Return-Path: sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 11 Aug 93 05:49:05 -0700 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odq -oi -fsocgrad-relay socgrad-list Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 08:06:34 EST From: Steve Harvey To: socgrad@ucsd.edu A side note: Linda sez: "one of the problems with 'traditional' sociology (esp- ecially that rational choice perspective) is that people do not always think and act in a logical fashion." 1) RC can hardly be called "traditional" sociol- ogy, since the latter arose with a decidedly collectivist orientation (e.g., Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons...) and the former is based on methodological individualism. RC is a reintegration of economic reasoning (purposive actors) and sociological reasoning (collective behavior), in response to the function- alism permeating most of sociology (including most Marxist analyses) (see Elst- er, Coleman). 2) RC does not assume that people think and act in a logical fashion. Most (though not all) strands of RC assume that people act AS IF they were logically thinking things out, because they rely on socially learned heur- istics which have developed over time as a repertoire of tools with which to deal with life's contingencies. Even emotional outbursts can be (and have been -see Robert Frank _Passions within Reason_, and articles by Jack Hirschleifer. Even Randall Collins dabbled in one rational choice analysis of emotions) mod- eled AS IF they were rational choices, because emotions serve as commitment mechanisms for collective action in the absence (or in support) of institution- al mechanisms. Anger, for instance, is a way of promising a sanction for uncoo- perative behavior. 3) As an individual who has followed a trajectory through Marxist political economy, critical theory, and postmodernism into a basically game-theoretic orientation; and as someone who reads broadly in other disciplin es; my main point, for what it's worth, is not that RC is the pinnacle of human thought, but rather that we, as sociologists, have not been so impressively successful in developing a coherent analysis of social phenomena that any of us has a right to be smug. Furthermore, while critical analysis is a valuable tool, one of the greatest follies we engage in is to dismiss whole forms of an- alysis with a casual back-flip of the hand. There are many subtle ideas that come from many different starting points. Few of us are so brilliant that our casual critiques are truly well-conceived or well-informed. We would all bene- fit from a little more humility, and from a willingness to explore ideas that at first glance seem counterintuitive or go against our ideological commit- ments. Well, that's my two-cents! Now, I'll just slip back into my silent monitor- ing of the list.... -steve. harvey@uconnvm