The neo-idealists and symbolic interactionists reject positivism primarily because of its rigid reliance on natural science methods and its inadequate understanding of human social life. Their criticisms are deeply rooted in their epistemological and ontological beliefs about the nature of social reality, human agency, and meaning-making. Below is a detailed explanation of their arguments with references to major sociological thinkers:
1. Rejection of the Objectivist Assumption of Positivism
- Neo-idealists argue that social reality is not objective and external to the individual, as claimed by positivists. Instead, it is constructed by human consciousness.
- Wilhelm Dilthey distinguished between natural sciences (explaining) and social sciences (understanding). He emphasized Verstehen (interpretative understanding) over Erklären (causal explanation), asserting that human actions must be understood in their historical and cultural context.
2. Emphasis on Subjectivity and Meaning
- Symbolic Interactionists, like George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, reject positivism because it ignores the subjective meanings that individuals attach to their actions.
- For them, society is not a system of forces acting upon individuals, but a network of interactions mediated by symbols and meanings. Positivism fails to grasp the fluid, interpretative process through which individuals create and negotiate meanings.
- Blumer explicitly rejected positivist methods like surveys and quantitative modeling, stating that such methods abstract away the lived experience of individuals.
3. Critique of Determinism
- Both schools criticize positivist determinism—the idea that human behavior can be predicted by identifying general laws.
- Alfred Schutz, influenced by phenomenology, argued that actors are not passive recipients of social facts. Instead, they possess a stock of knowledge and act with intentionality, making sense of the world through intersubjective experiences.
4. Methodological Individualism vs. Social Laws
- Neo-idealists, especially Max Weber, insisted on methodological individualism. Weber believed that sociologists must interpret the motives behind individual actions to understand social behavior—not just observe patterns.
- Positivism’s search for general laws ignores the nuances of action, particularly when actors are influenced by religion, ethics, or ideology.
5. Social Construction of Reality
- Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, in The Social Construction of Reality, argue that social order is not a given but is continuously created through interaction and interpretation.
- This view directly contradicts positivism, which treats society as a fixed structure to be measured.
6. Epistemological Critique: Scientific Neutrality is a Myth
- Neo-idealists challenge the value neutrality of positivism. They argue that scientific inquiry is itself value-laden, and ignoring this undermines the authenticity of research.
- Weber’s idea of value-relevance suggests that social scientists should be aware of their perspective and positionality while studying social phenomena.
7. Preference for Qualitative over Quantitative Methods
- Both schools advocate for qualitative research methods—like participant observation, ethnography, and in-depth interviews—to capture the lived experiences and subjective interpretations of individuals.
- For example, W.F. Whyte’s Street Corner Society is a classic symbolic interactionist study that used participant observation to reveal the complexities of gang life, which positivist surveys would have oversimplified.
Conclusion
Neo-idealists and symbolic interactionists oppose positivism not because they reject empirical study altogether, but because they believe positivism dehumanizes social reality by imposing the methods of natural science onto a subject matter that is fundamentally subjective, fluid, and meaning-laden. They instead call for a more interpretative, context-sensitive, and reflexive approach to studying society.