Philosophy has taught us that it is difficult to examine something from "outside."Things are always understood from within the parameters of a framing order. That framing order is not irrational--but it is arbitrary. One measures distance in relation to the spatial capacities of the human beings who do the measuring, and the culture of measurement is centered on creating meaningfulness between measurement and the person measuring. Likewise, few have found it possible to de-link human institutional systems from biology
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)
or social scientists, and especially those studying social systems, this issue, which I will call the problem of "embededness" (or context) strikes at the center of their own field mythologies. If the study of social systems, for example, cannot escape the deep webs of frameworks within which they are studies, then all social science ultimately must devolve into a study of the frameworks within which they operate. For Philosophers, this is not surprising. For social science, it poses quite starkly a great contradiction--the more they seek "truth" (in whatever form they seek it, the more they will find the limits of their endeavors in the contexts in which that truth is sought.
Yet, if embeddedness is everything, might it also be nothing? That is, might presuming embeddedness, embracing the framework within which analysis occurs, provide a space, however limited and arbitrary, within which the social sciences might seek to distill truth as they have come to understand that term as a cultural artifact of the systems within which they operate. Can one be content (as academics have come to understand that term within the cultural structures of their fields) to build worlds within semiotic space without the need (beyond acknowledgement of the foundational framework within which investigations are undertaken) to engage that space itself.
This unquestioning "inwardness" has been essential to the construction of human systems--law, religion, social, etc.--for a very long time. It produces stability but also the possibility of deep revolution. This is the problem of modernity itself, now come home to roost within the very fabric of the self-conception of the social sciences themselves. This appears to be the focus of the July issue of
Science, Technology, & Human Values is out (July is volume 37, number 4). My colleague and guest writer, Nicholas Rowland has produced a review of the issue (
Best STHV issue in a while, Installing (Social) Order.) and now tackles the first of the articles:
Kristin Asdal and Inguun Moser, "Experiments in Context and Contexting,"
Science, Technology and Human Values 37(4):291-306 (2012). Rowland's review, cross posted from
STHV, Special Issue on Context: Comment One, and my comments, follow: