There are matters of personal strategy, the development of relationships with academic staff and fellow students, which need to be considered. These are matters which concern us in everyday life. But in the life of a student there is also the question of the kind of thinking that has to be adopted if we are to travel down the student's path. A student needs to have some idea of the appropriate theoretical questions that need to be asked, the basic questions which will frame scientific work. What are these questions?
All scientific work is based upon answers to a basic set of questions about science like the following :
what is theorising?
how is it possible?
what is its particular contribution to science?
how is science a part of human responsibility?
It might seem strange to start in this way. We could begin with discussion of the biblical doctrines about the creation of the cosmos, the place of Jesus Christ in God’s plan of redemption and the implications of sin for our understanding of society. In this book these are discussed indirectly, because our main purpose is not to expound Christian doctrine but to explain what a Christian vocation in social science means.
Since doctrinal matters need to be dealt with to clarify the world-view in which a Christian social theory is nested, they will not be avoided, but broached en passant in subsequent chapters. But being concerned for the Christian student's task, we are not, in this instance, trying to commend the Biblical faith, to the student. We are trying to explain the student task in terms of a Christian perspective. This discussion is concerned with the student vocation.
When we ask what is science? we may well be asking what is this kind of activity in which I am becoming engaged? And as with all other things we can begin with a very simple strategy. We identify the thing we are talking about - in this case the thing is an activity, a way of thinking about and investigating the creation. We identify the central characteristics of this thing (an activity) and then we proceed to consider how this thing (activity) is related to all other things (including all other activities). Our thinking about science confronts us with the fact that we have begun by thinking about a particular kind of thinking. We have begun our scientific task by reflecting on the fact that science is a way of thinking and that there are indeed other non-scientific ways of thinking. So even in thinking about scientific thinking we are forced, as it were, to think beyond science to get a grasp of what it is to think and then to consider what it is to think scientifically. Then we reflect upon how this mode of thinking relates to all the (possible) things there are to think about.
But let us start by reckoning with the fact that all students confront such questions about science, theory and the student vocation. They are indeed perspectival in character. They are not firstly theoretical questions. They are questions about our human condition. They are questions about the conditions which make our science and theorising possible. They are questions about theory. Though they are questions of fundamental importance for theory, they are not, as such, theoretical questions.
This statement will indeed trouble some students. After all, who said that this is the basic set of questions for all students? Could this be just another way of saying that any student, to be a student, must conform to my set of (preferred) questions? Is “theory” in this view primarily about what I want to affirm?
This charge needs to be taken seriously. I can hardly deny that they are my questions, since I have written them, or more accurately typed them into my computer and I see them now on the screen. But do I try to justify this set of questions by formulating an explanation of how they have fallen from heaven? They have not done so and to claim that they have would be wrong. I have formulated them. Any such denial would be an emphatic profession of mythology.
Clearly the questions about the nature and character of theoretical knowledge are basic orientating questions for my own involvement in theoretical work. Though they have not ‘fallen from heaven’ they have resulted from thinking about what I have been doing. They are formulated here because I have wanted to clarify what I am doing. They are not just private and personal questions. They are questions which have to be answered if I am to explain how I understand the activity in which I am now engaged. This is not to say it has all come together as a result of process in my own head. In this process - over some years - I have benefited from what others have thought and what others have written.
They are not firstly questions about how students think about themselves, nor are they moral questions about how students should live their lives. They are not questions which seek to classify, as they are part of a conscious search for understanding the theoretical task which includes making systems of classification.
Yet, these are questions of a more specific kind. They are focussed questions, questions focussed upon theorising as one kind of thinking, or one aspect of our thinking, in order to clarify what we are doing in science. They are questions directed at the meaning and purpose of theorising. But they are not, as such, the theoretical questions that are part of empirical scientific activity. We might say they are pre-theoretical questions, but immediately I would suggest that they are not questions that we get ever get beyond. They are not just questions that prepare us for the next stage of our scientific thinking. They are questions which we return to again and again as we go along the scientific path because they give us guidance to the formulation of our scientific knowledge and help us discern the structure that holds for whatever we are investigating.
These questions are directed at the meaning and purpose of life, history, society. They are the formulated questions that all scientists will sooner or later have to answer for themselves about what they are doing when they think in a scientific way. So I have stated what I take to be some basic questions about the meaning of theory that all scientists must address. This does not mean that I am ignoring the fact that each scientist must answer these questions for him- or her-self in his or her own way. Another way of saying this is that each scientist will ask these questions in his or her own way.
Sometimes scientists write what they think in terms of an over-reliance upon the tradition in which they have been nurtured. In such cases we detect the presence of certain uncritical tenets in a thinker's argument. We have to learn to distinguish between the stated beliefs of a theoretical account and the underlying motives that can be discerned in the theoretical argument. Sometimes these will coincide. But not always. Sometimes we even argue at cross-purposes with ourselves.
Scientific communication is all about learning to discuss complex theoretical matters. As we consider the details of a theoretical argument we learn to relate these to the motives and orientation of the scientist. We then begin to appreciate what it is in creation the scientist is trying to explain. We sort through the argument and begin to sense the strengths and weaknesses of the viewpoint that is being put forth. Sometimes it takes years, decades, a lifetime to sort through the complex scientific argument that has been handed down to us.
Science may distinguish theoretically between question and answer - the formulation of (theoretical) questions and the articulation of empirically-based logical answers. But at the outset of science the question : What am I doing in science? is so much a part of the quest, that it is nothing less than basic. It is also part of a basic human responsibility, to be accountable to ourselves, to others and to God. All scientists, whatever the discipline, ask and answer such a set of questions which point to the structure and meaning of theorising. If they do not do so explicitly, then the implicit answers will become apparent during the elaboration of their theoretical arguments. In the explanation of the research, or in the setting out of the results, the underlying assumptions about what is being done, or has been done, will become apparent. It is best that these matters be clarified explicitly. Then they lead to clarity about the underlying perspective in terms of which the theoretical argument makes sense; if it is left implicit then the scientist and the scientific work is in danger of being mis-understood. The scientific results are dogmatically connected with the scientists pre-theoretical assumptions. Science functions best when a sharp distinction is made between pre-theoretical assumptions and the results of empirical analysis. Scientists should not leave it up to others to make explicit what they assume to be basic and take for granted. These matters should be spelled out.
My argument here is that theoretical reflection is structured to inescapably give an account of its own meaning, purpose and character. The questions are indeed concerned with theory’s vocation under heaven. The questions have not ‘fallen from heaven’; they hang together as part of the fabric of our life and thought under heaven: in the presence and service of God - Coram Deo. We not only need to clarify the place of scientific knowledge within the realm of human responsibility, our scientific formulations never proceed without some assumed understanding of this. The questions relate to the inner nature of theorising as a human act, which is as human as our believing, loving, judging, valuing, spending, willing, appreciating, socialising, speaking, arguing.
Theorising is a form of knowing which requires us to intentionally structure by means of concepts and logical arguments, in the processes of empirical analysis and scientific testing. We engage in theoretical reflection to deepen our knowledge of how the things we experience are related to each other, how our experience hangs together.
We can also make this point in metaphoric language: since theorising is a legi-timate thing to do, it has a lawful task. Theory expresses our love for the study of God’s creation. It exists in the structure of human activity. It grows. It has a life of its own. It has its own character. It has its role to play in the drama of life. Theory has its own ‘inner nature’ and should obey the laws which condition its possibility.
Theory cannot be explained solely by comparing it with other ways of thinking; other ways of thinking cannot be understood solely in terms of theoretical concepts. Our sense of justice or stewardship or wisdom or harmony is not just a matter of how we define these things theoretically. Our insight into these things is deepened or sharpened by our concepts of what is just, fair, true, logical, clear, powerful and beautiful.
But the ‘inner nature’ of theory is not determined by what is theorised about. The role of theory is determined by the part it plays in the life of the thinking person who lives within all the social structures of human activity. Theorising is a valid and legitimate way of thinking. It is a part of our human vocation. It is a given task, an important aspect of our thinking activity.
Theorising also involves the thinker in self-conscious reflection. It is hardly possible for the theorist to avoid thinking about the scientific task. Theorising as an activity must survey and give an account of its own ‘outer rim’. It has to explain its own domain. It has to remind itself of the legitimate basis for its activity. It does this with an idea about its place and structure within human experience. This idea then would be a comprehensive idea by which we relate our theorising to the full compass of scientific investigation and reflections about the various aspects of human life. The set of questions listed above is one way of trying to identify this ‘outer rim’.
It is in this sense that the Christian theorist does not do anything more than the non-Christian theorist. The Christian approach must be guided by a Christian idea of the ‘outer rim’ of the theoretical task. The Christian theorist needs to formulate a view of the ‘outer rim’ of theoretical reflection, which helps us discuss the various types of thinking, how they are related to each other and how they contribute in our entire experience and life.
This formulation is then an attempt to explain that theorising is possible alongside of all other kinds of human activity, in relation to all the things there are to think about. This idea is directed to what determines the inner character and structure of theoretical reflection as such. This idea is none other than an idea about the law of God, the way God has ordered His creation for us. This order is also the order of our thinking. It is the same law which holds for our thinking in general and theoretical thinking in particular.
At this point some clarification is needed. This idea of law is not the law itself. For theorising it may be the rule that an idea of law has to guide the development of concepts and the building of theoretical argument. But if Christian theorising is to be truly self-critical then it will formulate its idea of law as a concerted, disciplined and sustained scientific formulation. It cannot afford to imply that its formulation, either explicitly or implicitly, is the final word. That kind of argument is actually a declaration of independence. The law of God, to which we are totally subject, also in theoretical reflection, is what confronts our human thought and experienced in its totality. God’s Word is Law. God's Law is His word to us and that word speaks to us not on the rim but at the very centre of our lives, where our lives are united root and branch, undivided. Being creation is what makes all of human life, our thinking and our activity, possible. Our thinking about creation, and the way God orders our life, is only possible because it is creation. God has made it possible and deeply meaningful. Any idea that our idea of the order of creation is the ordering principle of creation is a foolish attempt to elevate ‘theory’ to the place of Divine judgement.
The idea is not the law. Reason itself is not its own the judge. In science we have to discern; we have to make judgements. But we do so in the knowledge that our scientific theorising is part of God’s creation. We orient ourselves in our theoretical thinking by an idea of the coherence, diversity and origin of all things, including our thinking. We develop an idea about everything that comes within the province of human knowledge and experience, within the realm of human responsibility under heaven.
This implies a very ‘high’ notion of human knowledge within creation. Theoretical reflection in its own way fulfils God's command to the man and the woman to ‘have dominion’ over every living creature. In so far as we humans are placed in creation, we are mandated to think about all things creaturely. As humans made in God's image, we are encouraged to think theoretically about ourselves and our society. This is the glory and limit of theoretical thought. It is not done of ourselves, for ourselves, but as our part in the great task mandated to us to investigate the creation and bring it to fulfilment.
Even though it may not be very widely practised or recognised the Christian student/thinker bows before the God who has been revealed to all humankind in Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the promised Redeemer. His is a kingly rule which is universal and comprehensive in scope. It is therefore of central and normative significance for the theorist to theorise about what is essentially the dominion of Christ’s reign. In theory, whatever the scientific speciality, we theorise about the creation which He has restored to us and which He is bringing to fulfilment. This realm in turn is known by the Christian to be the domain in which the community of scientists are called to develop theoretical knowledge.
Previous Chapter < > Next Chapter
August 2004 © A Christian
Calling in Social Theory and Research is a work written by Bruce C
Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA,
61-3-5258-3913. Each chapter may be photocopied or retransmitted in its
entirety only with full acknowledgement of the author and the source. It shall
not otherwise be reprinted or transmitted without permission. This
personal project aims to encourage a positive Christian student
engagement in universities around the world which need to better understand the
vocation of science as an expression of our love for God and our
neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html