[Jeroen Van Bouwel accepted my invitation to offering his thoughts most several recent posts hither on the theme of microfoundations. Jeroen...
[Jeroen Van Bouwel accepted my invitation to offering his thoughts most several recent posts hither on the theme of microfoundations. Jeroen is co-author (with Erik Weber in addition to L. De Vreese) of Scientific Explanation (Springer, 2013). Jeroen is a post-doctoral beau at Ghent University in addition to a visiting scholar inwards philosophy at Uppsala University. Thanks, Jeroen!]
In his recent contributions on this weblog (link, link), Daniel Little develops an interesting seat advocating the legitimacy in addition to “relative explanatory autonomy” of the meso-level, patch maintaining a microfoundations requirement. I am grateful that Daniel invited me to comment on his views in addition to I volition endeavor to produce in addition to hence inwards a concise way, discussing iv issues:
- There are to a greater extent than than 2 levels of social explanation.
- Levels of explanation are perspectival; neither absolute, nor unique.
- Seeking for microfoundations in addition to macrofoundations every bit expert heuristics.
- Social scientific practise in addition to plurality every bit objects of study.
(1) There are to a greater extent than than 2 levels of social explanation. Daniel Little’s defence strength of meso-level explanations adds a welcome extra explanatory marker inwards betwixt the individualist micro-level in addition to the macro-level. As such, it supersedes the dichotomous thinking inwards the individualism/holism fence inwards which at that spot would ever last an private micro-level – which would ever last the same (cf. signal (2) below) – that is contrasted with a macro-level. I concur with Little (2012, p.138) that: “more realistic is the agreement that at that spot are social compounds at a arrive at of levels of organization, with unlike range in addition to reach” – every bit social scientific practise teaches us.
(2) The levels of explanation are perspectival levels; neither absolute, nor unique. Little wants to combine his advocacy of meso-level explanations with a microfoundations requirement. Let us outset zoom inwards on microfoundations (for the requirement, run across signal (3) below). In the philosophy of social scientific discipline debate, the microfoundations are unremarkably understood every bit individual-level microfoundations, see, for instance, most recent function on analytical sociology. It is presupposed that at that spot last only about comprehensive, unique, in addition to privileged private level, the marker of private actors (cf. Ylikoski 2012, p.26). However, microfoundations produce non necessarily possess got to last understood inwards that way. They could also only last understood every bit looking for foundations on whatsoever lower-level, e.g., on a sub-individual marker focussing on cognitive capacities in addition to processes that powerfulness last of import inwards explaining sure enough social phenomena (Tuukka Kaidesoja gives us the illustration of contextual priming (link)).
The latter agreement of microfoundations would last to a greater extent than inwards draw with actual social scientific practise inwards which nosotros observe that the specification in addition to amount of levels of explanation is perspectival, depending on the phenomena in addition to enquiry approaches involved. Analysing in addition to explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (cf. Van Bouwel, forthcoming) or criminality (cf. Van Bouwel et al. 2011) requires (different) multiple levels. H5N1 philosophy of social scientific discipline that wants to tell something meaningful most explanatory practices in, e.g., neuro-economics, evolutionary sociology every bit good every bit inwards World-Systems Analysis, volition also possess got to larn beyond the traditional 2 levels, i.e. the private micro-level versus i contrasting macro-level. The refinements of the traditional dichotomous agency of thinking most levels inwards the individualism/holism fence manifestly produce non imply that nosotros should halt thinking inwards damage of higher- in addition to lower-levels, or micro-macro, alone that levels are perspectival, rather than absolute in addition to unique. Thus, the micro inwards microfoundations is perspectival too!
(3) Seeking for microfoundations and macrofoundations every bit expert heuristics? Now allow us possess got a expect at the microfoundations requirement. This requirement stipulates “that all social facts, social structures, in addition to social causal properties depend ultimately on facts most individuals inside socially defined circumstances. Social ascriptions demand microfoundations at the marker of individuals inwards concrete social relationships.” (Little 2012, p.138) Advocates of the microfoundations approach possess got oftentimes been defending that a macro-explanation would never last satisfactory, or, could alone last satisfactory if a micro-level usage of the social explanation was provided. For instance, inwards their presentation of the social mechanisms approach, Hedström in addition to Swedberg nation (1998, p.11): “In the social sciences, however, the unproblematic “causal agents” are ever private actors, in addition to intelligible social scientific discipline explanations should ever include explicit references to the causes in addition to consequences of their actions.” Thus, they consider a reference to (individual actions on) the individual, micro-level every bit a status sine qua non of a satisfactory explanation. Underlying this claim most explanations seems to last an ontological conviction, namely that causal agents are ever private actors.
Daniel Little develops a unlike position. According to him, the microfoundations requirement should non last understood every bit a status for satisfactory explanations, but rather every bit a shape of confirmation or justification of a macro-explanation: “The requirement of microfoundations is non a requirement on explanation; it does non demand that our explanations choke on through the microfoundational level. Rather, it is a status that must last satisfied on prima facie grounds, prior to offering the explanation.” (Little 2012, p.145) I concur with Little that microfoundations should non necessarily last usage of a social explanation inwards monastic enjoin for it to last satisfactory; nosotros are providing all of the fourth dimension all kinds of explanations in addition to causal claims, without knowing the underlying mechanisms or foundations. Here every bit good Little takes into draw of piece of job concern human relationship the actual explanatory practise of social scientists in addition to he avoids the ontological fallacies (i.e., mixing upwardly ontological in addition to explanatory issues) made yesteryear before advocates of microfoundations. However, I produce cry back Little’s requirement remains vague. It should last understood every bit constraining explanatory practise (cf. here), but how would that just work? How is the microfoundations requirement operationalized (and how would it interfere with our explanatory practice)?
Summarizing, I cry back Daniel Little’s draw of piece of job concern human relationship of the microfoundations requirement is an improvement to before accounts, but it soundless remains vague. H5N1 fruitful usage I could run across for a microfoundations pursuit is every bit an appointment to compare one’s ain explanatory practise in addition to enquiry approach with other practices in addition to approaches. This powerfulness termination inwards to a greater extent than interaction betwixt unlike approaches through which approaches articulate themselves in addition to their relations to others to a greater extent than explicitly in addition to through which the strengths in addition to weaknesses of the respective approaches are clarified. In this respect, nosotros could non alone cry back of seeking for microfoundations every bit an heuristic, but also of searching for macrofoundations every bit a fruitful heuristic. (Some usage the term macrofoundations (link), but given that nosotros cry back of it every bit something higher up, i could also usage macro-roof or macro-covering.) There powerfulness last several interesting approaches both on the micro-level in addition to on the macro-level working on the same phenomenon from unlike angles, using unlike methods, having unlike background assumptions, etc. Philosophers of social scientific discipline powerfulness contribute inwards analyzing, visualizing (cf. below) in addition to optimizing the interaction alongside these unlike approaches.
(4) Social scientific practise in addition to plurality every bit objects of study.To conclude, a careful analysis of the practise of social scientists reveals the plurality of enquiry approaches in addition to explanatory strategies employed yesteryear social scientists on multiple levels. For me the challenge of the fence on microfoundations, emergence, explanatory autonomy, etc. is non in addition to hence much to develop the ultimate individualistic approach or defending the holist approach, but rather to empathize in addition to optimize the agency inwards which unlike approaches interact, co-exist, tin last integrated and/or develop only about sectionalization of labour alongside each other, patch making the best out of the strengths in addition to limitations of the respective explanatory strategies of holists in addition to individualists. That is what I endeavor to produce with my framework for explanatory pluralism – a normative endorsement of the plurality of forms in addition to levels of explanation used yesteryear social scientists (cf. Van Bouwel in addition to Weber 2008, Van Bouwel 2009). Sometimes explanatory interests are best served yesteryear decomposition, yesteryear reduction every bit explanatory strategy, sometimes they are amend served yesteryear higher-level explanations.
One agency of taking into draw of piece of job concern human relationship multiple levels in addition to empathize the perspectival, non-absolute grapheme of levels, could last to exit the Coleman boat (cf. here) behind in addition to adopt Helen Longino’s (2013, p.127, Fig. 1a) representation of causal infinite (Longino developed it for studying aggressive behavior, but it could last easily adapted to the social sciences if i would alter the causal landscape a bit).
This representation tin visualize how unlike enquiry approaches volition focus on unlike boxes – i or a combination of several – inwards a causal infinite or landscape. The focus on only i (or a combination) of these boxes tin last real productive every bit scientific practise shows; only about causal aspects of a phenomenon powerfulness last emphasised, patch other aspects/boxes powerfulness last obscured or perchance fifty-fifty distorted. Such a visualization volition assist us to clarify the strengths in addition to weaknesses of the respective approaches applying unlike angles inwards studying i in addition to the same phenomena, every bit good every bit their (lack of) interaction with other approaches in addition to how to usage them inwards an optimal way.
References
Hedström, P. in addition to R. Swedberg (eds.). 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Little, D. 2012. Explanatory Autonomy in addition to Coleman’s Boat. Theoria 74: 137-151
Longino, H. 2013. Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression in addition to Sexuality. University of Chicago Press.
Van Bouwel, J. in addition to E. Weber 2008. H5N1 pragmatic defence strength of non-relativistic explanatory pluralism inwards history in addition to social science. History in addition to Theory 47:168-182.
Van Bouwel, J. (ed.) 2009. The Social Sciences in addition to Democracy. Palgrave MacMillan.
Van Bouwel, J., E. Weber in addition to L. De Vreese 2011. Indispensability arguments inwards favour of reductive explanations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42(1): 33-46.
Van Bouwel, J. (forthcoming). Explanatory Strategies beyond the Individualism/Holism Debate. link.
Ylikoski, P. 2012. Micro, Macro, in addition to Mechanism. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science. ed. H. Kincaid, 21-45. Oxford University Press.
Weber, E., J. Van Bouwel in addition to L. De Vreese 2013. Scientific Explanation. Springer.
COMMENTS