Rational Choice Theory or Pretense? The Claims,Equivalences, and Analogies of the “Economic Approach to Human Behavior”

The article argues and demonstrates that classical–neoclassical economics generally does not pretend or claim that its principles apply to domains beyond the economy, specifically wealth, and does not equate the economic and the noneconomic, and the rational and the nonrational. By contrast, the “economic approach to human behavior” or “rational choice theory” precisely does this to legitimize itself by invoking classical–neoclassical economics as supreme authority and its representatives as venerable precursors. The article reveals the economic approach to human behavior as a set of grand theoretical and methodological claims, equivalences, and analogies from the standpoint of conventional economics itself, as well as sociology and other social sciences. It identifies and examines certain indicative instances of such tendencies. The article aims to contribute to understanding better the relations—or rather lack thereof—between conventional economics and contemporary economic and sociological rational choice theory. The economic approach to human behavior is not new, even outside the market sector. The rational choice model provides the most promising basis presently available for a unified approach to the analysis of the social world by scholars from different social sciences. — Gary Becker With respect to those parts of human conduct of which wealth is not even the principal object, to these political economy does not pretend that its conclusions are applicable. — John S. Mill But economy does not treat of all human motives. There are motives nearly always present with us, arising from conscience, compassion, or from some moral or religious source, which economy cannot and does not pretend to treat. These will remain to us as outstanding and disturbing forces; they must be treated, if at all, by other appropriate branches of knowledge. — William Jevons A science, therefore, based on the hypothesis (of universal rationality) would yield a general form of the social phenomenon having little or no contact with reality … — Vilfredo Pareto     

The Rational Choice Generalization of Neoclassical Economics Reconsidered: Any Theoretical Legitimation for Economic Imperialism?

The article reconsiders the generalization of neoclassical economics by modern rational choice theory. Hence, it reexamines the possible theoretical grounds or lack thereof within neoclassical economics for economic imperialism implied in much of rational choice theory. Some indicative instances of rational choice theory's generalization of neoclassical economics are reviewed. The main portion of the article addresses the question as to whether neoclassical economics allows its generalization in rational choice theory and thus legitimizes economic imperialism. Presented are a number of pertinent theoretical reasons why neoclassical economics does not fully justify its generalization into rational choice as a general social theory, particularly into an overarching economic approach to social action and society. Also discussed are some theoretical implications of the rational choice generalization of neoclassical economics. The main contribution of the article is to detect lack of a strong theoretical rationale in much of neoclassical economics for rational choice theory's manifest or latent economic imperialism.     

A DESIGN OF NORMATIVE SOCIOLOGY BASED ON THE RATIONAL CHOICE PARADIGM

Abstract  In this paper, I metatheoretically examine a design of normative sociology. Normative sociology is the normative-scientific study in sociology. The substance of normative science is the conceptual examination of values or value judgments. According to Coleman (1974) and Faran, (1989) et al., sociologists should contribute to normative science by using ideas from general sociological theory. There is a useful traditional enterprise for this aim in sociology; that is the study of the problem of order, particularly the study of it based on the rational choice paradigm. Seiyama (1992) points to the limits of the rational choice paradigm. I propose three aims of social theory, and claim that the study of the problem of order based on this paradigm is useful when our purpose is normative model-building. I call the problem of order as a subject of the study for this purpose "the value-theoretical problem of order." This examination can clear up some of the theoretical confusion surrounding the problem of order and show the methodological basis of normative sociology based on the rational choice paradigm.     

Socio-economics and rational choice theory: Specification of their relations

In this paper an attempt is made to put the relationship between socio-economics and rational choice theory into proper perspective. The attempt is motivated by some recent confusions between the two. In particular, there is a tendency among the adherents of rational choice theory to subsume socio-economics and, for that matter, social science as a whole under their theory. On the other hand, many socio-economists or economic sociologists evince some degree of lenience vis-à-vis rational choice theory as if the latter were fully compatible with their discipline. We show that the rational choice reduction of socio-economics and sister disciplines (e.g., economic sociology) to the “economic approach to human behavior” or to a utilitarian paradigm of socio-economic life, is theoretically and methodologically untenable, and thus that many socio-economists' generous attitude to rational choice theory is not entirely justified.     

Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: the ‘Best Kept Secret’ of Irrational Choice

The article reexamines the prevailing perception of traditional economics as the science of rational choice among contemporary economists and sociologists, especially rational choice theorists. It proposes that conventional economics is not exclusively the theory of rational choice but also one of irrational choices in the economy. The article aims to contribute toward a fuller understanding and appreciation of classical and neoclassical economics, especially among sociologists, as composite rational choice-irrational choice theory and in that sense a multi- rather than single-paradigm science, thus no different from sociology and other social (and physical) sciences. This may be relevant or interesting to sociologists given that their rational choice colleagues, like economists, extol the “virtues" of conventional and modern economics as a single-paradigm, theoretically unified science around “rational choice” and criticize the “vices” of sociology as plagued by competing paradigms and theoretical disunity. The article supports many economic sociologists’ view or intuition of conventional economics as complex rational-irrational choice theory and multi-paradigm science, and disconfirms rational choice theorists’ interpretation and generalization of it as “rational choice theory” only and single-paradigm unified science.     

The ‘New’ Sociology of Deindustrialisation? Understanding Industrial Change

This article reviews a range of new and established writing on deindustrialisation. It traces the origins of the concept from its popularisation in the early 1980s with the onset of large scale loss in the industrial regions of North America and Europe. We argue that with the passage of time, the academic field of deindustrialisation has matured as the scale and consequences of industrial loss become more apparent. We suggest here that sociology has not made the contribution it could have in this debate and that one of the key strengths of the area is its interdisciplinary nature; especially from disciplines such as geography, anthropology, and social history. Its key aim is to explain why this is the case and suggest that by fully engaging with the issue of deindustrialisation and the range of new material available, the sociology of economic life can develop a more rounded account both of work and its absence.     

The question of mathematical social theory revisited: Some methodological considerations

Methodologically, the most advanced social science discipline is considered economics, especially its neoclassical version. A number of practitioners in the other social sciences, especially sociology and political science, perceive economics as a scientific exemplar in methodological (and theoretical) terms. This methodological exemplar has been, particularly in the last decades, attempted to emulate by some of these social scientists. The outcome of this emulation, by adopting and extending its methods, of neoclassical economics in parts (but not all) of sociology, political science, and elsewhere has been rational choice theory as a general social paradigm. This paper tries to show that many misapplications of the methodology of neoclassical economics in rational choice theory have ensued from such methodological emulation. That neoclassical economics does not necessarily contain or lead to a mathematical rational choice model is the core argument of this paper. The paper fills in a gap created by the current literature’s focus on the methodological bases of mathematical rational choice theory in neoclassical economics.     

Looking at Digital Art: Towards a Visual Methodology for Digital Sociology

Over the last decade there has been a call for a new kind of sociological gaze, a digital sociology for a digital age. Has there been fundamental change in the key principles, the nature, and functions of social life in a digital age? In social and cultural theory, there is a long history of looking at how technology transforms art. In this article, I will use the medium of digital art to consider the unique nature of the digital age, the demand for a digital sociology, and the interrelated speculative imagination of such claims. Broadly situated within the sociology of art the methodological contribution of this article is to offer an analysis of artworks themselves, via the construction of a digital visual methodology. What digital culture, politics, and revealed in digital art? How can looking at digital art expand the tools for understanding digitally mediated lives?     

What is the Main Significance of Economic for Sociological Theory?

This paper reconsiders classical and neoclassical economics’ significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory. The paper identifies certain types or elements of classical and neoclassical economics that are potentially significant or convergent with sociological theory: pure market economics, the economics of society cum the “rational choice model”, and social or sociological economics. First, it argues that as pure economics economic theory’s significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is low because the first is inconsistent with or divergent from the latter, notably theoretical economic sociology. Second, the paper suggests that as the economics of society economic theory’s significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is non-existent or minimal, because the “rational choice model” is missing or an exception within conventional economics. Third, the paper proposes and demonstrates that classical and neoclassical economics’ main significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory lies in social economics as its second ingredient, alongside market economics. The paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between economic and sociological theory and economics and sociology overall.     

Social Theory Across Disciplinary Boundaries: Cultural Studies and Sociology

This essay proposes that sociology can learn from social theory developed in the humanities. In the face of recent challenges to sociological explanations of social outcomes (from rational choice and economic theory, cognitive psychological theories of intelligence, and communitarian social philosophy), social theory should specify the constitutive force of social signification. After identifying a key weakness in theoretical approaches currently available in sociology, the inadequacy of various conceptions of the social, I analyze three significant new works in cultural studies in order to sketch out alternative ways of defining and measuring the force of social signification. The essay concludes with an attempt to establish the basis of a dialogue between cultural studies and sociology.     

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.     

Talcott Parsons and the Integration of Economic and Sociological Theory

Parsons'theory of economy and society has reemerged as an important reference point in the development of social theory. This paper focuses on Parsons'contribution to a possible theoretical rapproachment between economic and social theory. The issue addressed is the indifference of economists to the project for theoretical reunification announced in the Marshall Lectures. The author argues that Parsons'understanding of economic theory was seriously incomplete, while his assumption of a shared commitment between the two disciplines to develop a general synthetic theory was highly dubious. At the same time, Parsons'attempt at rapproachment remains relevant in a contemporary situation where many social scientists propose an economistic annexation of sociology by rational choice theory.     

From False Premises to False Conclusions. On Pierre Bourdieu’s Alleged Sociological Determinism

Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological determinism is a recurrent issue in French as well as in Anglo-Saxon sociology. Accusations of ‘determinism’ are very often coupled with the enunciation of a mechanistic and rigid structuralist vision of society which would result in a ‘reproductivist’ approach of social relations. In such a perspective, social change would be hardly possible. Without ignoring Bourdieu’s particular attention to structural constraints, in this article my intention will be to refute the accusations of social determinism by showing in a synthetic manner why it would be if not completely erroneous, but at least simplistic to define Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology as one only focusing on reproductive tendencies and thus being incapable of dealing with the possibility of social change.     

Meaningful Performances: Considering the Contributions of the Dramaturgical Approach to Studying Family

This article highlights the contributions of Erving Goffman's dramaturgical approach to both understanding and researching family. With its interest in the performative nature of human interaction and the active construction of social reality, the dramaturgical perspective is particularly well-suited to study a dynamic social institution like the family. This article offers a brief introduction to the dramaturgical study of family by addressing important components of dramaturgy and contrasting it with other approaches to the sociology of family. The authors then demonstrate this approach in action by introducing two research areas that currently employ dramaturgical analyses – work on 'doing family' and the social construction of motherhood – and another that might benefit from such analyses, research on blended families. The article closes with further suggestions for future research attending to the performative aspects of family life.     

Theoretical Implications of Regional Effects

Local economic institutions (systems of property rights and rules of land use) influenced the course of economic change in European history, as well as state formation and religious change. In this paper, I outline the theoretical implications of these regional effects. None of our existing macrolevel theories and explanations of the "rise of the West" can adequately incorporate them, so I present an alternative theory, based on rational choice premises. Yet the existence of these regional effects also highlights the deficiencies of a rational choice theoretical approach. First, the approach is unable to explain historical contexts, institutional legacies, or the effects of timing, which were vital for outcomes of social change but that lie outside the model itself. Second, although it can be very useful, the model of the actor motivated by material self-interest often proved inadequate in historical situations. Solutions are suggested.     

What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action

Conclusion This article argues that the problem of uncertainty represents the central limitation of efficiency-based approaches to the explanation and prediction of economic outcomes. The problem of uncertainty reintroduces the Hobbesian problem of order into economics and makes it possible to connect questions of economic decision-making with social theory. The emphasis lies not, as in the behavioral theories of the Carnegie School, in the influence of uncertainty on the actual decision process, but in those social devices that actors rely on in decision-making, i.e., that structure the situation for the agents. If agents cannot anticipate the benefits of an investment, optimizing decisions become impossible, and the question opens up how intentionally rational actors reach decisions under this condition of uncertainty. This provides a systematic starting point for economic sociology. Studies in economic sociology that argue from different theoretical perspectives point to the significance of uncertainty and goal ambiguity. This contribution reflects theoretically why economic sociology can develop a promising approach by building upon these insights. It becomes understandable why culture, power, institutions, social structures, and cognitive processes are important in modern market economies. But it should be equally emphasized that the maximizing paradigm in economics will not be dethroned without a causal theory of the relationship of intentional rationality and social rigidities.     

"Free- Will Talk" and Sociology

Hardcore positivistic or humanistic sociologies are rare. In the history of sociology the two extremes have tended to converge, producing an awkward hybrid. A watered-down positivism is brought to the rescue of a stalled Verstehen sociology, or vice versa, and a difficulty like the free nature of human action is covered over with a veneer of pragmatism. Here it will be argued that Paul Tibbetts'recent recasting of the positivism-humanism debate in sociology into an arbitrary choice between linguistic grids perpetuates this unsatisfactory practice. Five propositions will be advanced in opposition to Tibbetts'perspective. First, it will be argued that Tibbetts'discussion clouds the real issues at stake through his failure to really transcend the positivist framework of analysis. Second, it will be shown that the humanistic pre-supposition of voluntarism involves an ontological commitment to a model of rational agency which provides a methodological base for the "scientific" treatment of human freedom. Third, this commitment constitutes a necessary presupposition of all sciences of human action. Fourth, this fact means there are good epistemological reasons why a sociologist's choice of a linguistic grid is not arbitrary. Finally, it will be proposed that the most promising pattern of convergence between humanistic sociology and positivism stems from the formulation of a rough spectrum of principles of rationality to undergird a differentiation of "degrees" and not "kind" between what Tibbetts calls "free-will talk" and "causal-deterministic talk."     

Spencer is dead, long live Spencer: individualism, holism, and the problem of norms

The debate between the advocates of sociological individualism and those of holism has been pervasive in the development of social theory. This debate is often situated in the false problems of sociology, since it is seen as a particular form of the perennial and irresolvable dilemma between social nominalism and realism, as well as between freedom and determinism. Nevertheless, the debate is far from over within contemporary sociology and other social science, as indicated by the resurgence of individualism in rational action theory and its repudiation by holistic social theories. The aim of this paper is to identify some modern variations on this theme as well as to discern certain common tendencies of two seemingly opposite theoretical perspectives, viz. the convergence upon a normative solution to the problem of social order. This convergence is therefore denoted normative convergence between sociological individualism and holistic sociology.     

The Generational Equity Debate

This article discusses the generational equity debate in the United States-including its origins and the functions it serves. This debate has emerged in the context of concerns over the aging of the population, budgetary crises, growing health care costs, increased poverty among children, growing economic inequality, and declining faith in institutions. By potentially fragmenting support for Social Security and other social programs, the generational equity approach to framing public policy issues may serve the interests of those conservatives wishing to shrink and restructure the American approach to social welfare. However, the possibility exists that this debate could serve also as a forum to advance progressive ideas about universal access for persons of all ages to income and health benefits and employment opportunities.     

The generational equity debate: a progressive framing of a conservative issue

This article discusses the generational equity debate in the United States--including its origins and the functions it serves. This debate has emerged in the context of concerns over the aging of the population, budgetary crises, growing health care costs, increased poverty among children, growing economic inequality, and declining faith in institutions. By potentially fragmenting support for Social Security and other social programs, the generational equity approach to framing public policy issues may serve the interests of those conservatives wishing to shrink and restructure the American approach to social welfare. However, the possibility exists that this debate could serve also as a forum to advance progressive ideas about universal access for persons of all ages to income and health benefits and employment opportunities.