tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post4502136463913681501..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Arguments for social holismDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-3647281205613880632008-06-30T11:40:00.000-04:002008-06-30T11:40:00.000-04:00I just had the opportunity to read James Coleman's...I just had the opportunity to read James Coleman's piece "A Rational Choice Perspective of Economic Sociology" (from the Handbook Of Economic Sociology, Smelser and Swedberg eds.). He makes some interesting claims about the boundary conditions of rational choice explanations - and perhaps, methodological individualist explanations in general - such as, "Rational choice theory is not appropriate for explaining individual actions, beyond seeing them as rational, given the incentives and constraints." For Coleman, the two approaches he contrasts (a more macro-structural-functionalist approach and a more micro-agentic-rational choice approach) differ in what kinds of questions they are capable of answering. E.g., "One implication of this is that functionalism cannot explain system breakdowns or change; analogously, rational choice theory cannot explain individual breakdowns, or even change in preferences, but can explain system breakdown or change."<BR/><BR/>Hmm.. the connection to your post seemed clearer to me when I started this comment, so let me wrap up simply by saying that I agree that the opposition between the two positions is overstated, and that, more specifically, the domain over which they have explanatory usefulness may well differ.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07507086207394551238noreply@blogger.com