A Comment on Elder-Vass, ‘Developing Social Theory Using Critical Realism’

Abstract

David Elder-Vass’s response to my recent paper ‘What is Progress in Realism?’ is, as one would expect, his usual carefully constructed form of argument. Since I can assume you have read it, having come so far as to read a reply to it, I would draw your attention to that form. The form, if one were to read it through epistemology, provides a justification of the original grounds of the original argument, rather than opening up a new domain or set of justifications that works towards developing the concepts and issues in terms of the points regarding that original argument; it is, in form, a diplomatic reiteration of that original argument that politely rejects the grounds of the critique as germane and/or accurate regarding that original argument. There is nothing illegitimate about this, since one is entitled to think one’s work worthy of defence. Elder-Vass has provided very similar responses in form, rather than necessarily substance, to Archer’s critique of his position on culture and ideas, and Sealey and Carter’s position regarding language. In a curious sense, however, the form of the reply rather underpins the point of my original paper, which was by no means concerned purely with ElderVass’s work, but rather with a tendency within critical realism — the point being the terms of progress. Holding to a position in the name of realism, rather than addressing the possible context defined by the question what are we learning from any avenue of critique, is a form of response that potentially closes down our receptiveness to learning. This is by no means to suggest that Elder-Vass is simply incorrect in his concepts or argument; this is a matter for substantive claim and counterclaim (which one can find in my paper and Elder-Vass’s work and reply). It is rather to suggest that our tendency to reply in this way indicates something about the nature of response to argument. Consider how different a response to constructive critique would be if it began from a set of iterations that assumed there may be some credence in the specific points and then tested them out in the reply or