Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Скачиваний:
1
Добавлен:
29.03.2016
Размер:
116.5 Кб
Скачать

NORKUS: INTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGY AND RATIONAL CHOICE

279

NOTES

I wrote this paper as a 1998–99 Fellow at Wissenschaftskolleg Berlin, where I read the first version at Dienstagskolloquium. I thank Lynda O’Riordan for improving my English and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

1.This point is made by Esser (1993/1996: 3–6).

2.For the first time in: Coleman (1986: 1320–3). See also Coleman (1990: 1–23). Coleman considers Weber’s argumentation in ‘Protestant ethic thesis’ as specimen of sociological explanation via macro–micro–macro transition. He criticizes Weber for missing elaboration of the concluding link (micro–macro transformation). However, he presents Weber’s case in a not completely correct way, considering as Weber’s final explanandum ‘capitalist economic system’ (Coleman 1986: 1322). McClelland describes Weber’s explanandum correctly as ‘spirit of modern capitalism’. For recent interesting suggestion how to improve the micro-macro link in Weber’s argument see Swedberg (1996: 319–23).

3.In this distinction, I follow Udehn (1987).

4.The useful systematic overview of the field with relation to the metatheoretical problems of sociological explanation is provided by Goldthorpe (1998).

5.See, for example, Eells (1982), Howson and Urbach (1989), Morton (1977/1997).

6.See Popper (1944–45/1957), Popper (1961/1980) Popper (1967/1985), Popper (1976/ 1994).

7.Popper makes no reference to Weber in his description of the method of situational analysis. But because of Popper’s good knowledge of Weber’s methodological work there is no reason to doubt Weber’s influence on Popper on this point. Such influence is also assumed by Goldthorpe (1998: 181, 189).

8.Regarding the concept of ‘focal point’, see Schelling (1960).

9.Baumgarten (1964: 603–04). This statement by Baumgarten (80%) about Weber’s views cannot be justified by the direct textual evidence but, substantially, it is correct.

10.Weber presents his case for the independence of social science from psychology most strongly in his review essay on Lujo Brentano’s attempt (Brentano 1908) to deduce the law of diminishing marginal utility from the psychophysical Weber–Fechner law. See Weber (1908/1968).

11.This condition was called ‘Postulate of Adequacy’ by Alfred Schütz: ‘Each term in a scientific model of human action must be constructed in such way that a human act performed within the life-world by an individual actor in the way indicated by the typical construct would be understandable for the actor himself as well as for his fellow-men in terms of common sense interpretation of everyday life’ (Schütz 1953/ 1962: 44).

12.In this case the variable has no influence on behaviour.

13.See Elster (1986: 22–3); Elster (1989: 13–18).

14.With respect to this problem, see Udehn (1987: 151–7).

15.On the problem of indeterminacy of rational choice, see Elster (1993).

16.I am using the distinction between the first-order and second-order decisions to present Esser’s theory in a shorter, but somewhat simplified way. He locates the decisions which I refer to as ‘second-order’ in the context of the ‘logic of situation’ (see Figure 1). The decisions I refer to as the ‘first-order’ belong to ‘logic of selection’. Esser conceives his theory of second-order decisions as the theory which explains the phenomena described in the sociological tradition as ‘definition of

280

RATIONALITY AND SOCIETY 12(3)

situation’. On the second-order decisions, see most recently Sunstein and UllmannMargalit (1999).

17.See Esser (1990: 244–5), Esser (1996: 30–1) and especially Esser (1999: 224–30), where he presents his view in the most detailed way.

REFERENCES

Bates, R.H., Rui J.P. De Fiqueiredo Jr and B.R. Weingast 1998. ‘The Politics of Interpretation: Rationality, Culture, and Transition.’ Politics and Society 26: 221–56.

Baumgarten, E. 1964. Max Weber: Werk und Person. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Becker, G.S. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Boudon, R. 1987. ‘The Individualistic Tradition in Sociology.’ In The Micro–Macro Link , eds J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch and N.J. Smelser, pp. 45–70. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Boudon, R. 1986/1988. Ideologie. Geschichte und Kritik eines Begriffs. Hamburg: Rowohlt.

Boudon, R. 1991. ‘Weber’s Notion of Rationality and the Theory of Rationality in Contemporary Social Sciences.’ In Verstehen and Pragmatism. Essays in Interpretative Sociology, ed. H.J. Helle, pp. 33–46. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Boudon, R. 1994. The Art of Self-Persuasion. The Social Explanation of False Beliefs.

Oxford: Polity Press.

Boudon, R. 1995. Le juste et le vrai. Etudes sur l’objectivité des valeurs et de la connaissance. Paris: Fayard.

Boudon, R. 1996. ‘The “Cognitivist Model”. A Generalized Rational-Choice Model.’

Rationality and Society 8(2): 123–50.

Brentano, L. 1908. ‘Die Entwicklung der Wertlehre.’ Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse. 3. Abhandlung.

Coleman, J.S. 1986. ‘Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action.’ American Journal of Sociology 91: 1309–35.

Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Eells, E. 1982. Rational Decision and Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elster, J. 1979. ‘Anomalies of Rationality: Some Unresolved Problems in the Theory of Rational Behaviour.’ In Sociological Economics, ed. L. Levy-Garboa, pp. 65–85. Lon-

don: Sage.

Elster, J. 1986. Introduction. In Rational Choice, ed. J. Elster, pp. 1–33. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Elster, J. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elster, J. 1993. ‘Some Unresolved Problems in the Theory of Rational Behavior.’ Acta Sociologica 36: 179–90.

Esser, H. 1990. ‘“Habits”, “Frames” und “Rational Choice”. Die Reichweite von Theorien der rationalen Wahl (am Beispiel der Erklärung des Befragtenverhaltens).’ Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19: 231–47.

Esser, H. 1993/1996. Soziologie. Allgemeine Grundlagen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

NORKUS: INTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGY AND RATIONAL CHOICE

281

Esser, H. 1996. ‘Die Definition der Situation.’ Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie

und

Sozialpsychologie 48(1): 1–34.

 

Esser, H. 1999. Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Bd. 1. Situationslogik und Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Ferejohn, J. 1991. ‘Rationality and Interpretation: Parliamentary Elections in Early Stuart England.’ In The Economic Approach to Politics. A Critical Reassessment of the Theory of Rational Action, ed. K.R. Monroe, pp. 279–305. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Goldthorpe, J.H. 1998. ’Rational Action Theory for Sociology.’ The British Journal of Sociology 49: 167–92.

Goodman, N. (1955) 1965. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merill Company.

Green, D.P. and I. Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Heckathorn, D. 1984. ‘Mathematical Theory Construction in Sociology: Analytical Power, Scope, and Descriptive Accuracy as Trade-Offs.’ Journal of Mathematical Sociology 10: 295–323.

Hicks, J. 1986. ‘Rational Behavior – Observation or Assumption?’ In Subjectivism, Intelligibility & Economic Understanding, ed. I. Kirzner I, pp. 102–10. New York: New York University Press.

Howson, C. and P. Urbach. 1989. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Kiser, E. and M. Hechter. 1998. ‘The Debate on Historical Sociology: Rational Choice and Its Critics.’ American Journal of Sociology 104: 785–816.

Lindenberg, S. 1989. ‘Choice and Culture: The Behavioral Basis of Cultural Impact on Transactions.’ In Social Structure and Culture, ed. H. Haferkamp, pp. 175–200. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

McClelland, D.C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton: D. van Nostrand Co. Morton, A. 1977/1997. A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell. Popper, K.R. 1944–45/1957. The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge.

Popper, K.R. 1961/1980. ‘Die Logik der Sozialwissenschaften.’ In Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie, eds Th. W. Adorno et al., pp. 103–24. Darmstadt, Neuwied: Luchterhand.

Popper, K.R. 1967/1985. ‘The Rationality Principle.’ In Popper Selections, ed. D. Miller, pp. 357–65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Popper, K.R. 1976/1994. ‘Models, Instruments and Truth. The Status of the Rationality Principle in the Social Sciences.’ In The Myth of the Framework. In Defence of Science and Rationality, ed. M.A. Notturno, pp. 154–84. London: Routledge.

Schelling, Th. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Schluchter, W. 1998. ‘Max Webers Beitrag zum “Grundriss der Sozialökonomik”.

Editionsprobleme und Editionsstrategien.’ Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 50: 327–43.

Schütz, A. 1953/1962. ‘Common Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.’ In

Collected Papers, vol. 1. The Problem of Social Reality, ed. A. Schütz, pp. 3–47. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schwinn, T. 1993. ‘Max Webers Konzeption des Mikro–Makro-Problems.’ Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45: 220–37.

Sunstein, C.R. and E. Ullmann-Margalit. 1999. ‘Second-Order Decisions.’ Ethics 110: 5– 31.

282

RATIONALITY AND SOCIETY 12(3)

Swedberg, R. 1996. ‘Analyzing the Economy: On the Contribution of James S. Coleman.’ In James S. Coleman, ed. J. Clark. London: Falmer Press.

Taylor, M. 1989. ‘Structure, Culture and Action in the Explanation of Social Change.’ Politics and Society 17: 115–62.

Udehn, L. 1987. Methodological Individualism. A Critical Appraisal, PhD thesis. Uppsala, Uppsala University.

Weber, M. 1903–6/1975. Roscher and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics. Translated with an introduction by Guy Oakes. New York: The Free Press.

Weber, M. 1908/1968. ‘Die Grenznutzlehre und das “psychophysische Grundgesetz”.’ In

Gesammelte Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre , ed. J.Winckelmann, pp. 384–99. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Weber, M. 1913/1968. ‘Über einige Kategorien der verstehenden Soziologie.’ In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre , ed. J. Winckelmann, pp. 427–74. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Weber, M. 1919/1948. ’Politics as a Vocation.’ In From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology, eds. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, pp. 77–128. London: Routledge.

Weber, M. 1922/1968. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vols 1– 3, eds G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press.

Weber, M. 1923/1961. General Economic History. Transl. F.H. Knight. New York: Collier. Weede, E. 1996. Economic Development, Social Order and World Politics. Colorado:

Lynne Rienner Publishers.

ZENONAS NORKUS is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Social Theory at the Vilnius University (Lithuania). He graduated from the University of Saint Petersburg (formerly USSR), where he defended his PhD thesis on Edmund Husserl’s philosophy of logic. He was Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mannheim University and Fellow at Wissenschaftskolleg Berlin. His academic interests are the history of philosophy, history and philosophy of social science, and metatheory of historical studies. He has published articles (mainly in Lithuanian, German, and Russian) on German and Austrian intellectual history (the works of Edmund Husserl, Franz Brentano, Alexius Meinong, Johann G. Droysen, and Max Weber; German historism; Austrian theories of value), social theory (positivism and postpositivism in social theory, the concept of power), and theory of action (heuristics of suspicion; the ‘thin’ and the ‘thick’ concepts of rationality). His books include Study of History (Historik, in Lithuanian, 1996); Max Weber and Rational Choice (forthcoming, in German).

ADDRESS: Department of Philosophy, Philosophy Faculty, Vilnius University, Didlaukio 47, Vilnius LT-2057, Lithuania [email: zenonas.norkus@fsf.vu.lt].

Тут вы можете оставить комментарий к выбранному абзацу или сообщить об ошибке.

Оставленные комментарии видны всем.