In response to Michael Urban's article, "Bureaucratic Ideology in the United States and the Soviet Union: Some Empirical Dimensions," this commentary argues that three modes of knowledge acquisition: the explanatory, the interpretive, and the critical, may be employed by those seeking an explication of our general adherence to hierarchical principles. However, an understanding of the specific purposes to be served by each of these modes is a necessary prerequisite to their use in specific cases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
APEL, K. O. (1977) "Types of social science in the light of human interests and knowledge."Social Research44 (Autumn): 424-471.
2.
FAY, B. (1976) Social Theory and Political Practice. New York: Holmes & Meier.
3.
HABERMAS, J. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests. (J. J. Shapiro, trans.) Boston: Beacon Press.
4.
HAMPSHIRE, S. (1959) Thought and Action. New York: Viking Press.
5.
McCARTHY, T. A. (1978) The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press.
6.
PALMER, R. E. (1969) Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.
7.
RICOEUR, P. (1971) "The model of the text: meaningful action considered as a text."Social Research, 38 (Autumn): 529-562.
8.
SILVERMAN, D. (1970) The Theory of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
9.
VAN DYKE, V. (1960) Political Science: A Philosophical Analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
10.
VICKERS, G. (1973) Making Institutions Work. New York: John Wiley.
