Max weber's vision of economic sociology

Max Weber's economic sociology is usually associated with The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905), but in this paper I show that what Weber himself called his “Wirtschaftssoziologie”, or economic sociology, looked quite different and was something that he developed during the last year of his life, 1919–1920. I present and outline Weber's (later) economic sociology and pay particular attention to his ideas of “economic (social) action” and of the three different forms of capitalism (rational capitalism, political capitalism and traditional capitalism). I also show that to Weber, economic sociology was part of a more general science of economics that he often referred to as “social economics” (“Sozialökonomik”). The paper ends with a comparison between the paradigm of economic sociology, which can be found in the work of Max Weber, and the paradigm of what is known as New Economic Sociology.     

Pierre Bourdieu: Economic models against economism

The use of economic analogies by Bourdieu has often been the object of much criticism. For some scholars, it reveals an “economistic” vision of the social world too much inspired by neoclassical economics. For others, it is a kind of mechanical metaphor transposed to cultural phenomena in a determinist way, as in the holistic (Marxist) tradition. To understand this usage and to refute these contradictory criticisms, we return to and focus on the very first occurrences in the 1958–1966 period – the focus of our article – of what Bourdieu would call a “general economy of practices” in his book Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Two central aspects, often forgotten by critics, are presented here: first, the close but very particular link between his work and economics as a growing scientific discipline during these years; second, the criticisms Bourdieu makes of the economic model as a general scientific tool for the social sciences. If one insists only on one of the two sides of the coin, one risks misunderstanding Bourdieu’s original scientific habitusand intellectual project. By contrast, this “double” position opens the possibility of an “integrated” vision of social and economic factors of practices, thanks to the introduction of the “cultural” and above all the “symbolic” dimensions of social life.     

Mythology, Joseph Campbell, and the socioeconomic conflict

This article shows that the work of mythologist Joseph Campbell indicates a solution to what might be called the socioeconomic conflict: the conflict between self-interest and the individual's need to be part of a community of shared values. That solution is to “follow your bliss” or the wisdom of your own heart rather than the dictates of some impersonal social system. This rule brings an individual the greatest possible happiness while at the same time it revitalizes his or her community of heroes following their bliss whose values are that of personal creativity and integrity. Cambell's own scholarship exemplified the ideals of socioeconomics since he considered himself a generalist who read widely in many fields looking for and finding a transcendent message.     

THORSTEIN VEBLEN'S ECONOMIC SYSTEM

This study provides a foundation for an understanding of Veblen's economics by displaying its various parts as components of a system, and analyzing and evaluating them. An examination is made of Veblen's views on the subject-matter of economics, his general theory of economic change, his theory of economic change under capitalism, and his prediction of the end of capitalism, under the emergence of a new economic order. It is shown that he constructed a highly general theory economic change that was scientific in character, but that in dealing with capitalism he wrote primarily as a social philosopher and ideologist.     

George Katona: A founding father of old behavioral economics

Assuming the division of behavioral economics into old and new, the paper begins to argue that old behavioral economics began with the works of two giants – George Katuna and Herbert Simon during the 1950s and early 1960s. The contributors of Herbert Simon are well established, thanks to the popularity of bounded rationality and satisficing, and his being award Noble Prize in economics. However, economists are much less familiar with the contributions of George Katona that can be viewed as the father of behavioral economics. Furthermore, the author argues that Katona was also misunderstood by various economists when he was attempting to create a psychologically based economics that rejected the mechanistic psychology of neoclassical economics and introducing the survey method to economic research that he had been using in his experimental psychology research previously. He also had influenced various economists during their debates in the 1950s without given the credit for. Many historians of behavioral economics limit Katona's contributions to the start of behavioral economics only to his contributions to macroeconomics. However, the paper demonstrates that Katona's behavioral economics included his contributions to macroeconomics (bringing realism to Keynesian consumption function and consumption behavior), micro-economics (business behavior, the rationality assumption, etc.), public finance and economic policy, and his introduction of the survey method. To demonstrate these contributions, the author argues that Katona attempted to bring realism to economic analysis – through psychological concepts – beginning with his early days of research in Germany which coincided with German hyper inflation- and continued whether working at New school for Social Research, Chicago University's Cowles Commission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center. The author also argues that Katona's contributions went through stages, depending upon what economic problem persisted at the time, what advertises he was facing, and what institution/organization he was associated with.     

Divided self models of the socioeconomic person: the metaeconomics approach

Microeconomics envisions a single decision-maker in a firm or household who is presumed to experience economic relationships only in markets. This theory is largely silent regarding the moral dimension, i.e., the nature of the invisible hand, and how it unconsciously affects the self acting in said markets. Amitai Etzioni, the founder of socioeconomics, offered the vision of the moral dimension as a component of the self. Metaeconomics operationalizes this vision by making explicit the Strict Father moral dimension in the invisible hand and recognizing interdependence of self when Nurturant Parent morality is operant. It builds upon a tripartite, multiple–self concept, with a mediating adult who balances the pleasures with the moral dimension in finding a satisfactory mix of self- and we-interests. By making this dimension explicit, metaeconomics reintegrates ethics and economics, includes values and community, and proposes the starting point for a common analytical engine for all socioeconomists.     

How to fight the ‘Methodenstreit’? Veblen and Weber on economics,psychology and action

There have been comparative discussions about Thorstein Veblen and Max Weber before, but not quite from the most appropriate viewpoint. The present paper treats them as theorists of action, in social and economic analysis, and this perspective yields some interesting new findings. Both theorists are to be taken as participants in the great Methodenstreit in economics, 100 years ago, and it is Veblen who suggests a more radical solution to this dispute, he suggests its final abolishment. The main difference between Veblen and Weber is in their respective appreciations of the role of psychology in social analysis. Weber does not think it important, but in so thinking he misses the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology that Veblen endorses. Accordingly, both of these classical thinkers are to be considered as theorists of action, but so that it is Veblen who proffers a more general theory.     

The Marshall Lectures and Social-Scientific Practice

The paper seeks to demonstrate the inherently practical intent of the Marshall Lectures. It argues that Parsons' views on the relationship between sociology and economics were presupposed by his broader vision of how the social sciences could contribute to the successful functioning of the social order. This conception of a new division of labor in the social sciences arose from Parsons' concern with the shortcomings of both utilitarian economics and Marxism. Evidence from Parsons' writings of the 1930s and 1940s is provided in support of these claims.     

The evolutionary neuroscience of human reciprocal sociality: A basic outline for economists

MacLean's tri-level concept of the human brain is the foundational concept for a comprehensive understanding of human sociality from the standpoint of physiology and medicine. This conceptual platform is basic to any proper contextualization of evolutionary psychiatry, as MacLean essentially describes two opposing archetypal neuromental circuitries upon which our sociality is based. It is important that the social sciences, notably economics, achieve more comprehensive, reliable and valid progress. Integration of evolutionary behavioral neuroscience is especially pertinent as deficiencies of the received model – a hyper-rational, self-interested homo economicus – are increasingly evident.In particular, the MacLeanian model is re-emerging as the principal basis for an evolutionary psychology with meaningful attention to both genes and brains. This evolutionary psychology is, in turn, the most naturalistic and accurate formulation for reciprocity and exchange behavior of social species, notably humans. As such, evolutionary neuroscience is of direct and increasing pertinence to economics generally and especially socioeconomics. This paper is meant to cogently summarize key elements to foster greater cross-inquiries between evolutionary neuroscience and economics.     

Folk economics and its role in Trump’s presidential campaign: an exploratory study

This article focuses on an area of study that may be called folk economics and that is currently not on the social science agenda. Folk economics has as its task to analyze and explain how people view the economy and how it works; what categories they use in doing so; and what effect this has on the economy and society. Existing studies in economics and sociology that are relevant to this type of study are presented and discussed. A theoretical framework for analyzing folk economic issues is suggested, centered on the distinction between episteme and doxa or between scientific knowledge, on the one hand, and everyday knowledge, on the other. This is then applied to an exploratory case study of the role that folk economics played in Trump’s presidential campaign. It is shown that Trump and his voters thought in a parallel way on key economic issues, especially protectionism.     

Behavioral economics and the economics of Keynes

The aim of this paper is two-fold: it first evaluates some of the psychological insights offered by Keynes in his economic theories, and secondly it weighs up these insights in the light of recent research in behavioral and experimental economics. We found that many of the psychological ideas set forth by Keynes in his economic works, especially in The General Theory, have a defensible behavioral foundation and fit broadly the actual behavior of economic agents in the real world as suggested by recent empirical evidence. As a consequence, we argue that Keynesian economics can benefit from this interaction, especially for issues related to judgment under uncertainty and building solid microfoundations for macroeconomics.     

Self-interest and the theory of action

The concept of self-interest remains underdeveloped in sociology although central to economics. Recent methodological and social trends render sociological indifference to the concept untenable. The term has enjoyed historical predominance in the West since the sixteenth century. While it is seen in modern economics as a singular motivating force, Adam Smith regarded self-interest in economic action as necessarily moderated by sympathy. In addition to its problematic economic conceptualization self-interest has an experiential basis in unequal power relations. An alternative to the concept of self-interest is presented by Amartya Sen in his account of commitment; its inconsistencies, however, render Sen's statement unsatisfactory. Differences between present and future interests indicate that the distinction between self-interested and other-interested action is not sustainable.     

Alexis de Tocqueville in the twenty-first century: plus ça change,plus c’est la même chose?

Some recent scholarship concerning Alexis de Tocqueville has sought to emphasize aspects of his work that have not previously been seen as central to his ideas. This review essay examines the argument by Swedberg that Tocqueville’s writings on economics are a missing and important theme of his analysis, and those in Locke and Botting’s book that claim he also made significant contributions to feminism. These unorthodox views are explored against the assessments found in Hugh Brogan’s latest biography of the nineteenth century, social and political theorist.     

Property,wealth, and social change: Piketty as a social science engineer

This paper applauds the vision and originality of Piketty's Capital and Ideology. We draw attention to the distinctive methodological perspective which he adopts, which we liken to call “social science engineering.” This allows a problem oriented perspective on long‐term global social change which sidesteps siloed disciplinary debates in social science and history about the meaning of modernity, the rise of capitalism, the formation of social groups, and the primacy of nations. We bring out how his theory of property permits him to take forward his overarching insight that economic growth leads to wealth accumulation. This, therefore, challenges long standing sociological perspectives by insisting that modernity is a conservative, rather than a revolutionary and transformative process. We build on this essential contribution by noting some areas where his work can push forward even further, notably that his focus on shifting relativities obscures qualitative historical changes, and more particularly means his analysis of the 20th century is not as provocative as that of the 19th century.     

‘Think twice’: using economics and sociology to understand monetary issues–The case of Switzerland

This paper seeks to demonstrate to what extent an academic approach that borrows from economics and sociology is heuristic in terms of fully understanding monetary issues. Contrary to authors that consider money to be neutral, this article emphasizes that money is a ‘total social fact’. Hence, it focuses on three meanings of money through the theoretical framework of Schumpeter and various French institutionalists. It also focuses on the Swiss case, which is particularly relevant because money plays a significant role in order for such a country to foster prosperity and create social links. Finally, there is clearly a high usefulness of a pluralistic approach on the monetary issue for heterodox economists.     

The Human Habitat: a Systemization and Critique of Park’s Theory from a Radical Interactionist Perspective

When Park died, he left his theory of the human habitat not only incomplete, but in considerable disarray. Although few present-day scholars have demonstrated much interest in building on this critical body of Park’s work, which he based on dominance, it probably represents his most important contribution to American sociology. I argue that the key to systemizing his highly discursive account of the human habitat is to view it from an emergent social evolutionary perspective, which makes it possible to differentiate his notion of “community” from “society,” as well as explain how the two concepts can logically be viewed as both separate and unified entities. A community is not only a necessary stage in the social evolutionary process of producing a society, but it also provides the habitat needed for a society’s later emergence. Among other things, Park’s theory of the human habitat is also criticized for its failure to (1) distinguish dominance from domination, (2) identify the reciprocal relationship existing between power and domination, (3) accurately characterize the nature of the economic order operating in communities, and (4) demarcate a pre-lingual, lingual and literate communal stages that precedes in the social evolutionary process the possible development of a society. In passing, I also point out critical, but often overlooked aspects of Park’s theory of the human habitat that contradict popular characterizations of his work as being purblind to the operation of dominance and power, social Darwinist, conservative, sexist, and racist. Finally, I deduce the implications of his theory for the future emergence of a “world society.”     

Extension of Sartre's Philosophy for Today's World Situation

Sartre's philosophy was futurogenic. He was also a political activist. This article discusses how his philosophy applies to today's and tomorrow's political situations in the world. This article also extends his theory in the light of recent findings in social sciences and neuroscience. lf he were living today: (1) he would condemn collectivistic theories such as symbolic interactionism in sociology, and constructionism in psychology, which foster ingroup homogenization and self-stereotyping, and rationalize group-against-group hostility, violence and terrorism; (2) he would promote the understanding of HTICT (heterogeneity and trans-groupness of individual cognitive/cogitative/action types); and (3) he would reform inbreeding in organizational practice and replace it with outbreeding and polyocular vision.     

SMOOTHING MACHINES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF SOCIETY

I ask the reader to imagine society as a production of‘smoothing machines’. Smoothing machines mark the surfaces of bodies, and in the social sense, they are markings of the body that indicate status, generally in terms of purity or perfection. The socius, Deleuze and Guattari write, is a coding machine, and codes smooth social relations of power. Elias Canetti, in his work on crowds, discovers an internal connection between smoothness, social power, and the body for him the first aspect of power is the smoothness of the teeth, and he traces modern forms of social control and violence to eating and incorporation. In his darkest vision, ‘everything is going smoothly’ comes to mean that everything is in our power, and power is equated with paranoia and the naked will to survive. Many contemporary disciplinary technologies take the form of smoothing the body, understood as‘fitting’ the body to a model of subjectivity and a functional regime. Not all smoothing machines facilitate social control, however. As Deleuze and Guattari suggest, many also generate lines of flight or escape. For every smoothing machine that forms a Subject and submits it to power, there are others that set it free.     

Talcott Parsons'Marshall Lectures: Contemporay, But Flawed

The occasion of the publication of Parsons'Marshall Lectures is used to demonstrate Parsons'prescience and the contemporary relevance of his ideas. It is argued that these lectures are similar in intent to the recent work of Amitai Etzioni and his objective of creating the field of socio-economics. The two works are compared and their relative strengths and weaknesses discussed. Parsons is shown to be well ahead of his time, not only in his effort to integrate social and economic concerns, but in the broader integrative intent of his overall theory. While Parsons was not able to begin to engineer a rapprochement with economics, such an intellectual integration may be more possible today because economics appears to be in greater crisis and sociology seems to have more to offer to disaffected economists.