Michael Furgiuele

HIST 616

Spring 2005

Fourth Examination

Dr. R. Luehrs, Instructor

 

Define Positivism and discuss the critique offered by 19^th -century novelists of both Positivism and society.

 

 

From our lectures and study guide, we are able to identify the elements of nineteenth-century Positivism.  We can also identify how literary critics rebuked its ideals and impact on society.

 

Positivism is “an intellectual movement that sought to apply the principles of scientific knowledge to the student of human societies” (Kramer, 2001, p.38).  Positivism grew from the scientific advancements and popularity prevalent during the nineteenth- century.  Science, empirical evidence, and standard, structured theories identified the way of understanding human nature, nature itself, and man’s interaction with man.  With the Industrial Revolution and advances in medicine and technology, Positivism developed to explain society through science (lecture 20).

 

Several nineteenth-century writers and theorists believed that science could bring order to society, shattered by revolution and war.  Auguste Comte wrote Course of Positive Philosophy, which recommended science as the primary method of understanding nature and society.  Positivism therefore rejected the internal ideals and emotions of the individual in place of the advancements, which science and scientific concepts could provide.  In accepting Positivism, people accepted the concept that science was forcing religion into the background.  Religious interpretations that were once considered the height of knowledge where revelations of clerics were above reproach.  However, with scientific and industrial advances, people placed their ‘faith’ in science rather than in pure religion – understanding that there were rational explanations to nature once considered only metaphysical in prior periods.

 

One of the new Positivist sciences was the development of Sociology, a term created by Comte (lecture 20), which linked societal issues to scientific methods of understanding.  Through empirical experimentation, primarily observation, scientists created theories on human interaction and development.  During these experiments, “as sociologists learned the laws of social development, they would pass on the information to the government, which would create new laws and policies” (Kramer, 2001, p. 40).  Comte, himself, wanted to use the new science to promote harmony and truth by viewing and commenting on external forces, which affect people and societies.  Changes then allow society and governments to balance truth and power based on specific, scientific results (lecture 20).  Since Comte’s theories required a heightened level of interpretation and control, only a few individuals understood the implications provided by the data collected.  As such, Comte’s views “had a strong authoritarian dimension because elite specialists would simple decide what the government should do” (Kramer, 2001, p.40).  His ideas were very popular in government systems like that under Napoleon III (lecture 20) where it was possible to view the scientific advancements and the new sociology as a utilitarian method of providing the greatest impact to the most people.

 

The new Positivism drew criticisms from novelists and theorists who believed that this new form of understanding was too limited.  Positivism concentrated on the general applications of society without regard to the individual and to complex “references to the irrational spiritual aspects of human life” (Kramer, 2001, p.40).  Interpretations of social data collection also centered on authoritarian aspects, rejecting individual ideas and embracing only those, used by the government of society as a whole.

 

One of the writers who spoke out against Positivism was Fyodor Dostoevsky.  Dostoevsky’s turbulent life and introverted personality attributed to his aversion toward Positivism.  His reactions toward his personal like droved him to view societal and political issues in an emotional and harsh light (lecture 20).  He became interested in politics and joined a political group against the Tsar in Russia.  Accused of subversion, he was slatted for execution until the Tsar granted a reprieve.  Instead of death, he was imprisoned and sent to a Siberian labor camp.  There, his experiences of death and harsh conditions lead him to write of human feelings, emotions, and experiences.  His belief that “many parts of human life are mysterious, irrational, and beyond the reach of science” (Kramer, 2001, p.41).  His life of crisis and his experience at the hands of the authoritarian system of the Tsar lead him to reject Positivism and embrace the theory that knowledge is based not only on external conditions established by empirical methods, but required an understanding of the inner workings of the human mind and soul.  To Dostoevsky, “the real issue was always the human soul” (Kramer, 2001, p.42).

 

Positivism combined the growing hope placed on science with the reality of human societies to promote “a vision of society in which scientific experts and sociologists would have great influence on governments and legal systems” (Kramer, 2001, p. 38).  However, writers like Dostoevsky rejected the impersonal nature of scientific evidence and started a shift in focus from understanding only the natural world to emphasizing inner feeling, emotion, and the human mind.