tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post905301175514286235..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Social embeddednessDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-55104426339178834382012-08-01T18:47:02.090-04:002012-08-01T18:47:02.090-04:00The key concept is that of the 'actor'. Ac...The key concept is that of the 'actor'. Actors may act on any combination of any of Daniel's identified parameters, atomistic-ally or integrated. However an actor is someone who knows they are in a play. The play happens in the minds of the actors. If the play becomes 'real', the real existence of the actors is 'lost'. Actually - just forgotten. The actors will then search for something that has never been lost. That is when the play that could have been fun, becomes tragedy.jrbarchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-89112390780349960252012-08-01T18:10:19.584-04:002012-08-01T18:10:19.584-04:00I would only say that Granovetter's statement ...I would only say that Granovetter's statement against oversocializing the individual was in terms of modelling...so that we don't model them behaving a certain way every time. I was just about to say that heterodox authors don't really do this, but it could be true that they make it implicit by ignoring all aspects of consumer choice within their models. <br /><br />I guess the question is, is this a problem in heterodox models today? Despite the fact that people like Lavoie (1994) came up with certain theorems regarding a heterodox consumer choice theory, I don't really think we've been able to incorporate into our models that seemingly have nothing to do with consumer choice based on the way we model.DeusDJnoreply@blogger.com