tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post8166594209239206877..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Methodological individualism todayDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-81161262511969824792012-11-05T20:23:33.103-05:002012-11-05T20:23:33.103-05:00Methodological individualism doesn't deal well...Methodological individualism doesn't deal well with institutionalism,, e.g., in economics. While it is true that it is individuals that create institutions and potentially can change them, institutions are like habit structures in individuals. They tend to take over the host and direct the host down paths that the host doesn't necessarily choose to go. This is a very powerful meso level and can also rise to the macro level though cultural adoption. <br /><br />Hegel's Zeitgeist is not some metaphysical entity, for instance, as collectivists would like to make out. But rather it is an identifiable cultural force or impetus resulting from habitual mindsets that find coordination in terms of informal unstated rules but they can also be formally stated rules, even legislated ones. <br /><br />A broad culture is composed of many sub-cultural groups, usually based on affinity of individuals. There is nothing mysterious about cultural trends. We speak of them all the times and advertisers and political strategists know a great deal about them and use this knowledge to gain advantage. There are no "spooks" involved, since it makes sense to speak of a collective mindset or even a type of level of collective consciousness in terms of individuals that make up groups without specifying any particular individuals. They are known anonymously through their coordinated effects, which is generally all historians have to deal with, for instance, in examining similarities and differences.<br /><br />Reductive methodological individualism has been the bane of economics, to the point that some even deny the validity of doing macroeconomics at all. I know of no one serious who denies at the elementary nature of the individual. Nor do I know anyone serious that thinks there are metaphysical entities at work at the level of holism. The controversy is really among those who think that society is an aggregate of individuals, and those who see societies are systems in which the elements are individuals standing in relationship, where the relationships are also determinative of the nature of the system and its behavior. Given findings in psychology, the life science and the social sciences, it would seem that the systems view is the only view that is tenable empirically — and that entails micro, meso and macro levels and effects.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-78907600267725081662012-11-04T06:39:20.699-05:002012-11-04T06:39:20.699-05:00I agree with Max about the poverty of the structur...I agree with Max about the poverty of the structure/actor dualism (http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2012/11/methodological-individualism-today.html?showComment=1351877672413#c5077641651994520860). I suggest that instead of taking an economic view of reality (which methodological individualism seeks to do), we should take an ecological or geographical view in the sense that we must recognize that the individual cannot somehow think and act separately from the environment. The relationship is reflexive rather than unidirectional. Individuals do not exist apart from environment/space.Arabica Robustahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01010830072282440956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-50776416519945208602012-11-02T13:34:32.413-04:002012-11-02T13:34:32.413-04:00Methodological individualism cannot deal with stru...Methodological individualism cannot deal with structure (institutions) and holism cannot deal with agency. IMHO, social science needs to move beyond methodological individualism vs holism towards a third way: relationism. The fundamental unit of analysis should neither be the individual nor "social facts" but the relationship between them, or between individuals/groups of individuals (organizations).<br /><br />Charles Tilly has written a lot about this issue. This is also a good book: http://books.google.se/books/about/Towards_Relational_Sociology.html?id=S-wEqwL_HOIC&redir_esc=yMaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03421761424950393455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-57260703711964576822012-11-01T09:20:35.577-04:002012-11-01T09:20:35.577-04:00Why does the relationship have to be one-way? Econ...Why does the relationship have to be one-way? Economists went all the way down this road in the quest for the microfoundations of macrophenomena, but as a fine blogger said, it's exactly as true to say that the individual actors have macro-context as it is to say that the macro-context has micro-foundations.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17153530634675543954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-81428259360854816132012-11-01T08:44:07.778-04:002012-11-01T08:44:07.778-04:00There is an interesting recent article on the diff...There is an interesting recent article on the different meanings ascribed to methodological individualism by Geoffrey Hodgson.<br /><br />http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/image/meanmethind.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com