Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T10:00:07.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Methodological Individualism: Social Scientific Studies of Rational Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2012

John Wettersten
John Wettersten*
Affiliation:
Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften, Universität Mannheim [wettersten@t-online.de].
Get access

Abstract

Standard versions of the sociology of rational practice assume justificationist theories of rationality: all rational beliefs are justified and rational individuals do not believe any non-justified statements. This theory appears to some to offer the possiblity of finding “deeper” insights into social behavior: some actions presented by actors as “rational” can, in fact, be explained as non-justified and, therefore, as mere consequences of prestige and/or power conflicts. When, however, it turns out that no theories can be justified, then all theories are irrational. This leads to relativism. The possibility, that we may profitably construct alternative theories of rationality is, in contrast, raised nearly uniquely by fallibilist theories of rationality. In order to take advantage of this, an alternative to the dominant methodological individualist theory of rational action is needed and possible. According to this alternative, rational action consists of problem-solving within institutional contexts without justification. Such a non-relativist sociology of rational practice can be enlightening and useful. Differing institutional contexts offer differing standards of rationality.

Résumé

La sociologie standard de la rationalité considère que toutes les croyances rationnelles sont “justifiées” et que les individus rationnels refusent de croire en des propositions non justifiées. Certains pensent que cette théorie permet d’entrer plus profondément dans la compréhension du comportement social : certaines actions présentées par les acteurs comme rationnelles peuvent en fait être comprises comme non justifiées, pures conséquences de conflit de prestige ou de pouvoir. Cependant, s’il apparaît qu’aucune théorie ne peut être justifiée, alors toutes les théories sont irrationnelles, ce qui conduit au relativisme.

Toute théorie alternative de la rationalité doit s’appuyer sur une théorie faillibiliste. Or il est possible de présenter une alternative à la domination de l’individualisme méthodologique. Une action rationnelle est une résolution de problème dans un contexte institutionnel sans justification. Une telle sociologie non relativiste de l’action rationnelle peut être éclairante et utile. Des contextes institutionnels différents offrent des standards de rationalité différents.

Zusammenfassung

Etablierte Alternativen der Soziologie der rationalen Praxis, gehen davon aus, dass Rationalität mit Rechtfertigung gleichzusetzen ist: Jeder rationale Glaube ist gerechtfertigt und rationale Individuen glauben nicht an nicht gerechtfertigte Aussagen. Diese Theorie scheint für manche Kollegen, die Möglichkeit einer tiefen Einsicht in soziologischen Verhaltenswiese zu eröffnen: Handlungen, die als rational vorgestellt werden, können sich in der Realität als nicht gerechtfertigt entpuppen. Aus diesem Grund werden sie als bloße Folgen von Prestige- und/oder Machtkonflikten betrachtet. Wenn es sich aber herausstellt, dass keine Theorie gerechtfertigt werden kann, sind alle Theorien irrational. Diese Konsequenz führt zu Relativismus. Die Möglichkeit, dass wir vorteilhafte alternative Theorien der Rationalität konstruieren können, und sie in der Praxis überprüfen, ergibt sich im Gegenteil beinahe eigenständig aus fallibilistischen Theorien der Rationalität. Um einen Vorteil aus ihr zu erlangen, brauchen wir eine nützliche Alternative zur dominanten methodologischen individualistischen Theorie des rationalen Handelns. Nach dieser Alternative besteht rationales Handeln aus der Lösung von Problemen innerhalb institutionellen Kontexten. Einleuchtend kann eine aus dieser Alternative entstehende nicht relativistische Soziologie der rationalen Praxis. Verschiedene institutionelle Kontexten bieten verschiedene Maßstäbe der Rationalität an, und wir können diese überprüfen.

Keywords

Methodological individualismRationalityFaillibilist theoryRelativismIndividualisme méthodologiqueRationalitéThéorie faillibilisteRelativismeMethodologische IndividualismusRationalitätFallibilistische TheorieRelativismus
Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , April 2012 , pp. 97 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agassi, Joseph, 1987. “Methodological Individualism and Institutional Individualism”, in Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, Ian C., eds., Rationality: The Critical View (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 119-150).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Hans, 1985. Treatise on Critical Reason (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Atran, Scott and Ginges, Jeremy, 2009. International Herald Tribune, Tuesday Jan. 27.Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A., 1986. Methodology for a new Microeconomics (Boston, Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A., 1989. The Methodology of Economic Model Building (London/New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. and Tullock, Gordon, 1962. The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, Ralf, 1959. Homo sociologicus: ein Versuch zur Geschichte, Bedeutung und Kritik der Kategorie der sozialen Rolle (Köln/Opladen, Westdeutsche Verlag).Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York, Harper).Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton 1953. Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 3-46).Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest, 1974. Legitimation of Belief (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest, 1996. “Reply to Critics” in Hall, John A. and Jarvie, Ian C., eds., The Social Philosophy of Ernest Gellner (Amsterdam/Atlanta, Rodopi, pp. 670-672).Google Scholar
Ginges, Jeremy and Atron, Scott, 2009. “What Motivates Participation in Violent Political Action”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1167, pp. 115-123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, Lawrence E. and Huntington, Samuel P., eds., 2000. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (New York, Basic Books).Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P., 1998. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order (London, Touchstone).Google Scholar
Holland, John H., Holyoak, Keith J., Nisbett, Richard E. and Thagard, Paul R., 1993. “Dedutive Reasoning”, in Goldman, Alvin I., ed., Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Cambrige/London, mit Press).Google Scholar
Jarvie, Ian C., 2001. The Republic of Science (Amsterdam/Atlanta, Rodopi).Google Scholar
Marschak, Jacob, 1943. “Money, Illusion and Demand Analysis”, The Review of Economic Statistics, Bd. XXV, pp. 40-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, Richard and Ross, Lee, 1980. Human Inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgment (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
North, Douglass C., 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History (New York, Norton & Co.).Google Scholar
North, Douglass C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
North, Douglass C., 1996. “Epilogue: Economic Perfermance through Time”, in Alston, Lee J., Eggertsson, Thráinn and North, Douglass C., eds., Empirical Studies in Institutional Change (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. and Thomas, Robert Paul, 1973. The Rise of the Western World (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass C., Wallis, John Joseph and Weingast, Barry R., 2009. Violence and Social Orders (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur, 1965. The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Harvard).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl, 1964. The Poverty of Historicism (New York, Harper & Row).Google Scholar
Popper, Karl, 1985. “The Rationality Principle”, in Miller, David, ed., Popper Selections (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 357ff).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney and Bainbridge, William Sims, 1987. A Theory of Religion (New York, Peter Lang).Google Scholar
Stein, Edward, 1996. Without Good Reason (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Strauss, Anelm and Corbin, Juliet, 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research (Newbury Park, Sage Publications)Google Scholar
Talmon, Jacob L., 1952. The Origins of Totaltarian Democracy (London, Sacker and Warburg, 1952); German translation, 1961: Die Ursprünge der totalitärian Demokratie (Köln/Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag).Google Scholar
Talmon, Jacob L., 1963. Politischer Messianismus (Köln/Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag).Google Scholar
Talmon, Jacob L., 1970. Israel among the Nations (London, Weidenfeld v Nicolson).Google Scholar
Talmon, Jacob L., 1980. The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution (London, Secker & Warburg; Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Talmon, Jacob L., 1987. “Open Letter to Prime Minister Begin Urging Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and Warning of a Future Disaster” in Aronson, Geoffrey, ed., Creating Facts: Israel, Palestinians and the West Bank (Institute for Palestinian Studies, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 1979. “Ernest Gellner: A Wittgensteinian Rationalist”, review of Cause and Meaning in the Social Sciences, The Devil in Modern Philosophy, Contemporary Thought and Politics and Legitimation of Belief (Philosophica) 8, 4 pp. 741-69; reprinted in Hall, John A. and Jarvie, Ian C. 1996, eds., The Social Philosophy of Ernest Gellner (Amsterdam/Atlanta, Rodopi, pp. 495-520).Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 1983. ‘”The Sociology of Knowledge vs. The Sociology of Science: A Conundrum and an Alternative”, Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art, Vol. II, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 13, 1-2, pp. 325-353.Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 1985. “Russell and Rationality Today”, Methodology and Science, 18, 2, pp. 140-163.Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 1993. “The Sociology of Scientific Establishments Today”, British Journal of Sociology, 44, 1, pp. 68-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wettersten, John, 2006a. How Do Institutions Steer Events? An Inquiry into the Limits and Possibilities of Rational Thought and Action (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing).Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 2006b. “Review-essay of Ian C. Jarvie”, The Republic of Science, Philosophy of Science, 73, 1, pp. 108-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wettersten, John, 2007. “Philosophical Anthropology Can Help Social Scientists Learn from Empirical Tests”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 37, 3, pp. 295-318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wettersten, John, 2009. “Popper and Sen on Rationality and Economics: Two (Independent) Wrong Turns Can Be Remedied with the Same Program”, in Parisnakova, Zuzana and Cohen, Rober, eds., Rethinking Popper (Springer Press).Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 2010. „Aus dem Irrtum Lernen: Ein institutionelles Problem”, in Neumeir, Otto, Hg., In Alltag, Wissenschaft und Kunst (Wien/Munster, Lit Verlag).Google Scholar
Wettersten, John, 2012. “The Rationality of Extremists: A Talmonist Insight we need to respond to”, Social Epistemology, 26, 1, pp. 31-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar