Register to read the introduction…
We are always in the process of constructing our own reality. It's subject to reconstruction and it allows for change. There's no universal truth, it's a matter of interpretation.
These researchers are looking to uncover rules not laws. An individuals view is to do with a subject and they embrace the subjective. They say the social world is meaningful where positivists say it isn't meaningful.
The researcher always presents a specific version of reality rather than one that can be considered definitive. It's one version of reality, nothing to do with the rest of the world.
They believe that we have a subjective view of what our life is like, that people have some kind of agreement about social life and rules. So I have my own understanding of the world, but to live in culture we have to have some similarities to how other people around us understand the world. It's intersubjective, we all agree meanings of things and in different cultures people see things differently.
There is a real physical world out there but there is a difference between how I see it and how it actually is. It depends on the social meaning you put on things. The process of this perception is an active …show more content…
The objective conditions of your life create you as an individual, he says interpretivists deny this so their wrong.
Critical realists look at society, not the individual says Bhaskar, and he believes you can't break down society because it's like an organism that has a life outside us. We come and play a part but when we leave the world will go on without us.
For Bhaskar people and society are not related dialectically. They do not constitute two moments of the same process rather they relate to radically different kinds of things. So humans don't create society but they transform it.
Much of what Bhaskar says can be explained just as well through interpretism, he has a diluted version of positivism and interpretivism. The interesting point of what he says is that if you are born into poverty that will have a real physical effect on your life, but apart from that I disagree with this worldview.
These researchers are looking to uncover rules not laws. An individuals view is to do with a subject and they embrace the subjective. They say the social world is meaningful where positivists say it isn't meaningful.
The researcher always presents a specific version of reality rather than one that can be considered definitive. It's one version of reality, nothing to do with the rest of the world.
They believe that we have a subjective view of what our life is like, that people have some kind of agreement about social life and rules. So I have my own understanding of the world, but to live in culture we have to have some similarities to how other people around us understand the world. It's intersubjective, we all agree meanings of things and in different cultures people see things differently.
There is a real physical world out there but there is a difference between how I see it and how it actually is. It depends on the social meaning you put on things. The process of this perception is an active …show more content…
The objective conditions of your life create you as an individual, he says interpretivists deny this so their wrong.
Critical realists look at society, not the individual says Bhaskar, and he believes you can't break down society because it's like an organism that has a life outside us. We come and play a part but when we leave the world will go on without us.
For Bhaskar people and society are not related dialectically. They do not constitute two moments of the same process rather they relate to radically different kinds of things. So humans don't create society but they transform it.
Much of what Bhaskar says can be explained just as well through interpretism, he has a diluted version of positivism and interpretivism. The interesting point of what he says is that if you are born into poverty that will have a real physical effect on your life, but apart from that I disagree with this worldview.