Explanation Of Social Phenomena Research Articles

A Social Constructionist Critique of Genetic Determinism

ABSTRACTRecently genetic determinist claims have reappeared in the explanation of human psychology and to some extent they even made their way into explanations of social phenomena. In this article, I will provide a critical analysis of the genetic determinist discourse from a social constructionist perspective. First, I will examine the meaning of genetic determinism. Then I will shortly introduce the social constructionist perspective generally and it's relevance for analyzing scientific discourses. Next, I will examine the debates about genetic determinism in behavior genetics and sociogenomics and interpret these critically from a social constructionist and deconstructionist perspective. Finally, I will provide an analysis of the main social, ideological, cultural and economic factors that influence the development of genetic determinist ideas: modernity, the legitimation of social hierarchies, neoliberalism and business interests. My conclusion is that the social constructionist perspective is important in the analysis and critique of the genetic determinist discourse.

A Framework of Social Ontology

The research sets out an organizing framework for the field of social ontology, the study of the of the nature of the social world. Social ontology is also gaining prominence in traditional philosophical discussions. The subject matter of social ontology is clarified, in particular the difference between it and the study of causal relations and the explanation of social phenomena. For any social fact, there are two distinct ontological questions: what is the ground for that fact, why is that fact grounded just the way. Two different inquires are defined and explained: the study of how social categories are “anchored” or “grounded”. The distinction between these inquires is used to clarify prominent programs in social theory, particularly theories of practice and varieties of ontological individualism. Anchoring and grounding are two fundamental aspect to the building of the social world, Correspondingly, social ontology consists of two distinct project - “project of grounding” and “project of anchoring’.

The creation of phenomena in interactive biorobotics

In so-called interactive biorobotics, robotic models of living systems interact with animals in controlled experimental settings. By observing how the focal animal reacts to the stimuli delivered by the robot, one tests hypotheses concerning the determinants of animal behaviour in social contexts. Building on previous methodological reconstructions of interactive biorobotics, this article reflects on the claim, made by several authors in the field, that this strategy may enable one to explain social phenomena in animals. The answer offered here will be negative: interactive biorobotics does not contribute to the explanation of social phenomena. However, it may greatly contribute to the study of animal behaviour by creating social phenomena in the sense discussed by Ian Hacking, i.e. by precisely defining new phenomena to be explained. It will be also suggested that interactive biorobotics can be combined with more classical robot-based approaches to the study of living systems, leading to a so-called simulation-interactive strategy for the mechanistic explanation of social behaviour in animals.

Hayek’s twin ideas: reconciling methodological individualism and group selection

Abstract Hayek repeatedly refers to ‘the twin ideas of evolution and spontaneous order’. Yet, critics argue that Hayek’s theory of cultural group selection is inconsistent with his theory of spontaneous order. To assess these criticisms, this paper situates Hayek’s social theory in the contemporary discussion surrounding multilevel selection. Hayek’s theory posits two main levels—rules and order—that exhibit upward and downward causation. An examination of Hayek’s theory of cultural group selection and his account of methodological individualism reveals that neither one can provide a fully adequate explanation of social phenomena. Neither individualistic nor group-selectionist analyses allow the theorist to fully account for social order, but taken together they provide a more complete explanation. Far from being substitutes, therefore, both types of analysis are complementary aspects of Hayek’s social theory. Understanding Hayek’s theory in this way allows us to glimpse how he might weigh in on contemporary debates surrounding multilevel selection in human societies.

The Regional Nudger: Wie Erkenntnisse der Verhaltensökonomie die Regionalpolitik und die politische Praxis auf Länderebene verbessern können

Abstract In many cases, behavioral economics has been advancing public policy. This is usually being done in one of two ways: First, behavioral sciences offer explanations for social phenomena that may not be explained by traditional economic analysis (diagnostic function). Second, they extend the decision maker’s “political toolbox” (therapeutic function). This potential has not yet been fully exploited for regional policy and politics. Thus, in the second part of this paper we outline specific suggestions how behaviorally informed regional policy might look like and how regional politics can benefit from the so-called “behavioral turn”. The two critical premises are open-mindedness and courage.

Relational Mechanisms

Abstract This article challenges the view that sociological explanation is based on methodological individualism and suggests using relational concepts for constructing explanations of social phenomena. It develops a relational concept of social mechanisms based on sociological systems theory and illustrates its explanatory power by drawing on research on changes in educational organizations in Germany.

Analytical sociology and computational social science

Analytical sociology focuses on social interactions among individuals and the hard-to-predict aggregate outcomes they bring about. It seeks to identify generalizable mechanisms giving rise to emergent properties of social systems which, in turn, feed back on individual decision-making. This research program benefits from computational tools such as agent-based simulations, machine learning, and large-scale web experiments, and has considerable overlap with the nascent field of computational social science. By providing relevant analytical tools to rigorously address sociology’s core questions, computational social science has the potential to advance sociology in a similar way that the introduction of econometrics advanced economics during the last half century. Computational social scientists from computer science and physics often see as their main task to establish empirical regularities which they view as “social laws.” From the perspective of the social sciences, references to social laws appear unfounded and misplaced, however, and in this article we outline how analytical sociology, with its theory-grounded approach to computational social science, can help to move the field forward from mere descriptions and predictions to the explanation of social phenomena.

Mark bevirʼs a theory of governance from the vantage of political philosophy

This paper offers a critical commentary on Mark Bevirʼs recent book A Theory of Governance from the perspective of normative political philosophy. It explores three ways in which Bevirʼs analysis can be brought into dialogue with political philosophy. First, it considers the role of generalizations in successful explanations of social phenomena. Second, it explores how a decentred theory of governance can help identify solutions to important social problems. Third, it explores the relation between Bevirʼs account of governance and theories of deliberative democracy.

A Framework for Social Ontology

This paper sets out an organizing framework for the field of social ontology, the study of the nature of the social world. The subject matter of social ontology is clarified, in particular the difference between it and the study of causal relations and the explanation of social phenomena. Two different inquiries are defined and explained: the study of the grounding of social facts, and the study of how social categories are “anchored” or set up. The distinction between these inquiries is used to clarify prominent programs in social theory, particularly theories of practice and varieties of individualism.

Explanation of Social Phenomena by Mathematical Models

Explanation of Social Phenomena by Mathematical Models

Rational choice theory and explanation of social phenomena

Rational choice theory and explanation of social phenomena

Book review: Global Inequality as a Consequence of Human Diversity: A New Theory Tested by Empirical Evidence

Global Inequality as a Consequence of Human Diversity: A New Theory Tested by Empirical Evidence Tatu Vanhanen Ulster Institute for Social Research 2014, 171 pages.Why are some nations so much wealthier than others? And why has the difference between the wealth of nations continued to grow until recently despite international aid and other attempts to redistribute wealth? The standard answer among social scientists is that the difference is a result of the exploitation of poorer countries by richer countries or a lack of particular kinds of natural resources, or particular kinds of history or culture, in poorer countries.This book's thesis is as bold as it is controversial: As with any animal, humans evolved into sub-species which vary in intelligence due to differing environmental selection pressures for this characteristic. Even within these sub-species there is genetic variance in intelligence. Intelligence strongly correlates with numerous measures of individual and national success and especially those that measure standard of living. As such, there will always be 'inequality.' It is a biological fact of human existence.In Global Inequality, Vanhanen examines the relationship of six measures of national living standard - GNI per capita, tertiary education, infant mortality, life expectancy, sanitation, and democratization - with average IQ in 178 countries. His conclusion is that around 75% of global variation between nations in these measures is explained by national differences in average intelligence. In discussing his results, Vanhanen looks at each of the nations whose relationship is an outlier on each measure and explains why this is the case. He also defends Richard Lynn's national IQs from the often unreasonable and tendentious criticisms that have been leveled against them.Quite apart from its carefully-argued thesis, Global Inequality has a number of points to recommend it. Often, books written by scientists who propose biological and more specifically genetic theories as explanations for social phenomena tend to summarily dismiss or even ignore the environmentallydeterminist theories which are, often for ideological reasons, advocated by scholars in the social sciences and humanities. This permits humanities scholars to argue that the scientist is 'reductionist' or not familiar with the relevant literature, allowing them to dismiss his scientific work with their own theories. In this regard, Vanhanen's patience is extremely useful. He spends considerable time looking at every significant environmentally-determinist explanation for global inequality, showing that they are question-begging, partial explanations, or do not accord with the available evidence.In fact, in that the book is relatively short, I would have liked to have seen it go much further in this regard; defending the utility of the concept of intelligence and even philosophically or morally justifying studying population differences at all. These avenues tend to be those down which ideologically-driven scholars turn in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence which proves that they are wrong. They may also attempt to argue that concepts such as 'intelligence' or even the desire to have wealth or education are 'very Western.' Accordingly, it would be useful to note the obvious problem with this argument: People everywhere value these things or proxies for them such as access to resources, wisdom or common sense. …

Surveys, Experiments, and the Landscape of International Political Economy

The contributions to this issue show that surveys and experiments offer exciting new tools for doing empirical research in international political economy (IPE). This essay cautions that the utility of these tools is not self-evident: Neither appeals to microfoundations nor to methodological individualism in constructing explanations for social phenomena themselves recommend an embrace of surveys or experiments. The field of IPE should worry that the focus on surveys and experiments will constrain not just methodological choice but also theoretical breadth, limiting the field’s ability to conceive of what theories are admissible in learning about the global political economy.

Maslahah and its Potential Role in Formation of an Islamic Perspective on Sociology

This study analyses Islamic an Western world views briefly in a comparative perspective and attempts to analyse their influence and effect in the explanation of social phenomenon. It also delineates the two major problems of modern sociology, mainly, lack of universality and lack of applicability to the elemental mistake in the data of human behaviour and its western value orientation. Using both comparative and analytical methods, the researcher make his case for the necessity of drawing an Islamic perspective on sociology, through the application of juristic principle of maslahah from three aspects, from the aspect of provision of material source, introduction of universal values and the endowing of purpose to corpus of sociological knowledge.

Micro-Macro Links and Microfoundations in Sociology

Using Coleman's well-known scheme as an anchor, we review key features of explanations of social phenomena that employ micro-macro models. Some antecedents of micro-macro models and of Coleman's scheme as well as some paradigmatic examples of micro-macro links are sketched. We then discuss micro-level assumptions in micro-macro explanations and the robustness of macro-level implications to variations in micro-level assumptions. We conclude with an overview of some recent developments in micro-macro modeling and of the contributions to the special issue.

Jurisprudence Between Science and the Humanities

For a long time philosophy has been unique among the humanities for seeking closer alliance with the sciences. In this essay I examine the place of science in the context of jurisprudential debates, in particular in the context of the idea known as legal positivism. I argue that historically legal positivism has been advanced by theorists who were also positivists in the sense the term is used in the philosophy of social science, i.e. they were committed to the idea that the explanation of social phenomena should be conducted using similar methods to those used in the natural sciences. I then argue that around the 1960’s jurisprudence and in particular legal positivism have undergone change towards anti-positivism. Central to this trend was the idea that proper jurisprudential inquiry must be conducted from the “internal point of view.” What this view amounted to was an attempt combine a scientific-like aim of neutral description with a humanistic method of inquiry. It thus did not entirely abandon its links with scientific inquiry, but has radically changed their nature. I show that this stance had a negative impact of narrowing down the range of issues discussed and of the kind of method considered appropriate for discussing these questions, I then argue that to counter current these isolationist trends jurisprudence would benefit from reorientation of its midway position between science and the humanities in the opposite direction: its aims should be those traditionally associated with the humanities but its methodology should be much closer to that of the sciences.

Capital theory and rational choice

Almost from the very beginning of economic science the notion of capital has been the subject of numerous controversies. The main reason for the concept's controversial nature is that it explains interest and profit. In Marxian theory, where 'manner of production' determines forms of activities, mutual relationships and life of individuals, capital appears as a social phenomenon i.e. social relation. Goods and money are not capital by themselves but become capital in the capitalist way of production. Economics mainstream is based on methodological individualism upon which explanation of social phenomena and processes must be derived from individual behavior and motivation. Capital, therefore, is not a product of capitalism as a socially and historically specific form of economic organization, but is rather perceived as connected to the individual and his or her rational behavior. Rational choice is the basic and sometimes the only explanatory factor in the neoclassic theories of capital. Although theories of human and cultural capital point out the interdependence between individual activity and choice on the one hand, and social position on the other hand in the process of capitalization, the connection remains in the background and somehow unclear. A more explicit indication of the interdependence between social structure and choice can be found in the theory of social capital. The goal of this paper is to explore the role of rational choice theory in explaining the nature of capital.

How do Non-Linear Relations of Social Macro-Variables Arise from Aggregation of Individual Decisions?

ABSTRACT There are three different reasons why non-linear functions between social macro-variables (aggregates) may arise. They can be related to three basic steps of a specific model of explanation of social phenomena, defined by Coleman: the logic of situation, the logic of selection and the logic of transition. Starting with a model of one linear difference equation, a change to three different non-linear system equations can generate stable cycles, bifurcations, and chaos. These non-linear system equations can be deduced from simple assumptions about individual or institutional social attributes. It is shown that a) non-linear individual reactions, b) different selection rules for actors having different social attributes and c) institutional constraints resulting in different transition processes are possible causes for non-linearity at the system level. Furthermore it is demonstrated that the assumption of non-linear but homogeneous reactions of all persons have a similar effect on non-linearity, like it is the case for different selection rules. However, despite of being able to show mathematically the possibility of chaos, it has to be said that chaos as a durable state of social systems is very improbable.

The medical text: between biomedicine and hegemony

The unequal distribution of power in contemporary society is reflected and reproduced in medical ideology. The present article analyses some articles from Israeli medical journals in order to show the ways in which biomedicine—the dominant medical ideology—is reinforced through hegemonic discourse. The central ways by which this is achieved are medicalization—which includes the desocialization of disease and the explanation of social phenomena in medical terms—and the affirmation by the Israeli medical literature of national, ethnic, class and gender relationships of domination. Analysis of the Israeli example provides useful insights about biomedicine's desocializing role, as the disregard for the social dimension of disease is particularly telling in a society characterized by several cleavages which determine a clearly unequal distribution of power and resources.

Commentary on Sober and Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior

Anybody interested in evolutionary explanations of social phenomena (and every philosopher should be) will learn a lot from Unto Others. In addition to its cornucopia of fascinating empirical findings from biology and psychology, it is chock full of arresting perspectives, ingenious thought experiments, and clear expositions of difficult-indeed, treacherous-concepts that should be in every philosopher's kit. What philosophers will not learn, however, is the status of group selection in current evolutionary theory, because while Sober and Wilson (hereafter SW hardly a year goes by without somebody declaring that something they have discovered is, actually, a genuine instance of Lamarckianism. There is usually a grain of truth, or more, in these dramatic claims. Prions really do constitute a major exception to Crick's Central Dogma about the direction of information flow between DNA and proteins Have Sober and Wilson salvaged a sophisticated and sound perspective for group selection from the rhetorical overkill of the selfish-gene's-eye gang, or have they merely reinvented (or just relabeled) Hamilton's and Maynard Smith's alternative to group selection models, models that can do justice to all the observed and even imagined phenomena of cooperation in the biosphere? One of the main lessons I have learned in thinking about the