Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate: Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science PDF
Preview Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate: Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science
Synthese Library 372 Julie Zahle Finn Collin Editors Rethinking the Individualism- Holism Debate Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate SYNTHESE LIBRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Editor-in-Chief LUCIANOFLORIDI,UniversityofOxford,OxfordInternetInstitute, UnitedKingdom Editors THEOA.F.KUIPERS,UniversityofGroningenFac.Philosophy,TheNetherlands TEDDYSEIDENFELD,CarnegieMellonUniversityDept.Philosophy,USA PATRICKSUPPES,StanfordUniversityCtr.StudyofLanguage&Information, USA JANWOLEN´SKI,JagiellonianUniversityofKrakowInstituteofPhilosophy, Poland DIRKVANDALEN,UtrechtUniversityDepartmentofPhilosophy, TheNetherlands VOLUME 372 For furthervolumes: http://www.springer.com/series/6607 Julie Zahle (cid:129) Finn Collin Editors Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science Editors JulieZahle FinnCollin DepartmentofMedia,Cognition DepartmentofMedia,Cognition andCommunication andCommunication UniversityofCopenhagen UniversityofCopenhagen Copenhagen,Denmark Copenhagen,Denmark ISBN978-3-319-05343-1 ISBN978-3-319-05344-8(eBook) DOI10.1007/978-3-319-05344-8 SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2014937661 ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2014 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerpts inconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeing enteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.Duplication ofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightLawofthe Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter. ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedherein. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) Contents 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 JulieZahleandFinnCollin PartI OntologicalIndividualism-Holism 2 WhatIsIndividualisminSocialOntology?Ontological Individualismvs.AnchorIndividualism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 BrianEpstein 3 SocialEntitiesandtheBasisofTheirPowers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 DaveElder-Vass 4 Actor-CenteredSociologyandtheNewPragmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . 55 DanielLittle 5 ThreeIssuesinSocialOntology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 PhilipPettit 6 CollectiveResponsibilityandGroup-Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Andra´sSzigeti 7 RethinkingMicro-MacroRelations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 PetriYlikoski PartII MethodologicalIndividualism-Holism 8 DeadEndsandLiveIssuesintheIndividualism-HolismDebate. . . 139 HaroldKincaid 9 ExplanatoryStrategiesBeyondtheIndividualism/HolismDebate. . . 153 JeroenVanBouwel 10 Holism,Emergence,andtheCrucialDistinction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 JulieZahle v vi Contents 11 WhoAretheAgents?ActorNetworkTheory,Methodological Individualism,andReduction. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 197 FinnCollin 12 Structure,Agency,andImprovisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 MarkRisjord 13 AreIndividualsFickle-Minded?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 MathewD.McCubbinsandMarkTurner Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Chapter 1 Introduction JulieZahleandFinnCollin Abstract Theintroductionprovidesanoverviewoftheontologicalandthemeth- odological individualism-holism debates. Moreover, these debates are briefly discussed in relation to two kindred disputes: The micro-macro and the agency- structuredebates.Finally,thecontributionstothisbookarebrieflypresented. The individualism-holism debate is an old – but still vibrant – dispute within the philosophy of the social sciences and the social sciences themselves. Over the course of its history, there are three phases in which the discussion has been particularlylively(Udehn2002:479).Thefirstisaroundtheturnofthenineteenth century with significant contributions by, among others, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. The second phase is around the 1950s, where the ardent defenses of methodological individualism by Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, and J.W.N. Watkins spurred on the debate. Finally, the third and last phase stretches from the 1980s and up till today with pioneering contributions by a number of theoristsincludingRoyBhaskar,RaymondBoudon,JamesS.Coleman,JonElster, AlanGarfinkel,DanielLittle,HaroldKincaid,andPhilipPettit.1 The individualism-holism debate has first and foremost revolved around two issues: – What is the ontological status of social phenomena and, as part of this, their relationshiptoindividuals? 1ItshouldbestressedthatUdehnsimplyliststhethreeperiods.Moreover,hisclaimthatthethird phaseofthedebateisstillongoingisfrom2002.Weareresponsiblefortheobservationthatthe thirdphaseextendstothepresentjustastheadditionofkeyfigureswithinallthreeperiodsisour doing. J.Zahle(*)•F.Collin DepartmentofMedia,CognitionandCommunication,UniversityofCopenhagen, Njalsgade80,2300,Copenhagen,Denmark e-mail:[email protected];[email protected] J.ZahleandF.Collin(eds.),RethinkingtheIndividualism-HolismDebate, 1 SyntheseLibrary372,DOI10.1007/978-3-319-05344-8_1, ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2014 2 J.ZahleandF.Collin – Towhatextentmay,andshould,socialscientificexplanationsfocusonindividuals andsocialphenomenarespectively? The second question, in particular, has received a lot of attention. The methodo- logical individualism-holism debate refers tothe discussion ofthisissue, whereas the ontological individualism-holism issue denotes disputes relating to the first question.Aspartofthesediscussions,anumberofothertopicshavebeenaddressed too relating to meaning, confirmation, research heuristics, ethics, and the like. Accordingly, it is also possible to distinguish between individualism-holism debatesonmeaning,confirmation,researchheuristics,andsoon. Thepresentcollectionofpapersisinlinewiththetraditionintermsofitsfocus. The contributions divide into two categories: One group focuses primarily on the ontological dispute, the other on the methodological dispute. The papers reflect the newest trends within these debates in the following ways: First, many papers point to basic concepts and distinctions that are widely applied within the debate. Ratherthanbeinguncriticallytakenforgranted,itissuggested,theseconceptsand distinctionsareinneedofbeingcarefullyspelledout,questioned,orevenreplaced by more adequate conceptions. This approach is, among other things, adopted in relation to the notion of supervenience, the notion of agency and its domain of application, the distinction between individuals and social phenomena, and the distinction between explanations that focus on individuals and social phenomena respectively. Second, many of the papers strike out in a new direction by paying close attention to actual developments within social scientific research. They explicitlystate–andexemplify–afocusonissuesraisedby,oraddressedwithin, thecontextofsocialscientificresearch,justastheymakesuggestionsofrelevance tosocialscientificpractice.Intheseways,then,thepapersexemplifyarethinking of the debate that point to novel directions in which to take future philosophical discussionsandfutureempiricalworkinthesocialsciences. Inthefollowing,weprovidearoughsystematicoverviewoftheindividualism- holism debate. As we go along, we also comment on the history of debate. In Sect. 1.1, we outline the ontological dispute and, in Sect. 1.2, the methodological debate.Further,inSect.1.3,wediscusstheindividualism-holismdebateinrelation to two kindred disputes.2 Against that background, we briefly present the contri- butionstothisbook. 1.1 The Ontological Individualism-Holism Debate The ontological individualism-holism debate concerns the ontological status of social phenomena (or facts) and, as part of this, their relationship to individuals (or facts about individuals). Ontological holists contend that social phenomena 2Sections1.1,1.2,and1.3drawandexpandonZahle(2007,2013). 1 Introduction 3 existsuigenerisoroverandaboveindividuals,whereasontologicalindividualists deny this. Before looking into various interpretations of the idea that social phenomena exist sui generis, it is instructive brieflyto characterize the notionsof socialphenomenaandindividuals. Withintheindividualism-holismdebatemoregenerally,itiscommontodistin- guish between various kinds of social phenomena. Some of the most frequently mentionedonesare:(a)socialorganizations,asexemplifiedbyanation,afirm,and auniversity;(b)statisticalpropertiesliketheliteracyorsuiciderate ofagroupof individuals;(c)normsandrulesasillustratedbytheruletodrivetotherightandthe prohibitionagainstsexwithclosefamilymembers;(d)culturessuchastheMayan culture; and (e) social structures as typically identified with one or several of the sorts of social phenomena already listed. The ontological debate has mainly concentrated on the issue of whether social organizations exist over and above individuals.Inthisconnection,socialorganizationsaresimplyreferredtobywayof termssuchas“university,”“hospital,”andthelike. Itislessobvioushowindividualsshouldbecharacterizedfromtheperspectiveof offering an ontological analysis of their relationship to social phenomena. Not surprisingly,therefore,opinionsdivergeonthisquestion.Mostnotably,itisamatter ofdisputeexactlywhatkindsofinteractionsandinterrelationsbetweenindividualsit ispermissibletoinvokeaspartofontologicalanalysesofthissort.Also,andrelated tothis,itisdiscussedwhetheritisadmissibletomentionindividuals’beliefsabout socialorganizationslikenationsandfirms.Or,tomentiononelastexample,thereare differentviewsastowhetheraspecificationofindividualsshouldbetakenbroadlyto includetheobjectstheymakeuseofand,moregenerally,thephysicalenvironment inwhichtheyfindthemselves. Throughoutthehistoryoftheontologicaldebate,avarietyofsuggestionshave been made as to what it takes for social phenomena to exist sui generis. Here are some of the many, and sometimes overlapping, ways in which this idea has been fleshedout: – Thecausaloverridingcriterion:Socialphenomenasuchassocialorganizations exist over and above individuals insofar as they have causal powers that are independentof,andoverride,thecausalpowersofindividuals. – The translation criterion: Social phenomena such as social organizations exist over and above individuals insofar as terms, like “nation” and “school,” that refertothesephenomenacannotbetranslatedintostatementsaboutindividuals. – Thecompositioncriterion:Socialphenomenasuchassocialorganizationsexist overandaboveindividualsinsofarastheyarenotmerelycomposedofensembles ofindividuals. – The determination criterion: Social phenomena such as social organizations exist over and above individuals insofar as individuals do not non-causally determine what kinds of organizations, properties, and the like, are being instantiated. – Theagencycriterion:Socialphenomenasuchassocialorganizationsexistover andaboveindividualsinsofarastheyqualifyasgroupagentsthathaveattitudes supervenientupontheattitudesofindividuals.
The list of books you might like
