By Yasin Alkan
Since social sciences are not experimental like other formal sciences, they do not give the
same data / results everywhere and in every situation. Precise conclusions cannot be drawn, as the
variables are difficult to analyze and distinguish due to their differences and structures. Although this
situation is close to instrumentalism, it is fundamentally different. For example, when evaluating the
class of over 100 students, examining 100 different people-thoughts one by one is against the
lifetime of the human because this is a “complex” situation that no other science can encounter.
Therefore, instead of examining 100 separate students, it will be more efficient and possible to
observe the basic dimanics and attitudes of the class formed by these students. It is more efficient to
observe the differences of the dynamics and structures that make up this structure by considering
the structures they create instead of attempting to examine a subject or object to its simplest detail.
The concepts or phenomena we see precise and natural are projections of the underlying
structural situation and process. There is a centralized sense of self in societies. Social relations have
now grounded the subject in itself. Although it is contrary to the understanding of humanism, this
situation has more than one indication in practice. Language is a systematic social code that affects
the entire field and social reflexes of man. In fact, stopping the car in the red light is an indicator in
social communication. In structuralism, while knowledge is obtained by the structural elements that
appear at the level of the essence, while in the instrumentalism it is claimed that knowledge is not
more than useful, structuralism will always have a better chance in this discussion.
image credit : www.psconsultants.in