Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:21:39 -0800
From: "James D. Proctor" <jproctor-AT-geog.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: RE: individual-based models vs. transformational model of 


Thanks for yours and other comments.  I am familiar with critiques of e.g.
methodological individualism, and have deployed those critiques myself in other
contexts.  But it seems to me as if the whole individualism/structuralism
debate more or less ended in the 80s with Bhaskar, Giddens and others spelling
out the details of rapprochement, such that no one has prepared a systematic
critique of this current wave of individual-based models since we're all tired
of the debate, familiar with the literature, etc.  Yet there are two compelling
reasons to do so: (a) these models are ubiquitous, as widespread as their
related theories of chaos/complexity/nonlinearity/etc. across the spectrum of
the sciences, and (b) the scientists who construct these models would in many
cases argue that they are *not* individualists, but rather constructing an
important new argument for how individuals and structures relate.  Now I'm not
sure if I buy (b) in most cases (though where "structure" is conceptualized
merely as "pattern" they make a better case), but (a) alone is compelling
enough to warrant a systematic treatment, and (b) is an important enough
challenge to the dialectical accounts of structure and action that settled in
the 80s to warrant engagement.

In other words, I too am tempted to dismiss this whole host of models as
individualistic, but their story is somewhat different from the individualistic
stories of several decades ago, and indeed many of these scientists (I am
thinking of those in e.g. ecology and physical science) think of themselves as
fighting the good fight against reductionist atomism, so there is good reason
to join forces.  What I have generally seen, however, is that the
social/natural science split has left many of us on the social sciences unaware
of these "antireductionist" efforts, and among social scientists there seems to
be little engagement between e.g. the chaos folks and those of a more
structuralist leaning.

I hope this clarification helps, and would again appreciate any thoughts.

Regards,

Jim P.



Colin Wight wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> I'm not sure whether disciplinary differences are getting in the way here,
> but are you looking forces sources of critique of methodological
> individualism (individual based models). If so, why not start by looking at
> Archer's book on realist social theory which should give you an overview of
> most of the arguments. After that I think that some of the classics are
> best, try...
>
> Dawe, A. (1979) 'Theories of Social Action', in T. Bottomore & R. Nisbet
> (Eds.), A History of Sociological Analysis (pp. 362-417). London: Heinemann.
>
> Lukes, S. (1973) 'Methodological Individualism Reconsidered', in A. Ryan
> (Ed.), The Philosophy of Social Explanation (pp. 119-138). Oxford: Oxford
> University Press.
>
> Beyond that, if you want really strong critiques of the individualist model
> try looking at some of the hard line structuralist positions, you can't go
> far wrong with Durkheim and Althusser. But I suspect that you might know
> much of this literature already and if so maybe you can be a little more
> specific. If you are looking for material specifically relating to STS some
> of the "actor-network" theory stuff might be worth looking at.
>
> Sorry I can't be more help.
>
> =================================> Dr. Colin Wight
> Department of International Politics
> University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> Tel: 01970 621769
> http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cow
> ==================================>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of James D.
> > Proctor
> > Sent: 24 March 2000 05:55
> > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Subject: BHA: individual-based models vs. transformational model of
> > social activity
> >
> >
> > Greetings -- I have been looking for observations from various STS and
> > other communities about individual-based models, which have gained a
> > rather prominent status across the natural and social sciences in the
> > last decade or so due to their connection with complexity, chaos,
> > self-organization, and so forth.  Many who devise these models claim
> > they are attempting to counter "reductionism" (by which they commonly
> > mean an individualistic notion of systems), but the "bottom-up" mode of
> > reasoning in these models -- that individuals following specified rules
> > can create emergent structure -- seems to deny any possibility that
> > structure acts upon individuals in addn to being acted upon by these
> > individuals.
> >
> > One would think that Bhaskar's transformational model of social
> > activity, for instance (I hope I recall this term correctly from my grad
> > days), argues that bottom-up and top-down causality are interdependent,
> > thus challenging the metaphysics of causality underlying
> > individual-based models.  But I have found hardly any literature at all
> > that has attempted to critique individual-based models from this or
> > similar philosophical viewpoints.
> >
> > I would be interested in any observations, plus leads on relevant
> > literature.
> >
> > Thanks much --
> >
> > Jim P.
> >
> > --
> > James D. Proctor, Associate Professor
> > Department of Geography
> > 3611 Ellison Hall
> > University of California
> > Santa Barbara, CA  93106-4060
> >
> > Tel: 805-893-8741
> > Fax: 805-893-3146
> > Web: http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jproctor
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

--
James D. Proctor, Associate Professor
Department of Geography
3611 Ellison Hall
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA  93106-4060

Tel: 805-893-8741
Fax: 805-893-3146
Web: http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jproctor



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---