This work deals with the philosophy of social explanation. The main topic is the supposed antagonism between methodological individualism and holism. After an overview and the outline of the thesis, the contents, strengths and weaknesses of methodical individualism and holism are explained. The necessity of considering cognitions and achievements of the philosophy of the mind in order to progress is shown. The conclusion amounts to a synthesis of methodological individualism and holism with the inclusion of the intentional stance as a suggestion for a more productive manner in which to explain and predict social phenomena.
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Two views – two categories
1.2 The thesis
2. METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM EXPLAINED
2.1 Categorization of MI
2.2 The political consequences of MI
2.3 Adversaries of MI and their arguments
2.3.1 Karl Marx
2.3.2 Emile Durkheim
2.3.3 David Hillel Ruben
2.3.4 Erik Olin Wright, Andrew Levine and Elliot Sober
2.3.5 Niklas Luhmann
2.4 The atomist’s demand of MI
2.5 Feared risks of full acceptance of MI
2.6 A principal fault: the part-whole idea
3. HOLISM EXPLAINED
3.1 Categorization of holism
3.2 The long-lasting Hegelian influence
3.3 Functional explanations
3.4 The survival of the belief in supra-individual powers
3.5 Arguments for, and risks of, holism
4. TWO SYNTHESIZING VIEWS
4.1 Systemism by Mario Bunge
4.2 Holistic individualism by Philip Pettit
5. MIND
5.1 The theory of supervenience
5.2 The deconstruction of the mind
5.3 The Intentional stance
6. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
6.1 How to synthesize?
6.2 Conclusion
Objective & Themes
This work explores the tension between methodological individualism and holism in the philosophy of social explanation. The research investigates how these opposing perspectives can be integrated to better explain and predict social phenomena, ultimately proposing a synthesis that incorporates the "intentional stance" to bridge the gap between individual actions and collective outcomes.
- Analysis of the antagonism between methodological individualism and holism.
- Critique of functional explanations and the role of the philosophy of mind.
- Evaluation of systemism and holistic individualism as potential bridges.
- Application of the "intentional stance" to social modeling.
Excerpt from the Book
2.4 The atomists demand of MI
While the presented adversaries of MI above are holists and anti-reductionists, this is not the case with the atomists; quite the contrary. Atomism is an extreme position which denies all explanations from a macro-level position. ‘Atomism is a stance which denies that relations – whether between individuals or between social entities – are genuinely explanatory.’ (Wright et al. 1987: 56) Atomists even deny that there is a society at all. There are just individuals who share the belief that there is such a thing as ‘society’ and act accordingly. Only individuals are real. Social entities are first of all constructions which exist only in our imagination. But unlike imagined-only dragons, elves, and witches and so on, social institutions are imaginative constructions we believe in and we are evidently eager to confirm their existence.
Beliefs have to be materialised somehow. We used to build impressive physical monuments for that purpose like churches, art museums, government edifices, war memorials, Olympic stadiums and so on. How much effort (and money) is invested into the materialization of an idea depends on the values attributed to it by the contemporary culture.
Atomism connects with the medieval topic of nominalism; this is a view that denied the real being of universals (e.g. ‘mankind’) and claimed only concrete and individual beings can be named. It is important to consider this view given to its proximity to MI.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the dichotomy between macro-level and micro-level views in social science and introduces the thesis.
2. METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM EXPLAINED: Details the core claims of methodological individualism, its political implications, and its primary adversaries.
3. HOLISM EXPLAINED: Examines holistic doctrines, Hegelian influences, functionalism, and the risks of believing in supra-individual forces.
4. TWO SYNTHESIZING VIEWS: Reviews attempts by Bunge and Pettit to reconcile individualist and holistic perspectives.
5. MIND: Discusses theories of the mind including supervenience, eliminative materialism, and the intentional stance.
6. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION: Proposes a new ontology and methodological synthesis to advance cognition regarding social phenomena.
Keywords
Methodological individualism, Holism, Social explanation, Intentionality, Intentional stance, Atomism, Reductionism, Functionalism, Philosophy of mind, Systemism, Supervenience, Eliminative materialism, Folk psychology, Nominalism, Social phenomena.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this thesis?
The thesis examines the philosophical antagonism between methodological individualism and holism, specifically regarding how social phenomena are explained and predicted.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the roles of individual versus collective action, the validity of functional explanations, the necessity of incorporating philosophy of mind, and the search for a unified social ontology.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine how to effectively synthesize methodological individualism and holism, using the "intentional stance" to create more accurate models of social behavior.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses analytical philosophy to compare ontological claims, critique existing models (like historical materialism), and construct a new framework based on rational intentionality.
What is covered in the main body?
The body analyzes the definitions and adversaries of methodological individualism, the pitfalls of holistic and functionalist thinking, theories of mind (e.g., eliminative materialism), and bridging concepts like systemism.
What defines the characterizing keywords?
The keywords highlight the fundamental tension between micro-level and macro-level explanations and the specific philosophical strategies used to navigate them, such as intentionality and reductionism.
What is the "intentional stance" according to Dennett?
It is a strategy for predicting behavior by treating an entity as a rational agent with specific beliefs and desires, which the author argues is the most promising approach for social modeling.
Why does the author critisize historical materialism?
The author views it as a teleological myth and a religious concept rather than a scientific theory, which conflicts with the contingency and individuality inherent in methodological individualism.
How does the author propose to fix the "part-whole" error?
By rejecting the comparison of social institutions to biological organisms or molecules and instead defining institutions as mental constructs held together by the shared beliefs of individuals.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Werner Kieser (Autor:in), 2013, Methodological Individualism and Holism. Two Views, One Purpose, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/295947
