Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Ontology derives from the Greek words for thing and rational account. In classical and speculative philosophy, ontology was the philosophical science of being. Its general aim was to provide reasoned, deductive accounts of the fundamental sorts of things that existed. Ontology was not concerned with the specific nature of empirical entities, but rather with more basic questions of the universal forms of existence. Examples of classical ontological questions are as follows: Are bodies the only things that exist, or are immaterial forms real? Is there a supreme intelligence in the universe, or is all activity reducible to mechanical motion? Are individuals alone real, or are collectivities independently real? Are there real objects of universal terms, or are universals simply names that humans give to mental abstractions? The very generality of these questions means that they will always have some connection to the investigation of natural and social phenomena. In the contemporary era, however, it would be wrong to continue to think of ontology as a fundamental science given that hypothetical-empirical methods of research (at least in the natural sciences) have permanently displaced the deductive-rationalist methods of classical philosophy.

The last systematic attempt at fundamental ontology in the work of Martin Heidegger hoped to displace the domination of empirical science by demonstrating that its conclusions were relative to unexamined frames of meaning. The answer to the question, “What is being?” differs depending on the frames of meaning within which the question is asked. The scientific answer to this question refuses to admit all nonquantifiable data into an acceptable account of reality. The consequence of this method is that the world is reduced to the sum total of individual things. Since these things are assumed to be meaningless in themselves and anything that might exist beyond individual things but is not quantifiable is ruled irrelevant, the entire world is reduced to mere raw materials for scientific and technological manipulation. The importance of this aspect of Heidegger's work has not impeded the further extension of the hegemony of quantitative methods in both the natural and social sciences. His alternative, to let beings be, has not proven a globally convincing alternative.

Nevertheless, ontological questioning remains an essential moment of any adequate social scientific research. The importance of ontological questioning, however, does not mean that it is reasonable any longer to expect deductive expositions of the essential nature of social reality. It would be anachronistic to pose these questions with the goal of arriving at a totalized system of universal principles in mind. In the contemporary period, ontology, or more particularly, social ontology, remains essential as a critical propae duetic to empirical research.

Social Ontology

The term social ontology derives from the work of Carol C. Gould. In this more restricted sense, ontology aims at providing general accounts of the nature of social reality. Its practice is linked explicitly to the goal of avoiding a naive (unreflective, uncritical) empiricism that would reduce the nature of social reality to that which is disclosed by statistical and empirical methods of research. From an ontological perspective, the problem of statistical–empirical methods is not that they cannot uncover important data about social dynamics or patterns of behavior, but rather that they rest upon an untheorized and undisclosed ontological assumption: Social reality is identical to the conclusions of statistical–empirical research. In other words, the empirical researcher who does not explicitly pose ontological questions fails to ask the most important question of social research: How did the given social reality come to be constituted as it appears? The social ontologist recognizes that unlike the objects of natural science, which are not produced by human action and thus constitute a reality that truly is given to the mind to investigate, social reality is the result of complex forms of human action and interaction. That fact means that social reality is dynamic in a way that natural reality is not. The fundamental forms of social reality can change precisely because they are determined by forms of action and interaction that create a field of possibilities, but that simultaneously exclude the realization of most of them. Posing critical ontological questions thus opens up the field of social possibilities, whereas proceeding on the assumption that that which is real in society is identical to the conclusions of statistical–empirical research keeps the field of possibilities hidden. An example will clarify this claim.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading