I Figure. An orderly ontological hierarchy (University of Leeds ( link ) Figure. Complex non-reductionist social termination -- b...
I
The stance that hypotheses nearly social structures in addition to forces require microfoundations has been around for at to the lowest degree twoscore years. Maarten Janssen’s New Palgrave seek out on microfoundations documents the history of the concept inwards economics; link. E. Roy Weintraub was amid the showtime to emphasize the term inside economics, alongside his 1979 Microfoundations: The Compatibility of Microeconomics in addition to Macroeconomics. During the early on 1980s the contributors to analytical Marxism used the stance to effort to hand greater traveling pocket to some of Marx's primal explanations (falling charge per unit of measurement of profit, industrial reserve army, vogue towards crisis). Several such strategies are represented inwards John Roemer's Analytical Marxism. My ain The Scientific Marx (1986) in addition to Varieties of Social Explanation (1991) took upwards the topic inwards exceptional in addition to relied on it equally a basic tenet of social enquiry strategy. The concept is strongly compatible alongside Jon Elster's approach to social explanation inwards Nuts in addition to Bolts for the Social Sciences (1989), though the term itself does non appear in this majority or inwards the 2007 revised edition.
Here is Janssen's description inwards the New Palgrave of the stance of microfoundations inwards economics:
The emphasis on the demand for microfoundations is a rattling logical implication of the seat of "ontological individualism" -- the stance that social entities in addition to powers depend upon facts nearly private actors inwards social interactions in addition to null else. (My ain version of this stance is the notion of methodological localism; link.) It is unsupportable to demand disembodied social entities, powers, or properties for which nosotros cannot imagine an individual-level substrate. So it is natural to infer that claims nearly social entities demand to endure accompanied inwards some fashion past times an concern human relationship of how they are embodied at the private level; in addition to this is a telephone telephone for microfoundations. (As noted inwards an before post, Brian Epstein has mounted a rattling challenging declaration against ontological individualism; link.)
Another ground that the microfoundations stance is appealing is that it is a rattling natural agency of formulating a pith scientific interrogation nearly the social world: "How does it work?" To render microfoundations for a high-level social procedure or construction (for example, the falling charge per unit of measurement of profit), nosotros are looking for a laid of mechanisms at the flat of a laid of actors inside a laid of social arrangements that termination inwards the observed social-level fact. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 telephone telephone for microfoundations is a telephone telephone for mechanisms at a lower level, answering the question, "How does this procedure work?"
In fact, the demand for microfoundations appears to endure analogous to the question, why is drinking glass transparent? We desire to know what it is nearly the substrate at the private flat that constitutes the macro-fact of drinking glass transmitting light. Organization type Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 is prone to normal accidents. What is it nearly the circumstances in addition to actions of individuals inwards A-organizations that increases the likelihood of normal accidents?
One ground why the microfoundations concept was specifically appealing inwards application to Marx's social theories inwards the 1970s was the fact that swell advances were beingness made inwards the plain of collective activeness theory. Then-current interpretations of Marx's theories were couched at a highly structural level; but it seemed clear that it was necessary to seat the processes through which cast interest, cast conflict, ideologies, or states emerged inwards concrete price at the private level. (This is ane ground I constitute E. P. Thompson's The Making of the English linguistic communication Working Class (1966) thence enlightening.) Advances inwards game theory (assurance games, prisoners' dilemmas), Mancur Olson's demonstration of the gap betwixt grouping involvement in addition to private involvement in The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods in addition to the Theory of Groups (1965), Thomas Schelling's vivid unpacking of puzzling collective behaviour onto underlying private behaviour in Micromotives in addition to Macrobehavior (1978), Russell Hardin's farther exposition of collective activeness problems in Collective Action (1982), in addition to Robert Axelrod's regain of the underlying private behaviors that reach cooperation in The Evolution of Cooperation (1984) provided social scientists alongside novel tools for reconstructing complex collective phenomena based on unproblematic assumptions nearly private actors. These were rattling concrete analytical resources that promised assistance farther explanations of complex social behavior. They provided a grade of confidence that of import sociological questions could endure addressed using a microfoundations framework.
There are several of import recent challenges to aspects of the microfoundations approach, however.
First, at that topographic point is the stance that social properties are sometimes emergent inwards a rigid sense: non derivable from facts nearly the components. This would seem to imply that microfoundations are non possible for such properties.
Second, at that topographic point is the stance that some meso entities conduct maintain stable causal properties that reach non require explicit microfoundations inwards social club to endure scientifically useful. (An instance would endure Perrow's claim that for certain forms of organizations are to a greater extent than conducive to normal accidents than others.) If nosotros conduct maintain this stance rattling seriously, in addition to thence mayhap microfoundations are non crucial inwards such theories.
Third, at that topographic point is the stance that meso entities may sometimes exert downward causation: they may influence events inwards the substrate which inwards plough influence other meso states, implying that at that topographic point volition endure some meso-level outcomes for which at that topographic point cannot endure microfoundations exactly located at the substrate level.
All of this implies that nosotros demand to conduct maintain a fresh expect at the theory of microfoundations. Is at that topographic point a purpose for this concept inwards a enquiry metaphysics inwards which exactly a rattling weak version of ontological individualism is postulated; where nosotros hand some grade of autonomy to meso-level causes; where nosotros countenance either a weak or rigid claim of emergence; in addition to where nosotros acknowledge of total downward causation from some meso-level structures to patterns of private behavior?
In ane feel my ain thinking nearly microfoundations has already incorporated some of these concerns; I've arrived at "microfoundations 1.1" inwards my ain formulations. In particular, I conduct maintain seat aside the stance that explanations must incorporate microfoundations in addition to instead embraced the weaker requirement of availability of microfoundations (link). Essentially I relaxed the requirement to stipulate exactly that nosotros must endure confident that microfoundations exist, without truly producing them. And I've relied on the stance of "relative explanatory autonomy" to excuse the sociologist from the demand to reproduce the microfoundations underlying the claim he or she advances (link).
But is this enough? There are weaker positions that could serve to supervene upon the MF thesis. For now, the interrogation is this: does the concept of microfoundations go along to reach of import operate inwards the meta-theory of the social sciences?
Figure. An orderly ontological hierarchy (University of Leeds (link)
Figure. Complex non-reductionist social termination -- blight
The stance that hypotheses nearly social structures in addition to forces require microfoundations has been around for at to the lowest degree twoscore years. Maarten Janssen’s New Palgrave seek out on microfoundations documents the history of the concept inwards economics; link. E. Roy Weintraub was amid the showtime to emphasize the term inside economics, alongside his 1979 Microfoundations: The Compatibility of Microeconomics in addition to Macroeconomics. During the early on 1980s the contributors to analytical Marxism used the stance to effort to hand greater traveling pocket to some of Marx's primal explanations (falling charge per unit of measurement of profit, industrial reserve army, vogue towards crisis). Several such strategies are represented inwards John Roemer's Analytical Marxism. My ain The Scientific Marx (1986) in addition to Varieties of Social Explanation (1991) took upwards the topic inwards exceptional in addition to relied on it equally a basic tenet of social enquiry strategy. The concept is strongly compatible alongside Jon Elster's approach to social explanation inwards Nuts in addition to Bolts for the Social Sciences (1989), though the term itself does non appear in this majority or inwards the 2007 revised edition.
Here is Janssen's description inwards the New Palgrave of the stance of microfoundations inwards economics:
The hollo for to empathize microfoundations is an effort to empathize aggregate economical phenomena inwards price of the behaviour of private economical entities in addition to their interactions. These interactions tin involve both marketplace in addition to non-market interactions.In The Scientific Marx the stance was formulated along these lines:
Marxist social scientists conduct maintain of late argued, however, that macro-explanations stand upwards inwards demand of microfoundations; detailed accounts of the pathways past times which macro-level social patterns come upwards about. (1986: 127)The requirement of microfoundations is both metaphysical -- our statements nearly the social basis demand to acknowledge of microfoundations -- in addition to methodological -- it suggests a enquiry strategy along the lines of Coleman's boat (link). This is a strategy of disaggregation, a "dissecting" strategy, in addition to a non-threatening strategy of reduction. (I am thinking hither of the rattling sensible ideas nearly the scientific condition of reduction advanced inwards William Wimsatt's "Reductive Explanation: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Functional Account"; link).
The emphasis on the demand for microfoundations is a rattling logical implication of the seat of "ontological individualism" -- the stance that social entities in addition to powers depend upon facts nearly private actors inwards social interactions in addition to null else. (My ain version of this stance is the notion of methodological localism; link.) It is unsupportable to demand disembodied social entities, powers, or properties for which nosotros cannot imagine an individual-level substrate. So it is natural to infer that claims nearly social entities demand to endure accompanied inwards some fashion past times an concern human relationship of how they are embodied at the private level; in addition to this is a telephone telephone for microfoundations. (As noted inwards an before post, Brian Epstein has mounted a rattling challenging declaration against ontological individualism; link.)
Another ground that the microfoundations stance is appealing is that it is a rattling natural agency of formulating a pith scientific interrogation nearly the social world: "How does it work?" To render microfoundations for a high-level social procedure or construction (for example, the falling charge per unit of measurement of profit), nosotros are looking for a laid of mechanisms at the flat of a laid of actors inside a laid of social arrangements that termination inwards the observed social-level fact. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 telephone telephone for microfoundations is a telephone telephone for mechanisms at a lower level, answering the question, "How does this procedure work?"
In fact, the demand for microfoundations appears to endure analogous to the question, why is drinking glass transparent? We desire to know what it is nearly the substrate at the private flat that constitutes the macro-fact of drinking glass transmitting light. Organization type Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 is prone to normal accidents. What is it nearly the circumstances in addition to actions of individuals inwards A-organizations that increases the likelihood of normal accidents?
One ground why the microfoundations concept was specifically appealing inwards application to Marx's social theories inwards the 1970s was the fact that swell advances were beingness made inwards the plain of collective activeness theory. Then-current interpretations of Marx's theories were couched at a highly structural level; but it seemed clear that it was necessary to seat the processes through which cast interest, cast conflict, ideologies, or states emerged inwards concrete price at the private level. (This is ane ground I constitute E. P. Thompson's The Making of the English linguistic communication Working Class (1966) thence enlightening.) Advances inwards game theory (assurance games, prisoners' dilemmas), Mancur Olson's demonstration of the gap betwixt grouping involvement in addition to private involvement in The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods in addition to the Theory of Groups (1965), Thomas Schelling's vivid unpacking of puzzling collective behaviour onto underlying private behaviour in Micromotives in addition to Macrobehavior (1978), Russell Hardin's farther exposition of collective activeness problems in Collective Action (1982), in addition to Robert Axelrod's regain of the underlying private behaviors that reach cooperation in The Evolution of Cooperation (1984) provided social scientists alongside novel tools for reconstructing complex collective phenomena based on unproblematic assumptions nearly private actors. These were rattling concrete analytical resources that promised assistance farther explanations of complex social behavior. They provided a grade of confidence that of import sociological questions could endure addressed using a microfoundations framework.
There are several of import recent challenges to aspects of the microfoundations approach, however.
First, at that topographic point is the stance that social properties are sometimes emergent inwards a rigid sense: non derivable from facts nearly the components. This would seem to imply that microfoundations are non possible for such properties.
Second, at that topographic point is the stance that some meso entities conduct maintain stable causal properties that reach non require explicit microfoundations inwards social club to endure scientifically useful. (An instance would endure Perrow's claim that for certain forms of organizations are to a greater extent than conducive to normal accidents than others.) If nosotros conduct maintain this stance rattling seriously, in addition to thence mayhap microfoundations are non crucial inwards such theories.
Third, at that topographic point is the stance that meso entities may sometimes exert downward causation: they may influence events inwards the substrate which inwards plough influence other meso states, implying that at that topographic point volition endure some meso-level outcomes for which at that topographic point cannot endure microfoundations exactly located at the substrate level.
All of this implies that nosotros demand to conduct maintain a fresh expect at the theory of microfoundations. Is at that topographic point a purpose for this concept inwards a enquiry metaphysics inwards which exactly a rattling weak version of ontological individualism is postulated; where nosotros hand some grade of autonomy to meso-level causes; where nosotros countenance either a weak or rigid claim of emergence; in addition to where nosotros acknowledge of total downward causation from some meso-level structures to patterns of private behavior?
In ane feel my ain thinking nearly microfoundations has already incorporated some of these concerns; I've arrived at "microfoundations 1.1" inwards my ain formulations. In particular, I conduct maintain seat aside the stance that explanations must incorporate microfoundations in addition to instead embraced the weaker requirement of availability of microfoundations (link). Essentially I relaxed the requirement to stipulate exactly that nosotros must endure confident that microfoundations exist, without truly producing them. And I've relied on the stance of "relative explanatory autonomy" to excuse the sociologist from the demand to reproduce the microfoundations underlying the claim he or she advances (link).
But is this enough? There are weaker positions that could serve to supervene upon the MF thesis. For now, the interrogation is this: does the concept of microfoundations go along to reach of import operate inwards the meta-theory of the social sciences?
COMMENTS