James Bohman has succeeded in reinvigorating the old debate over expla
nation and understanding by situating it within contemporary discussio
ns about sociological indeterminacy and complexity. I argue that Bohma
n's preference for a paradigm based on Habermas's theory of communicat
ive action is justifiable given the explanatory deficiencies of ethnom
ethodological, rational choice, rule-based, and functionalist methodol
ogies. Yet I do not share his belief that the paradigm is preferable t
o less formalized models of interpretation.