Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rromanvila |
View: | 223 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 4
8/11/2019 Pol King Horne
1/4
8/11/2019 Pol King Horne
2/4
AmericanJournal f
Sociology
Narrative
Knowing and the Human Sciences. By Donald E. Polking-
horne.
Albany:
State University f New YorkPress, 1988. Pp. xi+ 232.
$44.50 (cloth);$14.95 (paper).
RobertJ. Richards
University f
Chicago
Donald Polkinghorne
elieves that our lives are
like playerswho strut
and fret heirhour
upon the stage. He proposes hatwe understand ur
destiny y
attending,
ot
to
the stars
r
to the
code
bred
n
the bone, but
to the
plot
that
gathers up our scattered ctions
and makes them
significant.
t is a
tale that
is
told and that is to be
comprehended
scientificallynnarrative, nd we have beenspeaking t all along.
In Narrative
Knowing nd theHuman Sciences,Polkinghorne, pro-
fessor
f
counseling
nd a
practicing
sychotherapist, aintains hat hu-
man beings xist
n
three ealms-the material
ealm, heorganic ealm,
and the realmof
meaning p. 183).
This last s
the
domain
of
thehuman
sciences, nd
developments
n
several of them
uggest hat the keys
to
understanding
re
furnished
y
narrative.
n
a
preliminaryhapter,he
defines
narrative s
a
story elating series
of
events, ither rue or
false.
Narrative onstruction
nd
comprehension
orrespond,
e
asserts,
to one oftwokindsofhumanrationality- narrativeationality, hich
understandsynopticallyhemeaning f a whole,
eeing t as
a
dialectic
integration
f
ts
parts
p. 35),
or theother
kind,
which
uses
formal
ogic
and mathematics nd dominates
he
sciences
f
the
material
nd
organic
realms.
n
three
ubsequent hapters,
olkinghorne,
n
summarizing
he
work
f
several heorists
n
history,iterature,
nd
psychology,
ntends o
providemodelsfor
heotherhuman ciences,
models ftheway narrative
meaning oth
produces nd explainshuman ction. t is thephilosophers
of
history-especially
Ricoeur-who
furnish
olkinghorne
iththe ele-
ments fhis own
conception f how narrative
ught o function
s the
fundamentalnstrumentf the human sciences.
In
the current
hilosophical ispute bout thenature fhistoricalx-
planation,Polkinghorneides with hosewho believenarrative ccounts
have a
unique explanatory ower.
In
contrast, arl
Hempel
and other
logical empiricistsrgue that every cience explainsevents
by showing
that
hey
re
governed
y general
aws.
Hempel
maintains hatnarratives
in
history xplain events
only
to the extent
hey
make
appeal
to the
requisite aws and
antecedent auses. Polkinghorne
grees hat hecover-
ing
aw
modelserves he natural nd
biological ciences, ut
he thinks t
fails o
capture
he
meaning f
human
ction.
n
hisview, history
nd
theotherhuman sciences
require
kind of narrative
ogic,
which
ssentially
has two
aspects:
first-order
entences hatrefer
o
events hat
have actu-
ally happened
n
the
way reported
n
the sentences
f
the narratives
p.
62)
and a second-order
ynoptic
oherence
mong
he
statements,
hat
s,
a
configuration
n
a
plot
structure
p. 63).
It
is
the
plot
structure
hat
258
This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 09:27:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Pol King Horne
3/4
Book
Reviews
displays
he human
experiences oldabout, especially heir
emporal i-
mensions.
Polkinghorne roposes hat person's wn narrative nderstandingf
his
or her ife auses thebehavior xpressive fthat ntimate
tory;
here-
fore,
n
his
view, scientistsmust earn o read people as theywould a text:
Acting s like writing story, nd the understandingf
action
s
like
arriving
t an
interpretation
fa
story p. 142). t wouldbe a
mistake, e
thinks,
o
try
o
explain
humanbehavior
by usinggeneral aws,
whether
thesebe
physical,
biological,psychological,
r
social
aws,
since
bodily
movement s 'caused' by the
meaning o be expressed p. 142).
Polkinghorne's ook capturesthe enthusiasm or narrative
hat
has
recently nimated much
discussion
n
the philosophy fhistory nd in
literaryheory.And he has done a decent ob of summarizinghevarious
views expressed
n
theseareas, though, or he uninitiated,he
descrip-
tions
may
seem a
little
vague. However,
there re
several
problems
n
Polkinghorne'sccount
thatmay cause anyoneworking
n
empirical
ci-
ence
or
the philosophy f
sciencehesitancy bout
his conclusions.
First, vagueness nvelops oomany fhisassertionsbout thenature
of narrative
nowledge, or
nstance,
when
he proclaims
hat he
human
sciences do not produce
knowledge hat leads to the
prediction
nd
controlof human experience; hey produce, instead,
knowledge hat
deepensand enlarges he understanding f humanexistence p. 159).
Since the
Enlightenment,
he
criteria f
science,
hat
s, knowledge
hat
deepens nd enlarges he
understanding, ave been prediction
nd con-
ceptual
control
hrough heapplication f general rinciples.
t is incum-
bent
n
anyone ttempting
o
discover nother
ind f
rationality
o show
that t s
notmerelyhe
complexity
f
situations nd poverty
f
appropri-
ate
laws that
distinguish
he humanfrom he natural ciences.Although
the
ntecedentsfa human
ct maynever xactly eoccur, his tself
oes
not
mply hatthemeaning f narrative ause is different
rom cause
in
formal cience, s Polkinghorneeems o think p. 173)-else
we must
abandonthedeathofthedinosaurs rtheformationfour solar ystem o
storytellersutside hepale of formal cience. urely, ther
hings eing
equal,
we
accept
as
plausible
a
narrative istory hat conformso rele-
vant,well-confirmed
hysical, iological, r psychological
rinciples nd
reject s implausible
history hat violates uch principles.
Polkinghorne's
wn
analysis
of
narrative,while making
ome
inter-
esting points especiallyabout its
temporaldimensions),
acks the re-
sources
to
establishnecessary istinctionsn applying
narrative o the
explanation
f human
actions.So, for nstance,whenhe
maintains
hat
we
construct ur
own
behavior
much as a
writer ormulates
narrative
text-an interestingdea with ome potential-he goes ittle urtherhan
reiteratinghe proposal.He never attempts o distinguish, or
nstance,
the everal
basic
ways
n
which
meaning
s
expressed
n
narrative.
n
our
personalnarratives,when
the author s simultaneouslyheactor, t snot
easy
to see
how variouskinds
of meaningmight e comparablyxpressed
259
This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 09:27:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Pol King Horne
4/4
AmericanJournal f Sociology
or be the narrative ause of behavior.Shakespeare, t
seems, ntended
the
actions
of
the porter
n
Macbeth
to
provide
emotional elief efore
another oundof heinousmurder, ut the character imselfntended o
morethan to respond o the knocking s
if he were
themerry eeper
f
the devil's door.
If
we are gatekeepers pinning ut ouractions long
a
narrative ine, we may hear the knocking, ut not recognize he purpose
of the
maginary
oor.
FeministTheory
nd the Philosophies
of Man. By Andrea Nye.
New
York:
Croom Helm, 1988. Pp. x
+
244.
$49.95.
SondraFarganis
New
Schoolfor
Social Research
Feminist
Theory
nd thePhilosophies
of
Man is a succinct ummary
f
theways
n
which
feminist
heoryncountersnd does battle
with
iberal-
ism,Marxism,
psychology,
nd structuralism.
ndrea Nye finds
hat
these theories
llow fordialogue
with menbut do
not significantly
d-
vance feministbjectives.
Can women
use these heories
without
ntrap-
ment?Working
verthese
heories elps orrect
he heories,
uta femin-
ist perspectiveequires
uilding n
women's
xperiences. y using
s her
prologueOvid's taleofa weavingcontest etweenAthena ndArachne,
Nye
sets
the frame orher nterpretiveeading
f feministheory.
ome
women
use the ext nd
symbols f
male argumentation,
nly o
be bested
by
thosewho drawon
female xperience
owrite heir
tories.
et, those
whoweave
in
women's
terms
re,
whilefiner raftsmen
r
women,
di-
vorced
from
ower.
Liberal
democratic heory nd
socialist ritiques
f capitalism
do
not
explaingender
nequity,
nor have the social
movements
ndertaken
n
their
ame
alleviated
heplight f
oppressed
women.Equal rights,
qual-
ity fopportunity,nd theright fparticipationndconsentweredenied
women
whenthey ould
notvote.
While iberals
f
the
Humean
or Rous-
seauistic
tripe,
nd
even
women
ike
Madame
de
Stael,
called attention
o
women'sdifferencesnatural
nd social)
frommen,democratic
heory er
se allowed fora new conception
f persons.
By
emphasizing
he social
and
legal
nature
f
relationships
nd by formulating
erygeneral
rinci-
plesof natural
nd equal
rights,iberalism
ighted heway
for quitable
treatment
f
those
not
yet
ncluded
n
the
fraternal ond.
The lead was
takenby Mary
Wollstonecraft,arrietTaylor,
and
John
tuart
Mill.
Legal
equality-freedom
from overt)
iscrimination-has
not
ssured
womengenuine,equitable social and economictreatment. uch treat-
ment
requires
constantstate intervention,
hich, Nye argues,
runs
counter o iberal
democratic heory.
Moreover, uch
theory
ests n ideas
of ndividual ights hat
re often
n
conflict
ith ach other,
s
in
abor-
tion and
pornography
isputes woman
vs. fetus, ight
o view pornog-
260
This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 09:27:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp