nationalism means organization around something besides economics; (3) final victory of capitalism means not the enrichment of everyone but the final consolidation of power over the workers. It is the beginning of history, not the end. The "end of ideology" / "end of history" arguments just see the clarity of the free world without recognizing its contradictions. * to understand now forms of development we need to understand their moral bases--in other words, they have to be normatively as well as politically grounded. Development can't be seen as change toward some single thing. SENT TO: xx date xx name