Sociological Rational Choice
· WHAT IS RATIONAL CHOICE?
· CONTINUITIES BETWEEN RATIONAL CHOICE AND TRADITIONAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
· WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT RATIONAL CHOICE ANALYSIS?
· CONCLUSION
· ENTRY CITATION
Figure 21.1 Social dilemma games. The number on the left in each cell is Row's payoff, the number on the right is Column's payoff. Each player has a choice between cooperation (C) and defection (D). Four outcomes are possible in each. These are generally designated Reward (universal cooperation), Sucker (unilateral cooperation), Temptation (unilateral defection), and Punishment (universal defection)
2 more images
Many discussions of contemporary sociological theory are infused with a sense of disenchantment (Alexander, 1998). The expectation that theoretic development would prove cumulative is now seen by many theorists as a mirage. The field grows increasingly theoretically fragmented. Luminaries in one sub-field are frequently unaware of their contemporaries in other sub-fields. Theoretic fragmentation and micro-specialization divide the field into ever smaller and more isolated islands. These developments in sociology mirror larger intellectual trends. For example, a symposium of historians studying different facets of the French Revolution concluded that they had nothing to learn from one another.
Intellectual fragmentation due to micro-specialization is compounded by an additional fault line. Writing in the 1950s, C.P. Snow described the emergence of two cultures, science and humanities, which had become so divergent in language and world-view that they had lost even the ability to communicate with one another. This division corresponds to a major fault line in sociology. As Alexander (1998: 26) notes, the field is being pulled in opposite directions, between those who view sociology as a literary and humanistic enterprise, versus those who view it as a science. Thus multiple centripetal forces would appear to make the prospect for unified theory ever more remote.
The emergence of rational choice is a stunning exception to this trend toward ever-increasing fragmentation. Rational choice has always dominated economics, but economists are using this perspective to analyse subjects beyond their discipline's traditional domain, including the family (Becker, 1981), revolution (Kuran, 1995), and emotions (Frank, 1988). During the last two decades, rational choice has emerged as the dominant perspective within political science, and it is now entering areas of the discipline, such as area studies, that had initially resisted it (Johnson and Keehn, 1994). Rational choice remains the foundation for most experimental social psychology, and recent work focuses on developing theories that are relevant at the macro-social level (Lawler et al., 1993). The growth of rational choice sociology is reflected in institutional developments such as the founding of the journal Rationality and Society in 1989 and the formation of a rational choice section in the American Sociological Association in 1994. Rational choice is also a force in anthropology (e.g., see Hopcroft, 1999), though it is so closely related to rational choice sociology that the two will be treated together. Because of its role in providing theoretic integration across the social science disciplines, rational choice has been described as the interlingua of the social sciences.
In addition to providing theoretic cohesion in the social sciences, rational choice also extends into the humanities, providing the basis for much current work in the philosophies of ethnics and law (Frey and Morris, 1994). Therefore, it bridges C.P. Snow's two cultures, providing integration across the boundary separating the humanities and the sciences.
Дата добавления: 2015-09-11; просмотров: 99 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |