Pluralism, pragmatism and social problems

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Vincent di Norcia
{"title":"Pluralism, pragmatism and social problems","authors":"Vincent di Norcia","doi":"10.3138/JCS.37.3.239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increasingly complex problems that advanced societies like ours face cannot be solved by outdated dichotomies between knowledges and interests. Instead a pluralist and pragmatist approach is needed, and two cases are explored: pollution from Canadian pulp and paper mills and hearings on siting nuclear reactors in seismically sensitive zones in the United States. Both suggest the need for pluralism - recognizing the diverse knowledges and interests involved. Integrating those knowledges and interests (pragmatism) helps determine a solution space from which to select specific solutions for the problem. The pluralist and pragmatist approaches are, finally, shown to be preferable to vague notions of muddling through and to two forms of dichotomies between knowledges and interests. Les problemes de plus en plus complexes que doivent affronter des civilisations de pointe comme la notre ne peuvent pas, on allegue, etre resolus avec des dichotomies desuetes entre les connaissances et les interets. Une demarche pluraliste et pragmatique est plutot recommandee et deux cas sont examines : la pollution provenant des usines de pates et papiers canadiennes et les audiences americaines sur le placement de reacteurs nucleaires dans des zones sensibles du point de vue seismique. Les deux cas suggerent un besoin de pluralisme en reconnaissant les divers interets et connaissances impliques. Le fait d'integrer ces connaissances et interets (pragmatisme) aide a identifier un cadre de solutions dans lequel on peut choisir des solutions precises au probleme. La demarche pluraliste et pragmatique est finalement identifiee comme preferable a de vagues notions de s'en sortir tant bien que mal et a deux formes de dichotomies entre les connaissances et les interets. How can there be this kind of advocacy when the subject is supposed to be a matter of scientific fact? Isn't there only one set of \"facts,\" one reality? Aren't we scientists and engineers trained to perceive that reality? Or are there several realities out there, each differing, depending on our individual - or is it professional - background or motives, our personal or collective politics? Richard Meehan, The Atom and the Fault Meehan's comments embody a common worry, namely that one's interests may distort one's beliefs. Underlying that view is often another assumption, that gaining knowledge requires detachment from one's interest. In this essay, I contend that both views are mistaken. They needlessly polarize complex problems by reducing them to simplistic dichotomies. They transform solvable problems into irresolvable dilemmas. In contrast, a pluralist and pragmatic approach to complex social problems is far more promising. To explain this approach two complex problems are explored: pollution from Canadian pulp and paper mills and the building of new reactors in seismically sensitive zones of California. The hearings of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the late 1970s on the building of such reactors provoked Richard Meehan's concern about the tension between advocacy and objectivity. Pluralism involves recognizing the diverse knowledges and interests in each problematic situation. Such recognition helps define the parameters of the solution space for that problem. When we integrate those knowledges and interests, pragmatism helps us select the best achievable solutions for the problem. In this essay I contrast pluralism and pragmatism with vague notions of muddling through and with adversarial methods that polarize knowledges and interests. First, however, I summarize the two sample problems. Pulp Mill Pollution In the early 1990s, 46 of the 145 pulp mills in Canada used various chlorine bleaching processes to whiten paper (Jenish 24). Canada's $20 billion paper industry was in perilous shape in the early 1990s. All across Canada mills were closing and workers were being laid off. Firms were concerned about the high costs of chlorine-free pulp (30% more per tonne), and the lowered brightness of chlorine-free paper. …","PeriodicalId":45057,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2002-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JCS.37.3.239","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The increasingly complex problems that advanced societies like ours face cannot be solved by outdated dichotomies between knowledges and interests. Instead a pluralist and pragmatist approach is needed, and two cases are explored: pollution from Canadian pulp and paper mills and hearings on siting nuclear reactors in seismically sensitive zones in the United States. Both suggest the need for pluralism - recognizing the diverse knowledges and interests involved. Integrating those knowledges and interests (pragmatism) helps determine a solution space from which to select specific solutions for the problem. The pluralist and pragmatist approaches are, finally, shown to be preferable to vague notions of muddling through and to two forms of dichotomies between knowledges and interests. Les problemes de plus en plus complexes que doivent affronter des civilisations de pointe comme la notre ne peuvent pas, on allegue, etre resolus avec des dichotomies desuetes entre les connaissances et les interets. Une demarche pluraliste et pragmatique est plutot recommandee et deux cas sont examines : la pollution provenant des usines de pates et papiers canadiennes et les audiences americaines sur le placement de reacteurs nucleaires dans des zones sensibles du point de vue seismique. Les deux cas suggerent un besoin de pluralisme en reconnaissant les divers interets et connaissances impliques. Le fait d'integrer ces connaissances et interets (pragmatisme) aide a identifier un cadre de solutions dans lequel on peut choisir des solutions precises au probleme. La demarche pluraliste et pragmatique est finalement identifiee comme preferable a de vagues notions de s'en sortir tant bien que mal et a deux formes de dichotomies entre les connaissances et les interets. How can there be this kind of advocacy when the subject is supposed to be a matter of scientific fact? Isn't there only one set of "facts," one reality? Aren't we scientists and engineers trained to perceive that reality? Or are there several realities out there, each differing, depending on our individual - or is it professional - background or motives, our personal or collective politics? Richard Meehan, The Atom and the Fault Meehan's comments embody a common worry, namely that one's interests may distort one's beliefs. Underlying that view is often another assumption, that gaining knowledge requires detachment from one's interest. In this essay, I contend that both views are mistaken. They needlessly polarize complex problems by reducing them to simplistic dichotomies. They transform solvable problems into irresolvable dilemmas. In contrast, a pluralist and pragmatic approach to complex social problems is far more promising. To explain this approach two complex problems are explored: pollution from Canadian pulp and paper mills and the building of new reactors in seismically sensitive zones of California. The hearings of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the late 1970s on the building of such reactors provoked Richard Meehan's concern about the tension between advocacy and objectivity. Pluralism involves recognizing the diverse knowledges and interests in each problematic situation. Such recognition helps define the parameters of the solution space for that problem. When we integrate those knowledges and interests, pragmatism helps us select the best achievable solutions for the problem. In this essay I contrast pluralism and pragmatism with vague notions of muddling through and with adversarial methods that polarize knowledges and interests. First, however, I summarize the two sample problems. Pulp Mill Pollution In the early 1990s, 46 of the 145 pulp mills in Canada used various chlorine bleaching processes to whiten paper (Jenish 24). Canada's $20 billion paper industry was in perilous shape in the early 1990s. All across Canada mills were closing and workers were being laid off. Firms were concerned about the high costs of chlorine-free pulp (30% more per tonne), and the lowered brightness of chlorine-free paper. …
多元主义、实用主义与社会问题
像我们这样的先进社会所面临的日益复杂的问题,不能用过时的知识和兴趣的二分法来解决。相反,我们需要一种多元化和实用主义的方法,并探讨了两个案例:加拿大纸浆和造纸厂的污染和美国地震敏感地区核反应堆选址的听证会。两者都表明需要多元化——承认所涉及的不同知识和利益。整合这些知识和兴趣(实用主义)有助于确定一个解决方案空间,从中为问题选择特定的解决方案。最后,多元主义和实用主义的方法被证明比蒙混过关的模糊概念和知识和利益之间的两种形式的二分法更可取。所有的问题都是复杂的,所有的文明都是复杂的,所有的文明都是复杂的,所有的文明都是复杂的,所有的文明都是复杂的,所有的文明都是复杂的。我们的方针是多元化和实用主义的,我们的建议是两种类型的检查:污染的来源,商业,纸张,加拿大,观众,美国,反应堆的位置,核设施,敏感区域,地震点。这两种情况暗示了多元主义的存在,同时也暗示了不同的利益关系所隐含的含义。实用主义是解决方案的核心识别符,而对解决方案的选择则是对问题的精确定义。“多元主义和实用主义的原则”确定了更可取的原则,即“模糊的概念”、“重要的原则”、“两分法”、“联系”和“利益”。当这个主题应该是科学事实的时候,怎么会有这种主张呢?难道不只有一套“事实”,一种现实吗?我们这些科学家和工程师不是受过训练来感知这种现实吗?还是有几个现实存在,每个都不同,取决于我们的个人或专业背景或动机,我们的个人或集体政治?米汉的评论体现了一种普遍的担忧,即一个人的利益可能会扭曲他的信仰。这种观点的基础往往是另一种假设,即获得知识需要脱离自己的兴趣。在这篇文章中,我认为这两种观点都是错误的。他们把复杂的问题简化成简单的二分法,不必要地使问题两极分化。他们把可以解决的问题变成无法解决的困境。相比之下,对复杂的社会问题采取多元化和务实的方法要有希望得多。为了解释这种方法,我们探讨了两个复杂的问题:来自加拿大纸浆和造纸厂的污染,以及在加州地震敏感地带建造的新反应堆。上世纪70年代末,美国核管理委员会(NRC)就建造此类反应堆举行的听证会,引发了理查德•米汉(Richard Meehan)对倡导与客观之间紧张关系的担忧。多元主义包括在每个问题情境中认识到不同的知识和兴趣。这种识别有助于定义该问题的解决方案空间的参数。当我们整合这些知识和兴趣时,实用主义可以帮助我们为问题选择最佳的可实现解决方案。在这篇文章中,我将多元主义和实用主义与模糊的混日子概念以及使知识和利益两极分化的对抗性方法进行了对比。不过,首先我要总结一下这两个示例问题。20世纪90年代初,加拿大145家纸浆厂中有46家使用各种氯漂白工艺来漂白纸张(Jenish 24)。20世纪90年代初,加拿大价值200亿美元的造纸业处于危险状态。加拿大各地的工厂都在关闭,工人们被解雇。公司担心无氯纸浆的高成本(每吨高出30%),以及无氯纸的亮度降低。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信