Sun, 9 Oct 1994 08:08:52 -0700 for <SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU>
Date:         Sun, 09 Oct 94 10:29:38 EDT
From: Steve Harvey <HARVEY@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>
Subject:      over and under socialized concept of actors
To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU
I think Michael is confusing the pejorative "rational choice theory" with the
actual breadth of conceptualizations which the term sometimes incorporates. It
refers first and foremost to microeconomic reasoning, which is synonymous with
the "undersocialized" concept of the human actor. However, microeconomic
reasoning can be employed anytime you have a concept of purposive actors, so
any concept of the actor that falls on the continuum between "role-taking
automoton" and "unsocialized rational calculator" that does not fall firmly on
the "role-taking automoton" extreme can employ elements of rational choice
theory. It is not a monolithic body of thought, but rather a conceptual
methodology. Many of the popular critiques of RTC (and other theories about
which the critics, naturally enough, have more limited knowledge than the
adherents) do not recognize the many subtle ways in which elements of RTC are
sometimes used. Nor do they recognize the fact that all sociologists who
posit actors other than role-taking automotons (a thoroughly discredited
conceptualization at this point) are implicitly, to some extent, rational
choice theorists. All they're missing is access to the more precise tools that
the formal body of RTC offers.

For instance, there are large bodies of literature in RTC which *agree with*
and build upon the following assertions: 1) humans are not rational actors, but
rather use socially learned heuristics in coping with their lives, 2) humans do
not always act in their own self-interest, but often have altruistic motives
for their actions, 3) humans do not always act rationally, but often act in
self-destructive or emotionally volatile ways. None of these statements deprive
the tools of RCT of their analytic power, and, in fact, all are tractible
through the use of those tools.

The basic misunderstanding is that people confuse RCT the conceptual methodolo-
gy with RCT the narrow conclusion about human motivations and behavior. I know
of very few rational choice theorists (or economists, for that matter) who
accept the latter, but many recognize that the value of the former is not, in
fact, dependent on the validity of the latter. Such is the nature of
abstraction. There need not be any real circles in the universe for the
conceptual construct of the circle to be useful. Evolutionary biologists, for
instance, use game theory, a form of RCT, when studying the evolution of
organisms ranging from protozoa to banana slugs, organisms clearly not sitting
around calculating their best strategies for survival.

The reason why Alan rightly associated the current debate concerning under-
and over-socialized concepts of actors with an implicit debate between parsons
and RCT is because they represent the poles in the debate. The methods of RCT,
while applicable to a partially socialized actor (e.g., both socialized and
creative), represents in its pure form the undersocialized pole. Its methods
are derived from the assumption of purposive action rather than programmed
action. However, as exemplified above, even some forms of programmed action are
amenable to an RCT analysis, if there is some process which periodically amends
the programming in response to environmental feedback (e.g., evolution).

Most surviving theories and methodologies in the social sciences have a greater
degree of sophistication than is recognized in the patented critiques. In this,
we are precisely like that which we study, repeating and preserving socially
transmitted boundary-maintaining ideologies ("they're all wrong; we're all
right") rather than recognizing the subtlety of the present best uses of
present theories, and seeking to gain from them rather than discard them out of
hand, to synthesize as well as sift, and to have a little bit of respect for
the intelligence of those who utilize theories other than the ones we choose to
utilize at any given moment.

Steve Harvey
harvey@uconnvm.uconn.edu