Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena
Speech Analysis: How to Critique a Speech - Six Minutes
The problem for the practical conception of critical social inquiryis then to escape the horns of a dilemma: it should be neither purelyepistemic and thus overly cognitivist, nor purely moralistic. Neitherprovides sufficient critical purchase. In the case of the observer,there is too much distance, so much so that it is hard to see how thetheory can motivate criticism; in the case of the pure participantperspective, there is too little distance to motivate or justify anycriticism at all. It is also the same general theoretical andmethodological dilemma that characterizes the debates betweennaturalist and anti-naturalist approaches. While the former sees termssuch as rationality as explanans to explain away such phenomena asnorms, the latter argues that normative terms are not so reducible andthus figure in both explanans and explanandum. The best practicalaccount here reconciles Rorty's ambiguity by putting theepistemological component in the social world, in our various cognitiveperspectives towards it that include the normative perspectives ofothers. The ambiguity is then the practical problem of adoptingdifferent points of view, something that reflective participants inself-critical practices must already be able to do by virtue of theircompetence.
Short Stories and Novels So, you have to write a critical analysis
The philosophical problem that emerges in critical social inquiry isto identify precisely those features of its theories, methods, andnorms that are sufficient to underwrite social criticism. A closerexamination of paradigmatic works across the whole tradition fromMarx's Capital (1871) to the Frankfurt School's Studies inAuthority and the Family (1939) and Habermas's Theory ofCommunicative Action (1982) reveals neither some distinctive formof explanation nor a special methodology that provides the necessaryand sufficient conditions for such inquiry. Rather, the best such worksemploy a variety of methods and styles of explanation and are ofteninterdisciplinary in their mode of research. What then gives them theircommon orientation and makes them all works of critical socialscience?