Reflexivity (social theory)
Part of a series on |
Anthropology |
---|
In
Within
Within economics, reflexivity refers to the self-reinforcing effect of market sentiment, whereby rising prices attract buyers whose actions drive prices higher still until the process becomes unsustainable. This is an instance of a positive feedback loop. The same process can operate in reverse leading to a catastrophic collapse in prices.
Overview
In social theory, reflexivity may occur when theories in a discipline should apply equally to the discipline itself; for example, in the case that the theories of knowledge construction in the field of sociology of scientific knowledge should apply equally to knowledge construction by sociology of scientific knowledge practitioners, or when the subject matter of a discipline should apply equally to the individual practitioners of that discipline (e.g., when psychological theory should explain the psychological processes of psychologists). More broadly, reflexivity is considered to occur when the observations of observers in the social system affect the very situations they are observing, or when theory being formulated is disseminated to and affects the behaviour of the individuals or systems the theory is meant to be objectively modelling. Thus, for example, an anthropologist living in an isolated village may affect the village and the behaviour of its citizens under study. The observations are not independent of the participation of the observer.
Reflexivity is, therefore, a methodological issue in the social sciences analogous to the
Reflexivity includes both a subjective process of
History
The principle of reflexivity was perhaps first enunciated by the sociologists
Sociologist Robert K. Merton (1948, 1949) built on the Thomas principle to define the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy: that once a prediction or prophecy is made, actors may accommodate their behaviours and actions so that a statement that would have been false becomes true or, conversely, a statement that would have been true becomes false - as a consequence of the prediction or prophecy being made. The prophecy has a constitutive impact on the outcome or result, changing the outcome from what would otherwise have happened.
Reflexivity was taken up as an issue in science in general by Karl Popper (1957), who in his book The poverty of historicism highlighted the influence of a prediction upon the event predicted, calling this the 'Oedipus effect' in reference to the Greek tale in which the sequence of events fulfilling the Oracle's prophecy is greatly influenced by the prophecy itself. Popper initially considered such self-fulfilling prophecy a distinguishing feature of social science, but later came to see that in the natural sciences, particularly biology and even molecular biology, something equivalent to expectation comes into play and can act to bring about that which has been expected.[2] It was also taken up by Ernest Nagel (1961). Reflexivity presents a problem for science because if a prediction can lead to changes in the system that the prediction is made in relation to, it becomes difficult to assess scientific hypotheses by comparing the predictions they entail with the events that actually occur. The problem is even more difficult in the social sciences.
Reflexivity has been taken up as the issue of "reflexive prediction" in economic science by Grunberg and Modigliani (1954) and Herbert A. Simon (1954), has been debated as a major issue in relation to the Lucas critique, and has been raised as a methodological issue in economic science arising from the issue of reflexivity in the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) literature.
Reflexivity has emerged as both an issue and a solution in modern approaches to the problem of
Michel Foucault's The order of things can be said to touch on the issue of Reflexivity. Foucault examines the history of Western thought since the Renaissance and argues that each historical epoch (he identifies three and proposes a fourth) has an episteme, or "a historical a priori", that structures and organises knowledge. Foucault argues that the concept of man emerged in the early 19th century, what he calls the "Age of Man", with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He finishes the book by posing the problem of the age of man and our pursuit of knowledge- where "man is both knowing subject and the object of his own study"; thus, Foucault argues that the social sciences, far from being objective, produce truth in their own mutually exclusive discourses.
In economics
Economic philosopher George Soros, influenced by ideas put forward by his tutor, Karl Popper (1957),[3] has been an active promoter of the relevance of reflexivity to economics, first propounding it publicly in his 1987 book The alchemy of finance.[4] He regards his insights into market behaviour from applying the principle as a major factor in the success of his financial career.
Reflexivity is inconsistent with
Soros has often claimed that his grasp of the principle of reflexivity is what has given him his "edge" and that it is the major factor contributing to his successes as a trader. For several decades there was little sign of the principle being accepted in mainstream economic circles, but there has been an increase of interest following the crash of 2008, with academic journals, economists, and investors discussing his theories.[6]
Economist and former columnist of the Financial Times, Anatole Kaletsky, argued that Soros' concept of reflexivity is useful in understanding China's economy and how the Chinese government manages it.[7]
In 2009, Soros funded the launch of the Institute for New Economic Thinking with the hope that it would develop reflexivity further.[8] The Institute works with several types of heterodox economics, particularly the post-Keynesian branch.[9]
In sociology
Margaret Archer has written extensively on laypeople's reflexivity. For her, human reflexivity is a mediating mechanism between structural properties, or the individual's social context, and action, or the individual's ultimate concerns.[10] Reflexive activity, according to Archer, increasingly takes the place of habitual action in late modernity since routine forms prove ineffective in dealing with the complexity of modern life trajectories.[11]
While Archer emphasises the agentic aspect of reflexivity, reflexive orientations can themselves be seen as being "socially and temporally embedded".[12] For example, Elster points out that reflexivity cannot be understood without taking into account the fact that it draws on background configurations (e.g., shared meanings, as well as past social engagement and lived experiences of the social world) to be operative.[12]
In anthropology
In anthropology, reflexivity has come to have two distinct meanings, one that refers to the researcher's awareness of an analytic focus on his or her relationship to the field of study, and the other that attends to the ways that cultural practices involve consciousness and commentary on themselves.
The first sense of reflexivity in anthropology is part of social science's more general self-critique in the wake of theories by
The second kind of reflexivity studied by anthropologists involves varieties of self-reference in which people and cultural practices call attention to themselves.[17] One important origin for this approach is Roman Jakobson in his studies of deixis and the poetic function in language, but the work of Mikhail Bakhtin on carnival has also been important. Within anthropology, Gregory Bateson developed ideas about meta-messages (subtext) as part of communication, while Clifford Geertz's studies of ritual events such as the Balinese cock-fight point to their role as foci for public reflection on the social order. Studies of play and tricksters further expanded ideas about reflexive cultural practices. Reflexivity has been most intensively explored in studies of performance,[18] public events,[19] rituals,[20] and linguistic forms[21] but can be seen any time acts, things, or people are held up and commented upon or otherwise set apart for consideration. In researching cultural practices, reflexivity plays an important role, but because of its complexity and subtlety, it often goes under-investigated or involves highly specialised analyses.[22]
One use of studying reflexivity is in connection to authenticity. Cultural traditions are often imagined as perpetuated as stable ideals by uncreative actors. Innovation may or may not change tradition, but since reflexivity is intrinsic to many cultural activities, reflexivity is part of tradition and not inauthentic. The study of reflexivity shows that people have both self-awareness and creativity in culture. They can play with, comment upon, debate, modify, and objectify culture through manipulating many different features in recognised ways. This leads to the metaculture of conventions about managing and reflecting upon culture.[23]
In international relations
In international relations, the question of reflexivity was first raised in the context of the so-called ‘Third Debate’ of the late 1980s. This debate marked a break with the positivist orthodoxy of the discipline. The post-positivist theoretical restructuring was seen to introduce reflexivity as a cornerstone of critical scholarship.[24][25] For Mark Neufeld, reflexivity in International Relations was characterized by 1) self-awareness of underlying premises, 2) an acknowledgment of the political-normative dimension of theoretical paradigms, and 3) the affirmation that judgement about the merits of paradigms is possible despite the impossibility of neutral or apolitical knowledge production.[26]
Since the nineties, reflexivity has become an explicit concern of constructivist, poststructuralist, feminist, and other critical approaches to International Relations.[27][25][28][29][30][31] In The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson identified reflexivity of one of the four main methodologies into which contemporary International Relations research can be divided, alongside neopositivism, critical realism, and analyticism.[32]
Reflexivity and the status of the social sciences
Flanagan has argued that reflexivity complicates all three of the traditional roles that are typically played by a classical science: explanation, prediction and control. The fact that individuals and social collectivities are capable of self-inquiry and adaptation is a key characteristic of real-world social systems, differentiating the social sciences from the physical sciences. Reflexivity, therefore, raises real issues regarding the extent to which the social sciences may ever be viewed as "hard" sciences analogous to classical physics, and raises questions about the nature of the social sciences.[33]
Methods for the implementation of reflexivity
A new generation of scholars has gone beyond (meta-)theoretical discussion to develop concrete research practices for the implementation of reflexivity. These scholars have addressed the ‘how to’ question by turning reflexivity from an informal process into a formal research practice.[34][35][36][37] While most research focuses on how scholars can become more reflexive toward their positionality and situatedness, some have sought to build reflexive methods in relation to other processes of knowledge production, such as the use of language. The latter has been advanced by the work of Professor Audrey Alejandro in a trilogy on reflexive methods. The first article of the trilogy develops what is referred to as Reflexive Discourse Analysis, a critical methodology for the implementation of reflexivity that integrates discourse theory.[31] The second article further expands the methodological tools for practicing reflexivity by introducing a three-stage research method for problematizing linguistic categories.[38] The final piece of the trilogy adds a further method for linguistic reflexivity, namely the Reflexive Review. This method provides four steps that aim to add a linguistic and reflexive dimension to the practice of writing a literature review.[39]
See also
- Campbell's law – Adage about perverse incentives
- Double hermeneutic
- Goodhart's law – Adage about statistical measures
- Hawthorne effect – Social phenomenon by which being observed causes behavioral changes
- Observer effect (physics) – Fact that observing a situation changes it
- Observer-expectancy effect – Cognitive bias of experimental subject
- Performativity – Linguistic quality
- Virtuous circle and vicious circle– Self-reinforcing sequence of events
- Reciprocal causation – Biological concept
References
- ISBN 978-5-87290-065-8.
- ISBN 0-415-28589-5.
- ISBN 978-1-135-97221-9.
- ^ The Alchemy of Finance: Reading the mind of the Market (1987) by George Soros, pp 27–45
- ISBN 978-1-58648-683-9.
- ^ Journal of economic methodology, Volume 20, Issue 4, 2013: Special Issue: Reflexivity and Economics: George Soros's Theory of Reflexivity and the Methodology of Economic Science http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjec20/20/4 For example, Larry Summers, Joe Stiglitz, and Paul Volker in: Financial times, The Credit Crunch According to Soros, January 30, 2009. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9553cce2-eb65-11dd-8838-0000779fd2ac.html
- ^ Kaletsky, Anatole (12 October 2015). "China is Not Collapsing". Project Syndicate. London. Retrieved 12 October 2015.
- ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: "George Soros Lecture Series: Financial Markets". YouTube.
- ^ "Post Keynesian Working Group". www.ineteconomics.org. Archived from the original on 2016-08-03.
- )
- )
- ^ S2CID 149379807.
- ISBN 978-0-903729-00-0.
- ISBN 978-0-520-05729-6.
- ^ Roy D'Andrade. "Moral models in anthropology". Current anthropology Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jun., 1995), 399-408. Herbert S. Lewis. "The misrepresentation of anthropology and its consequences". American Anthropologist. Vol. 100, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 716-731
- ISBN 978-1-84545-675-7.
- ^ Barbara A. Babcock. "Reflexivity: definitions and discriminations". Semiotica. 1980 30:1-2, 1-14
- ^ Turner, Victor. "Dramatic ritual/ritual drama: performative and reflexive anthropology". The Kenyon review Vol. 1, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 80-93
- ^ Victor Turner. "Social dramas and stories about them. Critical inquiry. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 141-168
- ^ DON HANDELMAN and BRUCE KAPFERER. "Symbolic types, mediation and the transformation of ritual context: Sinhalese demons and Tewa clowns". Semiotica 1980, 30:1-2, 41-72
- ^ Richard Bauman and Charles L. Briggs. "Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life". Annual review of anthropology. Vol. 19 (1990), pp. 59-88
- ^ Lucy, John A. Reflexive language: reported speech and metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University 2004. Silverstein, Michael. "Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description." Meaning in anthropology, ed. Keith Basso and Henry A. Selby. Albuquerque: UNM Press, 1976. Silverstein, Michael. "The limits of awareness," in Linguistic anthropology: a reader. Edited by A. Duranti, pp. 382–401. Malden: Blackwell, 2001
- ^ Urban, Greg. (2001). Metaculture: how culture moves through the world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
- JSTOR 2600457.
- ^ ISBN 9780521473941, retrieved 2022-05-01
- ISBN 9780521473941, retrieved 2022-05-01
- ISBN 9780203071748, retrieved 2022-05-01
- ISSN 1521-9488.
- S2CID 143967944.
- OCLC 952706204.
- ^ S2CID 229461433.
- ISBN 9781317551768.
- ^ Flanagan, O. J. (1981). "Psychology, progress, and the problem of reflexivity: a study in the epistemological foundations of psychology", Journal of the history of the behavioral sciences, 17, pp. 375–386.
- ISSN 2276-2019.
- S2CID 159010666.
- S2CID 216537506.
- S2CID 145550679.
- S2CID 244420443.
- ISSN 1521-9488.
Further reading
- Archer, Margaret S. (2007). Making our way through the world: human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-46496-3.
- Ashmore, Malcolm (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-02968-9.
- Bartlett, Steve; Suber, P., eds. (1987). Self-reference: reflections on reflexivity. Springer. ISBN 978-90-247-3474-0.
- ISBN 978-0-226-06741-4.
- Bryant, C. G. A. (2002). "George Soros's theory of reflexivity: a comparison with the theories of Giddens and Beck and a consideration of its practical value", Economy and society, 31 (1), pp. 112–131.
- Flanagan, O. J. (1981). "Psychology, progress, and the problem of reflexivity: a study in the epistemological foundations of psychology", Journal of the history of the behavioral sciences, 17, pp. 375–386.
- Gay, D. (2009). Reflexivity and development economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan
- Grunberg, E. and F. Modigliani (1954). "The predictability of social events", Journal of political economy, 62 (6), pp. 465–478.
- Merton, R. K. (1948). "The self-fulfilling prophecy", Antioch Review, 8, pp. 193–210.
- Merton, R. K. (1949/1957), Social theory and social structure. Rev. ed. The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
- Nagel, E. (1961), The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation, Harcourt, New York.
- Popper, K. (1957), The poverty of historicism, Harper and Row, New York.
- Simon, H. (1954). "Bandwagon and underdog effects of election predictions", Public opinion quarterly, 18, pp. 245–253.
- Soros, G (1987) The alchemy of finance (Simon & Schuster, 1988) ISBN 0-471-44549-5)
- Soros, G (2008) The new paradigm for financial markets: the credit crisis of 2008 and what it means (PublicAffairs, 2008) ISBN 978-1-58648-683-9
- Soros, G (2006) The age of fallibility: consequences of the war on terror (PublicAffairs, 2006) ISBN 1-58648-359-5
- Soros, G The bubble of American supremacy: correcting the misuse of American power (PublicAffairs, 2003) ISBN 1-58648-292-0)
- Soros, G George Soros on globalization (PublicAffairs, 2002) ISBN 1-5864-8278-5)
- Soros, G (2000) Open society: reforming global capitalism (PublicAffairs, 2001) ISBN 1-58648-019-7
- Thomas, W. I. (1923), The unadjusted girl : with cases and standpoint for behavior analysis, Little, Brown, Boston, MA.
- Thomas, W. I. and D. S. Thomas (1928), The child in America : behavior problems and programs, Knopf, New York.
- Tsekeris, C. (2013). "Toward a chaos-friendly reflexivity", Entelequia, 16, pp. 71–89.
- Woolgar, S. (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: new frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.