Because motive
From Geography
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In-Order-to Motive''' | ||
The practical future-orientated directedness and axpectations of the everyday life-world is expressed in what schutz call the 'in-order-to motive'(interne link toevoegen). As actors we explain ourselves in terms of our won projects- the motivating lived experiend by saying that we do something(let us say, go to the store) 'in-order-to achieve' an objective(say, to buy food). | The practical future-orientated directedness and axpectations of the everyday life-world is expressed in what schutz call the 'in-order-to motive'(interne link toevoegen). As actors we explain ourselves in terms of our won projects- the motivating lived experiend by saying that we do something(let us say, go to the store) 'in-order-to achieve' an objective(say, to buy food). | ||
| + | '''Because Motive''' | ||
This is of course , derived from Weber but Schutz argues that there is another meaning-context which Weber fails to distinguish. This comes into picture only when we look back on our activities or those of others. It is the context of because motives which we attribute to ourselves and other by hindsight through selecting out some features of the situation as it was before the action in question and then regarding these features as the reasons for - in the sense of causes of - the action. This is to explain action by reference to the past (‘I hit him because I was very angry’) rather than the future ( ‘I hit him in order to teach him a lesson’) . Schutz accurately points out that the difference is not merely a verbal one, for although it is true that I can use the word because to assert an in-order-to motive( ‘I hit him because I wanted to get away’) other because statements (genuine ones) cannot be translated in to in-order-to statements - thus we would not say. 'I hit him in order to be angry’. The crucial difference is that a because motive makes an essential reference to something preceding the act in question. | This is of course , derived from Weber but Schutz argues that there is another meaning-context which Weber fails to distinguish. This comes into picture only when we look back on our activities or those of others. It is the context of because motives which we attribute to ourselves and other by hindsight through selecting out some features of the situation as it was before the action in question and then regarding these features as the reasons for - in the sense of causes of - the action. This is to explain action by reference to the past (‘I hit him because I was very angry’) rather than the future ( ‘I hit him in order to teach him a lesson’) . Schutz accurately points out that the difference is not merely a verbal one, for although it is true that I can use the word because to assert an in-order-to motive( ‘I hit him because I wanted to get away’) other because statements (genuine ones) cannot be translated in to in-order-to statements - thus we would not say. 'I hit him in order to be angry’. The crucial difference is that a because motive makes an essential reference to something preceding the act in question. | ||
Revision as of 15:24, 29 September 2010
In-Order-to Motive The practical future-orientated directedness and axpectations of the everyday life-world is expressed in what schutz call the 'in-order-to motive'(interne link toevoegen). As actors we explain ourselves in terms of our won projects- the motivating lived experiend by saying that we do something(let us say, go to the store) 'in-order-to achieve' an objective(say, to buy food).
Because Motive This is of course , derived from Weber but Schutz argues that there is another meaning-context which Weber fails to distinguish. This comes into picture only when we look back on our activities or those of others. It is the context of because motives which we attribute to ourselves and other by hindsight through selecting out some features of the situation as it was before the action in question and then regarding these features as the reasons for - in the sense of causes of - the action. This is to explain action by reference to the past (‘I hit him because I was very angry’) rather than the future ( ‘I hit him in order to teach him a lesson’) . Schutz accurately points out that the difference is not merely a verbal one, for although it is true that I can use the word because to assert an in-order-to motive( ‘I hit him because I wanted to get away’) other because statements (genuine ones) cannot be translated in to in-order-to statements - thus we would not say. 'I hit him in order to be angry’. The crucial difference is that a because motive makes an essential reference to something preceding the act in question.
There is an important similarity between the two sorts of motives in that both refer to the past in one way or another. Because motive statements refer straightforwardly to past events as the causes of action, while in-order-to motive statements involve fantasizing the projected events as past, thus putting them, as he says , in the future perfect tens (‘I will have done x or y’/ This is something on which he has to insist in order to retain the thesis that meaning is attributed to behaviour by looking back on it. and not in the actual experiencing of it. One important difference between the two types of motive statement is that in-order-to explanations allow for freedom of action whereas because explanations are deterministic.
Summarizing
Because Motives
- are essential references to something preceding the act in question
- refer straightforwardly to past events as the cause of action
- are Deterministic.
References
Campbell, T. (1981) Seven theories of Human Society. Clarendon Press, Oxford203-204
