(This post summarizes a newspaper I presented at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science Annual Meeting inwards 2012.) Here in a...
(This post summarizes a newspaper I presented at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science Annual Meeting inwards 2012.)
Here in addition to elsewhere I desire to defend the theoretical possibility of attributing causal powers to meso-level social entities in addition to structures. In this I follow a expose of philosophers in addition to sociologists, including many critical realists (e.g. Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science and Margaret Archer, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach) in addition to also the recent thinking of Dave Elder-Vass (The Causal Power of Social Structures). But I also defend the thought of an actor-centered sociology, according to which the inwardness of social phenomena is solely made upwards of the actions, interactions, in addition to states of heed of socially constituted private actors. Making out both positions, in addition to demonstrating their consistency, is the piece of occupation of this paper. I advert to this position as “relative explanatory autonomy” of the meso-level. This subject is of renewed involvement because of the electrical flow influence in addition to progress of analytical sociology (Peter Hedström, Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology; Hedström and Bearman, The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology ; Peter Demeulenaere, Analytical Sociology in addition to Social Mechanisms), which offers an emphatic “no” to the question; whereas critical realists are every bit theatre inwards defending an affirmative reply to the question.
My defence strength of meso-level causation is based on 4 ideas. First, the do of sociologists justifies this claim, since sociologists do inwards fact brand usage of meso-meso claims. They frequently do non endeavor to render vertical explanations from circumstances of the instrumentalist to meso- in addition to macro-level outcomes; instead, they frequently render horizontal explanations that explicate 1 gear upwards of meso in addition to macro outcomes on the the world of the causal powers of around other gear upwards of meso in addition to macro weather or structures. Second, sociology is a “special science” analogous to cognitive science, subject on a gear upwards of causally linked entities at a lower level. Arguments offered for the relative explanatory autonomy of the higher-level theories are applicable to sociology as well. The the world for rejecting reductionism is good established here. Third, meso entities (organizations, institutions, normative systems) frequently receive got stable characteristics amongst regular behavioral consequences. This is illustrated amongst the instance of organizations. Fourth, those entities must receive got microfoundations; nosotros must live on confident that at that spot are private behaviors at lower levels that back upwards these macro characteristics. But it is legitimate to depict out the macro-level effects of the macro-circumstance nether investigation, without tracing out the means that effect works inwards exceptional on the swarms of actors encompassed yesteryear the case. The requirement of microfoundations is non a requirement on explanation; it does non require that our explanations maintain through the microfoundational level. It is an ontological regulation but non a methodological principle. Rather, it is a status that must live on satisfied on prima facie grounds, prior to offering the explanation. (I advert to this as the "weak" requirement of microfoundations; link.) In short, nosotros are non obliged to line out the struts of Coleman’s boat inwards monastic tell to render a satisfactory macro- or meso-level explanation or mechanism.
Does the extended social Earth receive got causal powers? Here are around reasons for thinking that it does.
First, working sociologists offering explanations that postulate meso-meso causal connections on a regular basis. They position what they select to live on causal properties of social structures in addition to institutions, in addition to thus depict out causal chains involving those causal properties. And frequently they are able to reply the follow-on question: how does that causal might work, inwards gauge terms, at the micro level? But answering that inquiry is non an essential part of their argument. They do non inwards fact endeavor to piece of occupation through the agent-based simulation that would validate their full general persuasion close how the processes piece of occupation at the lower level.
This explanatory framework seems solely reasonable inwards the social sciences. It does non appear necessary to disaggregate every claim similar “organizational deficiencies at the Bhopal chemic works life caused the devastating chemic spill” onto specific individual-level activities. We sympathise pretty well, inwards a generic way, what the microfoundations of organizations are, in addition to it isn’t necessary to render a detailed trouble organisation human relationship inwards monastic tell to receive got a satisfactory explanation. In other words, nosotros tin strength out brand careful statements close macro-macro in addition to macro-meso causal relations without proceeding according to the logic of Coleman’s boat—up in addition to downward the struts. So 1 declaration for the relative autonomy of meso-level causal claims is exactly the fact that expert sociologists do inwards fact brand credible usage of such claims.
Second, at that spot is a to a greater extent than full general argue inside the philosophy of the social sciences for beingness receptive to the thought of meso-meso social causes. This derives from the arguments against reductionism inwards a attain of the special sciences. The thought of relative explanatory autonomy has been invoked yesteryear cognitive scientists against the reductionist claims of neuro-scientists. Of class cognitive mechanisms must live on grounded inwards neurophysiological processes. But this doesn’t entail that cognitive theories demand to live on reduced to neurophysiological statements. Jerry Fodor introduced highly influential arguments against reductionism inwards “Special sciences in addition to the disunity of scientific discipline as a working hypothesis” (link).
Once nosotros receive got argue to receive got something similar the thought of relative explanatory autonomy inwards the social sciences, nosotros also receive got a rigid the world for rejecting the exclusive validity of 1 exceptional approach to social explanation, the reductionist approach associated amongst methodological individualism, analytical sociology, in addition to Coleman’s boat. Rather, social scientists tin strength out legitimately usage explanations that telephone band upon meso-level causal linkages without needing to cut down these to derivations from facts close individuals. And this implies the legitimacy of a fairly wide project design of methodological pluralism inwards the social sciences, constrained ever yesteryear the requirement of weak microfoundations.
Third, nosotros receive got expert research-based reasons to maintain that meso-level social structures receive got causal powers. Consider organizations as prototype examples of meso-level social structures. An organisation is a social entity which possesses a grade of stability inwards functioning that tin strength out live on studied empirically in addition to theoretically. An organisation consists of a structured grouping of individuals, frequently hierarchically organized, pursuing a relatively clearly defined gear upwards of tasks. In the abstract, it is a gear upwards of rules in addition to procedures that regulate in addition to motive the demeanour of the individuals who role inside the organization. There are also informal practices inside an organisation that are non codified that receive got pregnant effects on the functioning of the organisation (for example, the java room as a medium of informal communication, or the norm of roofing for a co-worker’s absence). Some of those individuals receive got responsibilities of oversight, which is a primary means inwards which the abstract rules of the organisation are transformed into concrete patterns of activity yesteryear other individuals. Another behavioral feature of an organisation is the gear upwards of incentives in addition to rewards that it creates for participants inwards the organization. Often the incentives that be were planned in addition to designed to receive got specific effects on demeanour of participants; yesteryear offering rewards for behaviors X, Y, Z, the organisation is expected to make a lot of X, Y, in addition to Z. Sometimes, though, the incentives are unintended, created possibly yesteryear the intersection of 2 rules of functioning that Pb to a perverse incentive leading to W.
Now nosotros are inwards a position to address the key inquiry here: do organizations receive got causal powers? It seems to me that the reply is yes, inwards fairly specific ways. The most obvious causal properties of an organisation are outflow upwards inwards the role of the organization. An organisation is invented in addition to developed inwards monastic tell to select close certainly social effects: operate in addition to maintain a complex technology, cut down pollution or crime, distribute goods throughout a population, render services to individuals, seize in addition to concur territory, disseminate information. But the specifics of an organisation also give rising to unintended consequences; these as good contribute to the causal powers of the organization. All these effects occur as a final result of the coordinated activities of people inside the organization. When organizations piece of occupation correctly they select close 1 gear upwards of effects; when they interruption downward they select close around other gear upwards of effects. Here nosotros tin strength out recollect close organizations inwards analogy amongst engineering components similar amplifiers, thermostats, stabilizers, or surge protectors.
Finally, I as good believe that at that spot is a burden of proof that must live on met inwards asserting a causal might or disposition for a social entity -- something similar “the entity demonstrates an empirical regularity inwards behaving inwards such in addition to such a way” or “we receive got expert theoretical reasons for believing that X social arrangements volition receive got Y effects.” And around macro concepts (e.g. State, Islam, marketplace position economy) are probable cast at as good high a flat to acknowledge of such regularities. That is why I favor “meso” social entities as the bearers of social powers. As novel institutionalists demonstrate all the time, 1 holding authorities elicits real unlike collective demeanour from its highly similar cousin. And this gives the relevant causal stability criterion. Good examples include Robert Ellickson’s new-institutionalist handling of Shasta County in addition to liability norms in addition to Charles Perrow’s handling of the operating characteristics of engineering organizations. In each instance the microfoundations are slow to provide. What is to a greater extent than challenging is to present how these social causal properties interact inwards cases to do outcomes nosotros desire to explain.
So how does the micro-macro link aspect when nosotros endeavor to render the thought of meso explanations amongst microfoundations? The diverse versions of methodological individualism—microeconomics, analytical sociology, Elster’s theories of explanation, in addition to the model of Coleman’s boat—presume that explanation needs to invoke the story of the micro flat events as part of the explanation. The perspective offered hither requires something quite different. This position requires that nosotros live on confident that these micro-level events be in addition to piece of occupation to compose the meso level; but it does non require that the causal declaration incorporates a reconstruction of the pathway through the private flat inwards monastic tell to receive got a satisfactory explanation. This trouble organisation human relationship suggests an choice diagram to Coleman’s boat.
The diagram represents each of the causal linkages represented inwards the Coleman boat. But it also calls out the meso-meso causal connexion that Coleman prohibits inwards his analysis. And it replaces the thought that causation proceeds through the private level, amongst the thought that each meso flat factor has a gear upwards of actor-level microfoundations. But this is an ontological fact, non a prescription on explanation.
(Here is the total paper as presented at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science Annual Meeting inwards July 2012 at the University of Stirling.)
Here in addition to elsewhere I desire to defend the theoretical possibility of attributing causal powers to meso-level social entities in addition to structures. In this I follow a expose of philosophers in addition to sociologists, including many critical realists (e.g. Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science and Margaret Archer, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach) in addition to also the recent thinking of Dave Elder-Vass (The Causal Power of Social Structures). But I also defend the thought of an actor-centered sociology, according to which the inwardness of social phenomena is solely made upwards of the actions, interactions, in addition to states of heed of socially constituted private actors. Making out both positions, in addition to demonstrating their consistency, is the piece of occupation of this paper. I advert to this position as “relative explanatory autonomy” of the meso-level. This subject is of renewed involvement because of the electrical flow influence in addition to progress of analytical sociology (Peter Hedström, Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology; Hedström and Bearman, The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology ; Peter Demeulenaere, Analytical Sociology in addition to Social Mechanisms), which offers an emphatic “no” to the question; whereas critical realists are every bit theatre inwards defending an affirmative reply to the question.
My defence strength of meso-level causation is based on 4 ideas. First, the do of sociologists justifies this claim, since sociologists do inwards fact brand usage of meso-meso claims. They frequently do non endeavor to render vertical explanations from circumstances of the instrumentalist to meso- in addition to macro-level outcomes; instead, they frequently render horizontal explanations that explicate 1 gear upwards of meso in addition to macro outcomes on the the world of the causal powers of around other gear upwards of meso in addition to macro weather or structures. Second, sociology is a “special science” analogous to cognitive science, subject on a gear upwards of causally linked entities at a lower level. Arguments offered for the relative explanatory autonomy of the higher-level theories are applicable to sociology as well. The the world for rejecting reductionism is good established here. Third, meso entities (organizations, institutions, normative systems) frequently receive got stable characteristics amongst regular behavioral consequences. This is illustrated amongst the instance of organizations. Fourth, those entities must receive got microfoundations; nosotros must live on confident that at that spot are private behaviors at lower levels that back upwards these macro characteristics. But it is legitimate to depict out the macro-level effects of the macro-circumstance nether investigation, without tracing out the means that effect works inwards exceptional on the swarms of actors encompassed yesteryear the case. The requirement of microfoundations is non a requirement on explanation; it does non require that our explanations maintain through the microfoundational level. It is an ontological regulation but non a methodological principle. Rather, it is a status that must live on satisfied on prima facie grounds, prior to offering the explanation. (I advert to this as the "weak" requirement of microfoundations; link.) In short, nosotros are non obliged to line out the struts of Coleman’s boat inwards monastic tell to render a satisfactory macro- or meso-level explanation or mechanism.
Does the extended social Earth receive got causal powers? Here are around reasons for thinking that it does.
First, working sociologists offering explanations that postulate meso-meso causal connections on a regular basis. They position what they select to live on causal properties of social structures in addition to institutions, in addition to thus depict out causal chains involving those causal properties. And frequently they are able to reply the follow-on question: how does that causal might work, inwards gauge terms, at the micro level? But answering that inquiry is non an essential part of their argument. They do non inwards fact endeavor to piece of occupation through the agent-based simulation that would validate their full general persuasion close how the processes piece of occupation at the lower level.
This explanatory framework seems solely reasonable inwards the social sciences. It does non appear necessary to disaggregate every claim similar “organizational deficiencies at the Bhopal chemic works life caused the devastating chemic spill” onto specific individual-level activities. We sympathise pretty well, inwards a generic way, what the microfoundations of organizations are, in addition to it isn’t necessary to render a detailed trouble organisation human relationship inwards monastic tell to receive got a satisfactory explanation. In other words, nosotros tin strength out brand careful statements close macro-macro in addition to macro-meso causal relations without proceeding according to the logic of Coleman’s boat—up in addition to downward the struts. So 1 declaration for the relative autonomy of meso-level causal claims is exactly the fact that expert sociologists do inwards fact brand credible usage of such claims.
Second, at that spot is a to a greater extent than full general argue inside the philosophy of the social sciences for beingness receptive to the thought of meso-meso social causes. This derives from the arguments against reductionism inwards a attain of the special sciences. The thought of relative explanatory autonomy has been invoked yesteryear cognitive scientists against the reductionist claims of neuro-scientists. Of class cognitive mechanisms must live on grounded inwards neurophysiological processes. But this doesn’t entail that cognitive theories demand to live on reduced to neurophysiological statements. Jerry Fodor introduced highly influential arguments against reductionism inwards “Special sciences in addition to the disunity of scientific discipline as a working hypothesis” (link).
Once nosotros receive got argue to receive got something similar the thought of relative explanatory autonomy inwards the social sciences, nosotros also receive got a rigid the world for rejecting the exclusive validity of 1 exceptional approach to social explanation, the reductionist approach associated amongst methodological individualism, analytical sociology, in addition to Coleman’s boat. Rather, social scientists tin strength out legitimately usage explanations that telephone band upon meso-level causal linkages without needing to cut down these to derivations from facts close individuals. And this implies the legitimacy of a fairly wide project design of methodological pluralism inwards the social sciences, constrained ever yesteryear the requirement of weak microfoundations.
Third, nosotros receive got expert research-based reasons to maintain that meso-level social structures receive got causal powers. Consider organizations as prototype examples of meso-level social structures. An organisation is a social entity which possesses a grade of stability inwards functioning that tin strength out live on studied empirically in addition to theoretically. An organisation consists of a structured grouping of individuals, frequently hierarchically organized, pursuing a relatively clearly defined gear upwards of tasks. In the abstract, it is a gear upwards of rules in addition to procedures that regulate in addition to motive the demeanour of the individuals who role inside the organization. There are also informal practices inside an organisation that are non codified that receive got pregnant effects on the functioning of the organisation (for example, the java room as a medium of informal communication, or the norm of roofing for a co-worker’s absence). Some of those individuals receive got responsibilities of oversight, which is a primary means inwards which the abstract rules of the organisation are transformed into concrete patterns of activity yesteryear other individuals. Another behavioral feature of an organisation is the gear upwards of incentives in addition to rewards that it creates for participants inwards the organization. Often the incentives that be were planned in addition to designed to receive got specific effects on demeanour of participants; yesteryear offering rewards for behaviors X, Y, Z, the organisation is expected to make a lot of X, Y, in addition to Z. Sometimes, though, the incentives are unintended, created possibly yesteryear the intersection of 2 rules of functioning that Pb to a perverse incentive leading to W.
Now nosotros are inwards a position to address the key inquiry here: do organizations receive got causal powers? It seems to me that the reply is yes, inwards fairly specific ways. The most obvious causal properties of an organisation are outflow upwards inwards the role of the organization. An organisation is invented in addition to developed inwards monastic tell to select close certainly social effects: operate in addition to maintain a complex technology, cut down pollution or crime, distribute goods throughout a population, render services to individuals, seize in addition to concur territory, disseminate information. But the specifics of an organisation also give rising to unintended consequences; these as good contribute to the causal powers of the organization. All these effects occur as a final result of the coordinated activities of people inside the organization. When organizations piece of occupation correctly they select close 1 gear upwards of effects; when they interruption downward they select close around other gear upwards of effects. Here nosotros tin strength out recollect close organizations inwards analogy amongst engineering components similar amplifiers, thermostats, stabilizers, or surge protectors.
Finally, I as good believe that at that spot is a burden of proof that must live on met inwards asserting a causal might or disposition for a social entity -- something similar “the entity demonstrates an empirical regularity inwards behaving inwards such in addition to such a way” or “we receive got expert theoretical reasons for believing that X social arrangements volition receive got Y effects.” And around macro concepts (e.g. State, Islam, marketplace position economy) are probable cast at as good high a flat to acknowledge of such regularities. That is why I favor “meso” social entities as the bearers of social powers. As novel institutionalists demonstrate all the time, 1 holding authorities elicits real unlike collective demeanour from its highly similar cousin. And this gives the relevant causal stability criterion. Good examples include Robert Ellickson’s new-institutionalist handling of Shasta County in addition to liability norms in addition to Charles Perrow’s handling of the operating characteristics of engineering organizations. In each instance the microfoundations are slow to provide. What is to a greater extent than challenging is to present how these social causal properties interact inwards cases to do outcomes nosotros desire to explain.
So how does the micro-macro link aspect when nosotros endeavor to render the thought of meso explanations amongst microfoundations? The diverse versions of methodological individualism—microeconomics, analytical sociology, Elster’s theories of explanation, in addition to the model of Coleman’s boat—presume that explanation needs to invoke the story of the micro flat events as part of the explanation. The perspective offered hither requires something quite different. This position requires that nosotros live on confident that these micro-level events be in addition to piece of occupation to compose the meso level; but it does non require that the causal declaration incorporates a reconstruction of the pathway through the private flat inwards monastic tell to receive got a satisfactory explanation. This trouble organisation human relationship suggests an choice diagram to Coleman’s boat.
The diagram represents each of the causal linkages represented inwards the Coleman boat. But it also calls out the meso-meso causal connexion that Coleman prohibits inwards his analysis. And it replaces the thought that causation proceeds through the private level, amongst the thought that each meso flat factor has a gear upwards of actor-level microfoundations. But this is an ontological fact, non a prescription on explanation.
(Here is the total paper as presented at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science Annual Meeting inwards July 2012 at the University of Stirling.)
COMMENTS