by Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko
Tampere, Finland 1996
Contents
This study has arisen from the literature and discussions related to philosophy, social theory, methodology and a certain branch of social sciences, local government studies. My main purpose is to present a systematic description of the structure of local government theory. I begin with the discussions on the development of local government studies and on the field of theories of local government. On the grounds of a short inquiry it can be said that appropriate theories were not formed even in the British and American contexts until the end of the 1960's. One of the most important things in this respect is the fact that the most coherent macro theories, like the dual state thesis, the local state theory and the more recent new institutionalist theories, are hardly discussed at all in Finland. The reason for this is the paradigmatic stress in the Finnish tradition. It can be labelled as "orthodox consensus" which is characterized by two central features, (conventional) institutionalism and empiricism. Another way to describe this situation is to say that works by the British scholars, Patrick Dunleavy, Peter Saunders, Cynthia Cockburn, Michael Harloe and Chris Pickvance, the French, Manuel Castells and Edmond Preteceille, the Italians, Enzo Mingione and Bruno Dente, the Americans, Larry Sawers, William K. Tabb and Ann Markusen, and the Norwegian, Francesco Kjellberg, to name only a few examples, are not well enough known and discussed among Finnish students.
What kind of local government theories then are needed? I motivate my discussion about this question by presenting certain points related to realist philosophy of science, theory of modern society, critical social research and hermeneutics. From these it becomes evident that in the field of local government studies there is no theory which can meet the challenge raised by these general topics. That is to say, we have no appropriate theories which can take all these questions adequately into account. To be more precise, in the Finnish tradition there is neither mature methodological discussion nor discussion about local government as an instance of modern society. The concept of critique in the sense of "negation" presented and developed by critical theorists is not part of the commonly shared terminology nor of the scientists' attitudes or research practices. And lastly, there is no understanding of the relationships between theory and practice as expressed, for instance, in the idea of double hermeneutics. All these shortcomings mean that there is no basic research (except some empirical projects) which could clarify conceptual and theoretical questions related to modern local government.
Based on such starting-points my aim is, on the one hand, (a) to present a methodological critique of local government studies and, on the other hand, (b) to outline the metatheoretical ingredients of local government theory. Concerning the latter, I try to set out the methodological principles and metatheoretical model for the purpose of theoretically informed research practices.
Critique of methodological exclusivism
My starting-point in this area is the critique of the "dualistic" discourse field. This dualism is a product of what I would call, following Paul A. Roth's terminology, "methodological exclusivism". This means that neither the methodology of "orthodox consensus" nor "narrativism" has been able to resolve the problem of methodology of social science in any proper and fruitful way. Concerning the orthodoxy in local government studies in Finland I criticize certain aspects of empiricism, institutionalism, systems theory and neoliberalism. Narrativist studies are still very rare in the field of local government studies, but to make clear my methodological position, I also deal critically with some of their settings, like the abstract way they use concepts like "meaning", "language", "situation", "action" or "experience".
I try to show that such an exclusivist position is unnecessary and, in point of fact, misleading. After this criticism I turn to building an alternative, a realist method and theory construction.
My metatheoretical model is constructed on social ontological description of what I call the poetics of causality which expresses among other things the intersection of rationality and social asymmetry. Discussion around this topic is the formal ontological basis for a certain type of realist research model. I concretize this by the social theoretical basic model which outlines the field of actors and games that must be built in theory formation and use in theoretically mature studies. I use the simple model presented by Carol C. Gould in her article "Beyond Causality in the Social Sciences: Reciprocity as a Model of Non-Exploitative Social Relations" (in R. S. Cohen & M. W. Wartofsky, eds., Epistemology, Methodology and the Social Sciences, D. Reidel Publishing Company 1983) as a frame, but I also revise her interpretations of categories in an essential way. The methodological rules collect the principles of theory formation and methodology. They are in no way strict rules, but rather general principles to be taken into account in doing theoretically informed research on local government. In the final phase, the practical research model of poetic realism combines these three elements as a brief applicable method and theory construction. I start discussion here with some formal ontological key ideas.
The philosophical and theoretical starting-point of my model is structural in the sense that instead of abstract concepts of agent, action, intention, meaning or alike the line of interpretation is drawn from social asymmetry leading to contextual definitions of concepts used in social theory. This relational view is based on certain ontological commitments. The individual, as I see it, is always to be born in human society and has a social position and horizon of opportunities from the very first day of his life (although a person is not, of course, always aware of them). Further, the individual is inseparable part of the social field in which he exists and operates. Thus the human existence has a logically social and positional character. All this proves that the agent operates always in the context of social asymmetry, and the same goes with the rationality of his doings. And what is the most crucial point, I think that causality belongs to the (internal) structures of both the agent's rationality and structural social asymmetry. I give two short arguments. First, in social asymmetry causal powers are the key factors, which are based on material conditions and relations. At the same time we must recognize that the teleology and reciprocity which direct the actions in the asymmetrically formed social field are internally related to that material structure. Secondly, subjective rationality always relates to other agents' causal powers and their nature, though it naturally, in turn, affects the formation of this constantly evolving social field.
The social theoretical basic model outlines the field of agents to be constructed for theoretically mature research, i.e. it places phenomena and agents into the real social field. The basic categories are agents' intentions, reciprocity, causality and objective conditions. My scheme is based on a simple conceptualization made by Carol C. Gould. When we think of this kind field through the previously outlined formal ontological scheme, the whole picture becomes more relevant especially concerning the formal ontological ground of sociel theory.
Theoretically essential tension understood as the dialectic of first and second order attitude is located in the core of this model. As to a) the aspect of everyday life or first order attitude the question is about the agent's rationality, i.e. the agent's understanding of his causal powers and relations to other actors in the field which is materially and socially structured. In the case of b) scientific attitude or second order attitude we must change the perspective. To a certain extent we still examine that same understanding, but, at this time, distanciating ourselves from participants' immediate interests, and replacing it by the scientific attitude, when everyday experience functions as the hermeneutic basis for making explanandum as clear as possible. The scientific attitude gives a more analytical picture of social phenomena and their structural features. When properly understood and realized, it should produce a rational transgression, and in this way make an intervention to the social field in which the researchers themselves, too, live their lives.
I have collected some methodological principles into five interrelated "rules" to be taken into account in local government studies. They can be summarized as follows. Local government must be studied in (a) the contextual way, taking into account all the relevant asymmetrical relations which affect the formation and operation of phenomena of local government and local community life. In the study we must (b) open new horizons beyond the prevailing practices. From this point of view theoretically one of the most important intersection is located between Lebenswelt and Systemwelt. The third principle can be named (c) transgression, which emphasizes science as a way to transcend understanding of everyday life. According to the fourth principle local government studies must directly or indirectly (d) support and enrich everyday life. This means among other things that theory and practice must be dialectically related. And what is important for understanding the role of theory in a proper way, theoretical and empirical studies are in dialectical relations with, or even preconditions for, each other. The last principle could be named as the (e) idea of poetics and of emancipation. This principle states that in doing research we must think of the meaning, nature and relevance of scientific intervention to everyday life. Every researcher is in a sense a part of the object of his own study, and he must understand this double hermeneutic situation. This requires that the reflexive analysis of the possibilities and necessities of emancipation is part of the internal structure of every social scientific enterprise.
The research model of poetic realism contains seven key elements which are drawn from the writings of Russell Keat and John Urry and also of theorists like Anthony Giddens, Erik Olin Wright, C. Wright Mills and Carol C. Gould. They can be summarized as follows.
1. Defining the research situation.
2. Double hermentutics as the methodological precondition for the research and the potential intervention.
3. Defining and systematizing the phenomenon.
* Social ontological ground for conceptualizing the phenomena.
4. Contextualization: local government in the social context, i.e. defining the elements of the social context essential concerning the phenomena to be studied.
5. Theory of modern society and its radicalization: critical analysis
of local government as an instance of modern society. This includes
following elements:
* Model of the field of relevant actors.
* Description of the causal powers of actors and their relationships.
* Theoretical and empirical analysis.
* Empirical demonstration and presentation.
6. The scientific transgression.
7. Performing a poetic realist evaluation and creating horizons of emancipation.
According to the model presented in my study, local government must be studied in a contextual way. Local government must be seen as the instance of modern society producing real world states. Local government theory is a tool by which researchers can produce genuine transgression, which in turn gives possibilities for emancipation. Poetic realism is the philosophy of science which aims at linking the scientific research to the basic problems of philosophy of life, and ultimately, of everyday life. It tries to create a firm bond between historical and philosophical understanding, scientific research practices and everyday life.
Suggestions for further reading
Methodological discussions
Some critical discussions
Modernity and postmodernity
Philosophical writings
Local government studies
If you would like to comment my ideas, please do not hesitate to ! The most convenient way of sending me an e-mail is to go to my Home Page and use the form in it.