Davydova2003
| Davydova2003 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Davydova2003 |
| Author(s) | Irina Davydova, Wes W. Sharrock |
| Title | The rise and fall of the fact/value distinction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | morality, fact/value distinction, Wittgenstein, Schutz, EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2003 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Sociological Review |
| Volume | 51 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 357–375 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-954X.00425 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The paper addresses the problem of the conceptualisation of morality in sociology. The traditional sociological conception of morality was based upon the acceptance of a fact/value dichotomy, implying that sociology portrays the factual nature of morality, which thereby becomes equivalent to group conformity
The opposition of fact and value was brought into question by trends of thought that followed from, respectively, Alfred Schutz and Ludwig Wittgenstein. The line from Schutz's ideas led towards their reformulation by Harold Garfinkel, who to large extent integrated the ‘moral’ with the ‘cognitive’. Wittgenstein's influence, through, especially Peter Winch, John W. Cook and Alfred Louch undercut the idea that sociological descriptions were themselves purely factual, rather than integrally evaluative. A third stream is represented by Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor, who adopt the idea that morality must be understood in its social and historical context, and explicitly reject the separation of fact and value in moral inquiry.
The fact/value distinction is the source of chronic problems for the sociology of morality. Specifically, a sociological account of morality, that would define the correct understanding of the nature of morality — i.e. identify what substantive character and content is appropriate to it — is not possible. The disintegration of the fact/value dichotomy also means that the idea that the social context can itself be described independently of normative considerations is an illusion.
Notes
