Interesting post by Daniel Little on the difference between the way most sociologist view human action and most economists.
Here is how Coleman describes two basic approaches to sociology in "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital" (link; 1988)."There are two broad intellectual streams in the description and explanation of social action. One, characteristic of the work of most sociologists, sees the actor as socialized and action as governed by social norms, rules, and obligations. The principal virtues of this intellectual stream lie in its ability to describe action in social context and to explain the way action is shaped, constrained, and redirected by the social context. The other intellectual stream, characteristic of the work of most economists, sees the actor as having goals independently arrived at, as acting independently, and as wholly self-interested. Its principal virtue lies in having a principle of action, that of maximizing utility. This principle of action, together with a single empirical generalization (declining marginal utility) has generated growth of neoclassical economic theory, as well as the growth of political philosophy of several varieties: utilitarianism, contractarianism, and natural rights. (S95)" [emphasis added]Read it at Understanding Society
Coleman on the elementary actor
by Daniel Little
8 comments:
Mike, Tom and Matt:
Could I make a suggestion? I find that the stream of content moves so quickly on this site that it is sometimes hard to engage in extended substantive discussion and debate on important topics.
Don't get me wrong. I really like all the links that are posted here, and click on almost every one of them. You have a great blog here presenting lots of great food for thought.
But you might consider a modification of a model such as Mark Thoma uses. He has a few major substantive posts each day - sometimes his own stuff, sometimes a selection from some off-site content - but also includes a daily list of 10-20 links to other off-site content. The list of links is all packed into one post, and so doesn't contribute to moving the blog roll along too quickly.
There is some research which indicates the sociologists might be right. See:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/03/the-power-of-prosocial-motivation.html
Sorry to get off topic, but this was the topic that most closely fit. Long time reader, 1st time poster.
Radio Interview, Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusions. Out of paradigm on money, but solid with a lot of stuff. He touches on economics teaching in the 25th minute, how can we "teach dead ideas utterly discredited by the world around you"
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/03/02/empire-of-illusion/#socialcomments
Hi Michael Boudreau,
I have to wonder how much of our national and international direction in economic policy is really due to a misunderstanding of economic reality, and how much is due to fundamental differences in human values concerning the way the world should function, differences that cannot be rectified by resolving differences of opinion over how our current economic systems do function.
It seems to me that the cultural milieu in 2012 is just incredibly harsh, cruel, mercenary and brutal, and that hatred, oppression and endless interpersonal competition for merely personal success and victory are presented everywhere as normative. Many of the people I know seem exhausted, dispirited and depressed as they try to navigate through the cold and exploitative world of the assholocracy. Media and opinion elites, even those nominally "progressive", have chosen up sides according to class considerations, and cooperate actively and passively in sticking it to the weak and validating the winners.
Little of this has to do with economic theory, whether those theories have proven predicatively successful or predictably unsuccessful. Understanding how the economy works does little to determine whether you treat your fellow human beings as brothers and sisters, or as meat on the hoof to be cut up and sold for a profit. Most of the disagreements about economic policy are among people who don't differ all that much in their interpretation of economic reality, but who disagree a great deal about what they regard as good things and what they regard as bad things. Some people believe that the goal of human life is to operate a system that separates the strong from the weak, and then delivers all the rewards to the strong so they can lord it over everyone else.
Frankly, America in 2012 is a profoundly sick and debased culture. It's not mean and nasty by accident, but because too many people want it that way.
I agree with Dan's suggestion. I also enjoy your brief commentaries on linked content, Tom.
I considered the daily aggregated links format instead of individual posts, such as Mark Thomas, Yves Smith, and Edward Harrison use. However, I rejected it in favor or individual links to facilitate comments on each post, which does not happen at the other places that just provide links.
Dan,
Sadly I must agree with you that our lizard brain does override in many/most cases.
If you hadn't gathered from the link, I am Canadian. I recently moved back to Canada after 5 years in MA. I must admit that the Boston area, at least in my small circle was surprisingly progressive - at least to what I had expected. I'd like to say Canada is in far better shape than the USA, but I fear it is not and we are headed the wrong way. As Warren aptly put it in a comment over at Winterspeak recently, Canada should be embarrassed at 8% unemployment given our modest population and abundance of resources. Our current leadership is a party from Alberta (our very own Texas). We've voted them in with a majority. Canada has 5 parties represented in our government and each riding is first across the line so many elected officials, including our PM have under 40% of the popular vote. Still they have a majority of seats at the moment, we have no executive branch veto and our senate is symbolic so they can to pass whatever laws they want. But hey, the voters have spoken. I do hope that they don't do too much damage over the next few years.
I was surprised to see such a defeated response from you considering some of the other things you've written, especially the public purpose stuff.
I would agree that a new economic system does not mean our lizard brains will be any different, but MMT could at least take away the excuse of "we can't afford it", which may, just maybe, leave enough space for those few enlightened folks to step forward.
I too am tired and defeated by the thought of the obstacles to change. This MMT debate has opened my eyes to a few things and given me a bit of an energy boost. I've been following for about 12 months now. I'm trying, slowly, to engage my circle of friends. We all "checked out" of the process and were all "too busy" - see what that go us. I'm not sure where it is all going, but I know for sure that if those of us who can lead and engage don't - then it definitely is going no where.
Cheers,
Michael
I prefer the current format - don't like those link collections.
Strongly agree with Trixie regarding enjoying Tom's brief comments.
Post a Comment