Wed, 12 Oct 1994 05:20:37 -0700 for <SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 94 08:05:26 EDT
From: Steve Harvey <HARVEY@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>
Subject:      RCT
To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU
Bob-

I definately agree that "homo oeconomicus" is an oversimplified model of
human action, but the applicability of the model goes beyond those arenas
in which human action approximates it. As I pointed out in a previous post,
evolutionary biologists can use game theory as a tool for studying
ecological competition, though none of the species involve are "rational
actors". As a person interested in general theory, and synthesizing
available theories into more powerful ones, I maintain that RCT is a
valuable component in that enterprise. For my purposes, I don't "switch"
from paradigm to paradigm to address disparate issues; rather, I try to
find some model which can underwrite an exploration of all issues which
interest me. That is how theory is driven. RCT isn't the only thread I
include: I also use various "sociologies of knowledge" (as we've discussed,
how preferences are formed is a key question), and find, for instance,
Foucault to be especially "compatible" with game theory. The point is, I'm
driven toward grand synthesis. That's just where I get my thrills. So, yes,
at present there are certainly questions which can be addressed more
effectively with theories other than RCT, or some variant thereof. But I
tend to look for how those two approaches "fit together", rather than just
cut and paste. To put it another way, I don't think sociology is a very
powerful science at present, but that it has the potential of becoming a
powerful science in the future. I'm less interested in using sociology to
come up with the best possible answers to current questions as in developing
sociology into a more powerful lens in general, which I believe involves
theory building (in a coherent, rather than dispersed way).

-steve