Brian Epstein is adamant that the social sciences involve to call back real differently close the nature of the social world. In The Ant...
Brian Epstein is adamant that the social sciences involve to call back real differently close the nature of the social world. In The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences he sets out to blow upwards our conventional thinking close the relation betwixt individuals as well as social facts. In particular, he is fundamentally skeptical close whatever conception of the social the world that depends on the thought of ontological individualism, straight or indirectly. Here is the plainest contention of his view:
When nosotros await to a greater extent than closely at the social world, however, this analogy [of composition of wholes out of independent parts] falls apart. We oftentimes call back of social facts equally depending on people, equally existence created yesteryear people, equally the actions of people. We call back of them equally products of the mental processes, intentions, beliefs, habits, as well as practices of private people. But none of this is quite right. Research programs inwards the social sciences are built on a shaky agreement of the most key query of all: What are the social sciences about? Or, to a greater extent than specifically: What are social facts, social objects, as well as social phenomena—these things that the social sciences aim to model as well as explain?
My aim inwards this mass is to accept a initiative off stride inwards challenging what has come upwards to survive the settled persuasion on these questions. That is, to demonstrate that philosophers as well as social scientists receive got an overly anthropocentric painting demo of the social world. How the social the world is built is non a mystery, non magical or inscrutable or beyond us. But it turns out to survive non nearly equally people-centered equally is widely assumed. (p. 7)Here is 1 key illustration Epstein provides to give intuitive grasp of the anti-reductionist metaphysics he has inwards heed -- the human relationship betwixt "the Supreme Court" as well as the ix individuals who larn inwards up.
One of the examples I volition survive discussing inwards some special is the USA Supreme Court. It is small— ix members— as well as real familiar, as well as then in that location are lots of facts close it nosotros tin easily consider. Even a moment’s reflection is plenty to run across that a dandy many facts close the Supreme Court depend on much to a greater extent than than those ix people. The powers of the Supreme Court are non determined yesteryear the ix justices, nor do the ix justices fifty-fifty create upwards one's heed who the members of the Supreme Court are. Even to a greater extent than basic, the real existence of the Supreme Court is non determined yesteryear those ix people. In all, knowing all kinds of things close the people that institute the Supreme Court gives us real piffling data close what that grouping is, or close fifty-fifty the most basic facts close that group. (p. 10)Epstein makes an of import observation when he notes that in that location are 2 "consensus" views of the individual-level substrate of the social world, non only one. The initiative off is garden-variety individualism: it is individuals as well as their properties (psychological, bodily) involved inwards external relations amongst each other that institute the individual-level substrate of the social. In this instance is reasonable to apply the supervenience relation to the relation betwixt individuals as well as higher-level social facts (link).
The 2d persuasion is to a greater extent than of a social-constructivist orientation towards individuals: individuals are constituted yesteryear their representations of themselves as well as others; the individual-level is inherently semiotic as well as relational. Epstein associates this persuasion amongst Searle (50 ff.); but it seems to characterize a make of other theorists, from Geertz to Goffman as well as Garfinkel. Epstein refers to this approach equally the "Standard Model" of social ontology. Fundamental to the Standard View is the thought of institutional facts -- the rules of a game, the boundaries of a village, the persistence of a newspaper currency. Institutional facts are held inwards house yesteryear the attitudes as well as performances of the individuals who inhabit them; but they are non reducible to an ensemble of individual-level psychological facts. And the constructionist purpose of the approach is the thought that actors jointly institute diverse social realities -- a demonstration against the government, a celebration, or a game of bridge. And Epstein believes that supervenience fails inwards the constructivist ontology of the Standard View (57).
Both views are anti-dualistic (no inherent social "stuff"); but on Epstein's approach they are ultimately incompatible amongst each other.
But hither is the critical point: Epstein doesn't believe that either of these views is adequate equally a footing for social metaphysics. We involve a novel start inwards the metaphysics of the social world. Where to start this radical work? Epstein offers several novel concepts to attention reshape our metaphysical linguistic communication close social facts -- what he refers to equally "grounding" as well as "anchoring" of social facts. "Grounding" facts for a social fact thou are lower-level facts that attention to institute the truth of M. "Bob as well as Jane ran downward Howe Street" partially grounds the fact "the mob ran downward Howe Street" (M). The fact close Bob as well as Jane is 1 of the features of the the world that contributes to the truth as well as important of M. "Full grounding" is a specification of all the facts needed inwards guild to concern human relationship for M. "Anchoring" facts are facts that characterize the constructivist facial expression of the social the world -- conformance to meanings, rules, or institutional structures. An anchoring fact is 1 that sets the "frame" for a social fact. (An before post offered reflections on anchor individualism; link.)
Epstein suggests that "grounding" corresponds to classic ontological individualism, spell "anchoring" corresponds to the Standard View (the constructivist view).
What I volition telephone outcry upwards "anchor individualism" is a claim close how frame principles tin survive anchored. Ontological individualism, inwards contrast, is best understood equally a claim close how social facts tin survive grounded. (100)And he believes that a to a greater extent than adequate social ontology is 1 that incorporates both grounding as well as anchoring relations. "Anchoring as well as grounding jibe together into a unmarried model of social ontology" (82).
Here is an illustrative diagram of how the 2 kinds of relations operate inwards a special social fact (Epstein 94):
So Epstein has done what he laid upwards out to do: he has taken the metaphysics of the social the world equally seriously equally contemporary metaphysicians do on other of import topics, as well as he has teased out a large torso of hard questions close constitution, causation, formation, grounding, as well as anchoring. This is a valuable as well as innovative contribution to the philosophy of social science.
But does this exercise add together significantly to our might to conduct social scientific discipline inquiry as well as theory? Do James Coleman, Sam Popkin, Jim Scott, George Steinmetz, or Chuck Tilly involve to fundamentally rethink their approach to the social problems they attempted to empathize inwards their work? Do the metaphysics of "frame", "ground", as well as "anchor" brand for meliorate social research?
My inclination is to call back that this is non an payoff nosotros tin attribute to The Ant Trap. Clarity, precision, surprising conceptual formulations, yes; these are all virtues of the book. But I am non convinced that these conceptual innovations volition truly brand the operate of explaining industrial actions, rebellious behavior, organizational failures, educational systems that fail, or the ascent of hate-based extremism to a greater extent than effective or insightful.
In guild to do expert social inquiry nosotros do of course of report involve to receive got a background ontology. But afterwards working through The Ant Trap several times, I'm soundless non persuaded that nosotros involve to displace beyond a fairly commonsensical laid upwards of ideas close the social world:
- individuals receive got mental representations of the the world they inhabit
- institutional arrangements be through which individuals develop, form, as well as act
- individuals cast meaningful relationships amongst other individuals
- individuals receive got complicated motivations, including self-interest, commitment, emotional attachment, political passion
- institutions as well as norms are embodied inwards the thoughts, actions, artifacts, as well as traces of individuals (grounded as well as anchored, inwards Epstein's terms)
- social causation proceeds through the substrate of individuals thinking, acting, re-acting, as well as engaging amongst other individuals
And this leads me to 1 other conclusion: Epstein argues the social sciences involve to call back fundamentally differently. But actually, I call back he has shown at best that philosophers tin usefully call back differently -- but inwards ways that may inwards the terminate non receive got a lot of acquit upon on the agency that inventive social theorists involve to conceive of their work.
(The photograph at the top is chosen deliberately to embody the persuasion of the social the world that I advocate: contingent, institutionally constrained, multi-layered, ordinary, acre of report to historical influences, constituted yesteryear indefinite numbers of independent actors, demonstrating patterns of coordination as well as competition. All these features are illustrated inwards this snapshot of life inwards Copenhagen -- the independent individuals depicted, the traffic laws that constrain their behavior, the polite norms leading to conformance to the crossing signal, the sustained create yesteryear municipal actors as well as community based organizations to encourage bicycle travel, as well as perchance the lack of multifariousness inwards the crowd.)
COMMENTS