Over at MR, Tyler offers some thoughts and a wealth of interesting links on the subject.
Foucault understood how actual historical explanation relies on the use of broad categories, classes, and exemplars, and in a manner which is not logically reducible to statements about individual beliefs and desires. The writer (theorist) has nothing close to a complete mental model of how the interacting categories reduce to component individual parts, and so some or most of the moving parts of the explanation retain their autonomy at a partially macro level. The Austrians will kick and scream on this one, but if you combine imperfect information and the sense/reference distinction, methodological individualism ends up as more of a slogan than anything else. There is a reflective equilibrium to the explanatory process, and micro relies on some macro foundations, not just vice versa, and individuals rely on the social for some of their cues. Atomistic reduction to the level of the individual in general will not succeed.For earlier posts on the horribles that result from methodological individualist theory in antitrust law, see here. Also note that Kenneth Arrow has expressed at least strong skepticism about methodological individualism. The picture that develops is of a feedback loop between individuals, groups, and the set of formal rules and procedures for encoding and transmitting them. We can't understand the behavior of the system with a myopic focus on any single part.
Comments