Objectivity: A Crutch and Club for Bureaucrats/Subjectivity: A Haven for Lost Souls

Abstract

The objective-subjective controversy that infuses modern sociology is examined to entice fellow sociologists to reflect on the future of the sociological enterprise. The two camps subscribe to different ontologies and advocate competing epistemologies. The ontology of the objectivists is rooted in sixteenth and seventeenth century physical science; that of the subjectivists stems from the Darwinian tradition. The epistemology of the objectivists is rationalized by linking it to instrumentation and quantitative procedures of inorganic sciences; the subjectivists rationalize their procedures by invoking the naturalistic procedures of Darwin. The ontology and epistemology of the objectivists are more compatible with the bureaucratic ethos of modern academic centers than are those of the subjectivists. If sociology is to be transformed into a viable social enterprise that conducts research that will allow for the formulation of generic assertions about social life it will be necessary to formulate programs consistent with the epistemological position of the subjectivists that calls for the study of process, but accepts the epistemological implication of the objectivists' position that calls for controlled observations. Precise and elaborate analysis of artifacts (questionnaire responses and bureaucratic records) will have to be rejected in favor of more refined and sophisticated observation and analysis of social action. The intense commitments members of each camp have to their positions render such a development unlikely.