The synthesis I propose is in the classical (Socratic) tradition.  Plato’s Socrates (Phaedrus) expresses the goal of science:  “Nevertheless the fact is this; for we must have the courage to speak the truth, especially when truth is our theme.  The region of which I speak is the abode of the reality with which true knowledge is concerned, a reality without colour or shape, intangible but utterly real, apprehensible only by intellect which is the pilot of the soul. So the mind of a god, sustained as it is by pure intelligence and knowledge, like that of every soul which is destined to assimilate its proper food, is satisfied at last with the vision of reality, and nourished and made happy by the contemplation of the truth, until circular revolution brings it back to its starting point.  And in the course of its journey it beholds absolute justice and discipline and knowledge, not the knowledge which is attached to things which come into being, nor the knowledge which varies with the objects we call real, but the absolute knowledge which corresponds to what is absolutely real in the fullest sense.”  In the limit, then, all four truths identified in the previous notes become one final, unalterable, universal, unarguable and eternal Truth, and human existence as we know it ceases - the ultimate Nirvana.

Further on in Phaedrus, Plato’s Socrates describes two methods of reasoning (specifically in understanding rhetorical argument):  “The first method is to take a synoptic view of many scattered particulars and collect them under a single generic term, so as to form a definition in each case and make clear the exact nature of the subject one proposes to expound. ...  (the second method is) the ability to divide a genus into species again, observing their natural articulation, not mangling any of the parts.  ...  I am a great lover of these methods of division and collection as instruments which enable me to speak and to think, and when I believe that I have found in anyone else the ability to discuss unity and plurality as they exist in the nature of things, I follow in his footsteps ‘like the footsteps of god’.  Hitherto I have given those who possess this ability the title of dialecticians, though heaven knows if I am right to do so.”   This is a rather different and more general notion of the dialectic (or so-called Socratic method) than the one normally ascribed in the literature (which generally concentrate on the conflicts between theses and antitheses - seldom even worrying about the syntheses).  But, in its echoes of the previous discussion, especially of evolution, it is clearly better suited to the present argument.

And what of Rhetoric? Normally now a term of abuse, I argue that it is no accident that the foundation (lower division) of the seven liberal arts comprise:  Grammar; Logic; Rhetoric - grammar providing the rules of intercourse, logic providing the reason of argument, and rhetoric providing the persuasion and conviction, and thus ultimately the faith in the story. Since objectivity is denied to social scientists, there is a need for a better definition of its surrogate - social acceptability through persuasion and conviction.

A synthesis between realism (objectivity) and relativism (subjectivity)

Consider, first, what is meant by subjective.  Ultimately it must mean that ‘it makes sense to or appeals to me as an individual’, with the dictionary definition as: “derived from, expressive of, or existing in, one’s own consciousness; personal, individual; introspective.”  But where does our individuality come from?  We are all products of nature and nurture, and express ourselves through our characters, personalities and ambitions.  These are conditioned and educated through our cultures, histories, contexts and circumstances.  Thus, our subjectivity is a product of our natures and nurtures, subject to accident, random choice and/or self-will.

Only idiots and geniuses can typically survive for long holding fundamental subjective beliefs seriously at odds with at least some peer or reference ‘group’.  Survival requires that we earn (or otherwise obtain) food, shelter, income, recognition and (hopefully) respect from others.  At a higher level than mere survival, our self-respect requires that our subjective views appear to us to have some wider social value, even if as yet unappreciated by our peers and reference groups.   In other words, our own survival requires consent from others for our continued prosperity and freedom, if not existence.

We gain this social acceptance through one of three basic social transactions:  gifts from those who love us; tributes from those who fear us; or exchange with those willing to trade with us;  the triple social ‘organisers’ identified by Boulding*, - Love; Fear; Exchange - or: Consent; Coercion; Contract.  Our individualistic and subjective views have, ultimately, to be consistent with and coherent and acceptable to (or at least tolerated by) our lovers, governors, slaves and servants, or trading partners.  So, ultimately, our individualistic subjectivity is heavily conditioned, if not primarily determined, by what society will accept and tolerate.

* Boulding, K.E., 1973, The Economy of Love and Fear: A preface to Grants Economics, Wadsworth, Belmont, California. (Ken Boulding is often regarded as the founding father of institutional economics, a tradition carried on by, inter alia, Oliver Williamson and Douglass North)

Objective, on the other hand, is defined by the dictionary as:  “exterior to the mind, self-existent, regarding or setting forth what is external, actual, practical, uncoloured by one’s own sensations or emotions.”  In other words, ‘objective’ is largely defined by what the rest of the world thinks, rather than what we think.

For the purposes of this argument, what the rest of the world is prepared to believe rests ultimately on three principle foundations (it is intriguing how often the trilogy, trinity, troika, triumvirate or triplicate emerges in this discussion):

• politics (democracy or otherwise consent to coercion) or economics (trade and exchange through markets) - what is seen as convincing or as salable - which in turn provide external reference points of experiential and rule truths - veracity and validity, which are themselves only accepted because the provide or entail some commonly accepted values - value truths;  Politics and Markets thus provide our Rules.
• Reason, rationality and rigour - the power of the logical argument and replicable, controlled experience, as derived through scientific methods, again providing (always provisional) veracity and validity - though the ‘value’ of these truths remains to be determined by the governors:  God, the Devil, or Society through its political, social and economic systems;
• Faith in ‘self-evident’ truths; these are given in the world’s religions, (which need to be ‘explained’ or included in any all embracing social science conception) by either God or the Devil, or otherwise spring from our own spirits.

The Neo or New of the classical synthesis.
The basic argument is that human systems and organisations and institutions are fundamentally systematic - otherwise we could not live in them and recognise their patterns, and otherwise we could not hope to practice as social scientists, with the objective and purpose of discerning what these underlying systems might look like.

But these systems are organic: they evolve.  And they are chaotic: they are mathematically unpredictable, but the display self-replicating patterns (within certain tolerances), and can be thought of as being governed by relatively simple (i.e. simple enough for us to understand) processes which generate the patterns.  Furthermore, these systems display emergent properties - which cannot be identified by reductionist examination of their parts.  An example is the motor car.  Suppose we knew nothing about cars.  How much could we learn about them by taking them to bits and minutely examining each part until we understood exactly how each part worked?  Even if we managed to put the bits back together, how much would we learn about what a car really is?  Even if we observed people using them (or even participated in their use), how much would we learn of their social and biophysical implications?  the car is an emergent phenomenon - its whole is much more than simply the sum of its parts.

But, at root, our existence, and what we see, feel and hear, is bio-physical.  So this metaphysic had better include some account of what we think we now know about physics.

This, then, is the basis of the re-construction of a neoclassical metaphysic - a new story constructed according to classical foundations of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric, and following the Socratic tradition.  What does it look like?

Knowledge: how we come by it and what it might mean:  a speculation on the nature of the ToE (the physcists' Theory of Everything) - the way in which we emerged, and thus the nature of both what we are and what we see, and a possible foundation for our g.o.ds.  I submitted this essay, as part of an integrated quintet, to an ESRC/Prospect Magazine millennium essay competition for social scientists (you will find the other four essays on my research web site, if you are interested). Not that these essays managed to get noticed then - in fact, I did not ever see whether or not ESRC and Prospect actually pronounced on any winning entries.

For a published version, try A Conjecture on the Nature of Social Science:  an outline taxonomy of the way in which human institutions have evolved and the ways in which the core social sciences (anthropology, sociology, economics, politics, law, humanities, art and aesthetics, and, ultimately, religious ideas) can be reconciled and related to each other.  This must be the goal of anyone interested in developing a new paradigm or new metaphysic - a synthesis capable of resolving present disputes and conflicts between the thesis of realism and the antithesis of relativism.

Well, if you got this far, what do you think?

Back to main notes on Value of Neo-classical approaches.