Lecture 7 Flashcards
Functionalism
Emile Durkheim: “In the nature of society itself we must seek the explanation of social life.”
Holism: (3 aspects)
- In addition to individuals, there also exist ‘wholes’ such as social institutions and
communities. - Explanations in the social sciences refer to individual actions and to social
phenomena. - Social science theories are logically independent of “lower-level theories.”
- So, macro phenomena do not reduce to micro phenomena
What is functionalism, exactly?
- Functional explanations are system explanations.
- Provides an answer to a “why question” by identifying the function or purpose of a
phenomenon within a system. - Functional explanations appear in different forms and disciplines:
o In biology
o In economics
o In psychology and cognitive science - Typically contrasted with mechanistic explanations.
E.g., Durkheim’s theory of criminality
“If the differences in the level of prosperity increase and if individualism goes up, then
crime-rates increase.”
Response: collective sentiments that reinforce solidarity:
- Media/discussion about distressing incidents.
- Offenders are demonized, social pressure builds.
Result: recover balance in crime/safety.
- Durkheim: in the face of the threat of disintegration, a society strives to restore
balance.
Problems for functionalism
- Functionality indicates the purpose that is being served.
- But how is this goal achieved?
- Distinction between
o Functional explanation (in terms of a goal).
o Causal explanation (in terms of causes).
o e.g., Cuckoo clock
2 examples:
- Functional vs .causal explanation of inherited traits (evolutionary biology)
- Functional vs. causal explanation of drink preferences (economics / cognitive
science)
E.g., Durkheim’s theory of criminality
Q: What is the causal mechanism responsible for balance?
- It is difficult to explain how society restores the balance.
- This is because there are many causal links which ensure that crime leads to
increasing solidarity.
- But if we explain functions of social systems by identifying the underlying
mechanisms, do we not end up with an individualistic theory … ?!
- How is this this case similar to or different from:
o Pepper moth
o Tea preference
. Individualism vs. holism
How do revolutions occur?
J-Curve” theory (Davies):
- When gradually rising prosperity hits a dramatic (economic) decline.
- Mental state of anxiety, frustration, and a negative mood are seen as characteristics
of society, characteristics that refer to individual feelings.
Q: But how does a revolution arise?
Q:What conditions need to be met?
The free-rider problem in practice
- if a revolution is like a prisoners’ dilemma, then revolutions will never occur…
- the free-rider is always incentivized not to cooperate (defect) because cooperation involves high risk.
- bottom-left and top-right cells are the risks for those who cooperate with defectors
By changing the game you can solve this
Jack Goldstone’s solution to the problem of defection
- 1st individuals make choices on the basis of solidarity to form groups (churches, trade unions,)
- 2nd Groups make rational choices to participate or not participate in a revolution
Why does this matter for the individualism vs. holism debate?
It raises two important questions:
- Can systems be reduced to individuals? o Ontology o Theory o Explanation - Or is something essential lost by attempts at reduction? o The problem of the remainder o The problem of multiple realization
The problem of the remainder
Individuals play different roles… So, what explains these roles?
- We need to account for internal structure (procedures, norms, and rules).
- Every attempt to explain these structures appeals to more structures
The problem of multiple realization
- Same phenomenon can be realized in differen tways.
- Different properties and conditions give rise to common event or idea.
- It is only at the social (macro) level that some properties become visible.
The problem of the remainder raises concerns for individualism
What properties belong to an individual?
- Can these properties be understood independently of their social roles?
Zahle:
- Social role terms are relational,
- ought to be part of the individualist’s descriptive repertoire as well.
Consider Pele an the Pope:
- We cannot understand their actions independently of their roles in professional
football / Roman Catholic Church
The problem of multiple realization raises concerns for individualism
- Is there a unique causal/mechanistic story for each social phenomenon?
- What is the relationship between parts and wholes of social phenomena?
Multiple realization indicates that “higher order properties” supervene on “lower order
properties” - E.g., revolution
- This drives a wedge between ontology and theory/explanation
Type of “non-reductionistic individualism”:
- Individualistic: social entities do not exist.
- Non-reductionistic: social properties are irreducible.
General problems for individualism AND holism
➢ Starting from individualism → no general explanations possible due to multiple
realizability.
➢ Starting from holism → problem: causal relationships are produced through
individual actions
Both perspectives are needed and complement each other:
- Individual explanations appeal to holistic concepts
o E.g., “revolution” (macro level) and “riots” (micro level) - Holistic explanations cannot do without a reference to individuals.
o E.g., a revolution or riot doesn’t make sense without individuals
Understanding social action - Hollis
Four peculiarities of meaning
→ No obvious parallel in physics and little in biology
→ The problem of Other Minds is central to the social sciences
- Actions have meaning
Contrast between natural signs and conventional symbols
- Natural signs → E.g., ring around de moon ‘means’ rain
- Conventional symbols → E.g., a flag at half mast
Natural signs and their underlying causes are the stuff of scientific explanation
→ Some questions about scientific ideas invite us to recognize that science, like religion, is an
attempt to makes sense of experience in ways involving symbolic kinds of meaning
Actions have two peculiar sorts of meaning:
Gedownload door: devijabiere | devijaaa.b@gmail.com
Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar.
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen - What they mean is so far as they are signals taken from a common stock of
conventions - What the actor means or intends by them
→ To understand: we need a line on Other Minds which allows the reconstruction of both - Language has a meaning
Language is often seen as the key to understanding how thought informs action.
Wittgensteinians → ‘language games’ are the subtlest and deepest illustration of the general
theme about rules
Understanding what people think and do is not only like understanding the uses of language,
but can even be equated with understanding how words mean what they do if one
construes ‘language’ so as to garner the insights offered by phrases like
o ‘the language of mathematics’
o ‘the language of art’
o ‘the language of politics’
There are many games, many ways of thinking and many forms of life
→ Each constituted by its own rules
→ Just as languages have their own rules - Practices have meaning
Previous paragraph: stresses the meaning of words
→ this paragraph: stresses what people mean by their words
Individualist kind of analysis
Linguistic conventions emerge as an aid to individuals and individual thought is prior
to the linguistic vehicle of its expression
Practices similarly emerge as convenient solutions to individual problems
Wittgensteinians work the other way around, with the existence of practices as a
precondition for individual actions which rely on them
Practices are not merely habitual regularities of behavior
→ They embody shared values and give rise to normative expectations
→ Couched in a moral language of praise for fulfilling them and blame for failure
By enriching the notion of a game so as to stress its normative texture, we can propose a
sense of structure appropriate for the ‘understanding’. - The complex that social actors have models of the world and of themselves in their
minds
They credit one another with such models
Weber defined social action as action ‘which takes account of the behavior of others and is
thereby oriented in its course’
→ The account taken soon becomes very sophisticated
Even unreflective people are players of games where they constantly need to know what
others want and believe which require mutual recognition of subtle normative expectations
Models of social action, put in circulation by social scientist, influence these models.
→ suggests disconcertingly that whether an account of social action offered by social science
is correct may depend on whether it is believed
Social sciences seem to investigate two kinds of object
- Individual persons with their beliefs, values, emotional responses etc.
- Law, cultures (systems)
- Can the social level be reduced to the individual level?
Explaining revolutions
Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and
social development is followed by a short period of
sharp reversal.
- Political stability and instability are ultimately dependent of a state of mind, a
mood, in a society (Davies).
What could it mean for a society to have a mood?
- Take “mood” and “expectation” to be the average of individual expectations.
- This would reduce the talk of social-level needs, expectations, and states of
mind to the individual level. - Reduced in this way, it is possible to see revolutions as the unintended consequence
of a large number of individual actions. - Each individual acts on the basis of his or her personal motivations, and as a result,
the whole society changes.
The fruits of the revolution are a non-exclusive good
Non-exclusive good = something that all enjoy whether or not they contributed to its
creation (free-riders) > plagues any attempt at collective action.
- Whether the choice to join the revolution is best represented as a prisoners’
dilemma.
- Strong norms of solidarity explain how some revolution overcome the free rider
problem.
Strong norms of solidarity
The problem of individual free riders is solved at the level of the group, and the revolution is
explained by the actions of these groups.
- Group membership is individually rational and self-reinforcing
The Individualism–Holism Debate
The debate over reductionism may be framed as a dispute between
two camps:
1. Individualists = those who propose that the social level
reduces to the level of agents
2. Holists = their opponents who resist such reduction are often called “holists.”
Mill:
denying that the social world is a kind of thing over and above the individual human
beings which make it up.
- There are no social properties that are not already properties of individual humans
- Social phenomena are entirely composed of humans and their actions.
- No new properties emerge from the interaction of agents
- A proper science, in Mill’s view, should be able to derive specific or local laws from
more fundamental laws.
- We could make predictions about social-level events based on knowledge of the
psychology of the individuals involved.
