More on Methodological Individualism and Subjectivism

5 September 2006 at 1:23 pm Nicolai Foss 3 comments

| Nicolai Foss |

In an earlier post, I argued that methodological individualism involves “… almost with necessity some kind of subjectivist methodology.” David Gordon made the comment that methodological individualism does not have “… to involve a commitment to a subjectivist methodology. The sociologist George Caspar Homans combined methodological individualism with behaviorism.” I didn’t have the time to respond to Gordon then, so the following is a somewhat belated response of sorts (or perhaps just some further reflections prompted by Gordon’s comment).Gordon is of course entirely correct; in principle one can endorse a methodological individualist position and at the same time deny subjectivism. In addition to Homans, other possible examples may be economics work on automata and perhaps evolutionary game theory, where individuals are portrayed as pretty mindless. However, methodological individualism without subjectivism is a rare, and perhaps ludicruous, position.

In fact, historically methodological individualism and methodological subjectivism have been very closely allied doctrines, and to many, including Max Weber, effectively inseparable ones. Thus, Weber’s argument why a starting point in individual action must be a priviliged one is not so much the argument that only individuals can act as the argument that only individual action is intelligible or “subjectively understandable.” In a sense it is Verstehen that leads to methodological individualism rather than the other way around.

Thus, a fundamental argument in favor of methodological individualism and against methodological collectivism is informational: Methodological collectivism throws away useful information that methodological individualism gives us access to. (Dick Langlois also makes this argument in this early paper).

Entry filed under: - Foss -, Austrian Economics, Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science.

Industrial Entrepreneurship in Early Modern China Economic Literacy in Fiction

3 Comments Add your own

1. David Gordon | 5 September 2006 at 1:53 pm

Weber’s argument seems to me a very good one, but I don’t think that the combination of behaviorism and methodological individualism is ludicrous. ( Behaviorism may well be ludicrous, but if so, combining it with individualism doesn’t make it more so.) A behaviorist can have good reasons to adopt individualism. He, might, e.g., favor it on reductionist grounds. He might also think that it just turns out that in his particular discipline, methodological individualist explanations work better than collectivist ones. Nozick briefly discusses Homans in “On Austrian Methodology”, available in his Socratic Puzzles (Harvard Univ. Press, 1997). He thought very highly of Homans.
2. Henrik Berglund | 6 September 2006 at 8:50 am

Isn’t there an inherent tension between subjectivism and methodological individualism?

Methodological individualism assumes that individuals act or make decisions purely as individuals. Little effort is being spent on accounting for social factors influencing such actions.

However, theorists who really delve into the nature of human action, like the ‘master subjectivist’ Alfred Schutz, tend to emphasize the fundamentally social embeddedness of individual action.
Cf. http://www.jstor.org/view/00318205/di974883/97p0562d/0

It seems to me that a more ‘radical’ subjectivism requires an understanding of individuals’ social situations, and that thus makes ‘strict’ methodological individualism difficult.
3. Nicolai Foss | 6 September 2006 at 9:12 am

Henrik, Try to read the Little paper that I referenced in the “Levels Issues II” post of 2 Nov. for a possible way to resolve the possible tension you point to here. N