tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post835324597983807094..comments2024-03-13T04:57:22.459-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Relative explanatory autonomyDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-13921384471782888282011-08-21T00:53:39.933-04:002011-08-21T00:53:39.933-04:00Hey Dr. Little,
Thanks for the reply. I gave a qu...Hey Dr. Little,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. I gave a quick look at the article, and I think you're right, Bunge does not go into any great detail as to what he means by a 'system' there. He is more explicit in his book, "The Sociology-Philosophy Connection", which I believe was published after that particular essay.<br /><br />For Bunge, a system is a structure of units that are linked. Those links can be 'bonds' (like marriage, say) or 'non-bonds' (like ecology). Concrete systems are 'real', in the sense that they're not just models of the world. And systems are constituted by mechanisms, which are processes that explain how the system works and changes.<br /><br />Bunge seems to recognize that there is such a thing as 'agency' and such a thing as 'structure', but claims that they are codependent. For him, there are no agents without structure, and no social structure without agents. That's the sense, I think, in which he's somewhere in between individualism and collectivism -- he talks a lot about the unity of the social sciences, and bridge-theories between agency and structure.<br /><br />But Bunge has very particular theoretical tastes, and he rebels very strongly against some approaches that he thinks are pseudo-science. So he rejects phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodology, for instance. He also puts less emphasis upon abstract systems, like conceptual or linguistic systems, and more emphasis upon what can be explained in causal terms.<br /><br />I find the word, "localism", to be quite evocative. One thing that jumps out at me is your emphasis upon the socially constructed individual. I'm not sure to what extent Bunge would be comfortable in saying that the individual is constructed; it would depend on whether or not you think a 'construction' can be expressed in terms of a concrete system. e.g., if you thought that the concept of a person was really just a useful fiction, as opposed to a real thing in the world, then it would seem that you would disagree.<br /><br />Maybe that will help!Benjamin S Nelsonhttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-9947619923302656022011-08-18T15:48:30.690-04:002011-08-18T15:48:30.690-04:00Benjamin, Thanks for these great questions.
Bunge...Benjamin, Thanks for these great questions.<br /><br />Bunge's position is described in this essay:<br />http://ceses.cuni.cz/CESES-137-version1-1B_BUNGE_Systemism.pdf<br /><br />I don't find the idea of "system" that helpful. And it's not really defined very clearly in the article cited here. It doesn't really seem to be an intermediate position, but rather an alternative -- "neither/nor". Here seems to be the clearest statement:<br />"Society is not an unstructured collection of independent individuals. It is, instead, a sysem of interrelated individuals organized into systems or networks of various kinds." (154)<br /><br />I'll think about this a bit more.<br /><br />As for Pettit -- I haven't yet read "The Common Minds". But in my conception, it's not the definition of intentionality or consciousness that is the difficult issue in social explanation; it's how individuals who are approximately described by one or another theory of the actor, aggregate to social patterns. <br /><br />Again, more thinking to do before I try to be more specific!Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-34678593009842123652011-08-18T13:48:57.665-04:002011-08-18T13:48:57.665-04:00Hi Dr. Little,
First, I want to say how much of a...Hi Dr. Little,<br /><br />First, I want to say how much of an asset this site is. In my research in philosophy of social science, if I ever encounter a vexing question, I always ask myself, "What has Dan Little said about so-and-so?" and am always grateful when I find out.<br /><br />But I have some questions about methodological localism. I think there's a sense in which 'collectivism' and 'individualism' are well-understood in the literature, and I can see how localism is meant to be a sort of mid-way position between them. But I'd like to get a finer-grained idea of where localism fits. So I have two questions.<br /><br />Mario Bunge advocates a view that he calls 'systemism'. He thinks it is a mid-way position of sorts. Is his view compatible with yours? Are there any deep differences between how you and he conceive of agency and social structure? There's a sense in which Bunge has an ecumenical spirit (so long as we are positing mechanisms in our explanations and not just telling stories), but I also get that sense that you have a similarly ecumenical spirit. It would be wonderful to know if and where you disagree.<br /><br />Also, how does localism fit in with Philip Pettit's distinction between "collectivism/individualism" (which is about the extent to which social regularities compromise intentional psychology) and "holism/atomism" (which is about the extent to which mental life and rationality are public)? It would seem to me that the localist, in a sense, is advocating for collectivism and holism; since, if the person is partly 'made up' by their society, then that seems to imply that societies can compromise a person's intentional psychology, and that mental life that is distinctive of a person is partly based on public influence. What do you think?Benjamin S Nelsonhttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-22100861708588411752011-08-16T10:27:59.841-04:002011-08-16T10:27:59.841-04:00I really really appreciate this post. I'm alwa...I really really appreciate this post. I'm always looking for a good defense of higher-level conceptual thinking.Snoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14645111884179495341noreply@blogger.com