Excuse and justification: What’s explanation and understanding got to do with it?

Pleasants, Nigel

doi:10.1177/1368431020986753

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…How, especially in light of Weber’s idea that empirical statements and evaluative statements are logically distinct, could an explanation amount to an apology? In his contribution, Nigel Pleasants (2021) offers some much-needed clarification. While there are many terms used in debates about apologia, two concepts stand out and have a clear philosophical meaning: excuse and justification.…”

Section: Towards a Theory Of Social Scientific Apologiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Social science as apologia

Brandmayr

2021

European Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social sciences are predominantly seen by their practitioners as critical endeavours, which should inform criticism of harmful institutions, beliefs and practices. Accordingly, political attacks on the social sciences are often interpreted as revealing an unwillingness to accept criticism and an acquiescence with the status quo. But this dominant view of the political implications of social scientific knowledge misses the fact that people can also be outraged by what they see as its apologetic potential, namely that it provides excuses or justifications for people doing bad things, preventing them from being rightfully blamed and punished. This introduction to the special issue sketches the long history of debates about the exculpatory and justificatory consequences of social science and lays the foundations for a theory of social scientific apologia by examining three main aspects: what social and cognitive processes motivate this type of accusation, how social theorists respond to it and whether different contexts of circulation of ideas affect how these controversies unfold.

show abstract

Section: Towards a Theory Of Social Scientific Apologiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Social science as apologia

Brandmayr

2021

European Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the first, I discuss the concept of performativity as it can be applied to sociological knowledge claims, highlighting the distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts. The second section discusses the performative aspects of sociological statements, focusing, in particular, on their relationship to concepts such as explanation, justification, exculpation, and critique (see also Pleasants, 2021). To illustrate this distinction, I contrast Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem with Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of the Enlightenment , to discuss what makes certain kinds of explanations ‘sociological’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 Note that Pleasants (2021) analyses a similar problem, but from a different perspective, and with a completely different set of conclusions. Given that the articles were written independently, there is sadly no space for me to discuss the differences and similarities between our respective approaches in this article, though it would certainly be interesting to do that in the future. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No such thing as sociological excuses? Performativity, rationality and social scientific expertise in late liberalism

Baćević

2021

European Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines a frequent assumption of sociological accounts of knowledge: the idea that knowledge acts. The performativity of knowledge claims is here analysed through the prism of ‘sociological excuses’: the idea that sociological explanations can act as ‘excuses’ for otherwise unacceptable behaviour. The article builds on Austin’s distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary effects to discuss the relationship between sociological explanation, sociological justification and sociological critique. It argues that understanding how (and if) sociological explanations can act requires paying attention to social and political conditions of performativity and their transformation in late liberalism.

show abstract

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Procedural necessity in primary investigation work

Moussa

Qatawneh

Kandeel

2022

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the procedural necessity of primary investigations, since necessity is a common legal term and constitutes a theory in some branches of law. Procedural necessity has sparked controversy and debate about its legitimacy, and its subjectivity in the criminal procedure law in many Arab countries in the preliminary investigation work. Defining its scope, conditions, and nature can be especially challenging. This study shows the position of the Arab procedural legislation and judiciary systems regarding procedural necessity in the primary investigation work in various legal systems, especially in Egypt. Based on the assessment of the existing legislative regulation in Arab countries, the study gives grounds to talk about the inadmissibility of expanding the discretionary powers of the authorities associated with circumstances excluding the crime of an act, as this can create preconditions for abuse of officials and limit the existing individual rights and freedoms of citizens.

show abstract

Excuse and justification: What’s explanation and understanding got to do with it?

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Social science as apologia

Social science as apologia

No such thing as sociological excuses? Performativity, rationality and social scientific expertise in late liberalism

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Procedural necessity in primary investigation work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About