The current expression of “flatten the curve” has similarities with mid-twentieth century macro-economic policy that can aptly be characterized as “shaping macro phenomena.” To the extent these similarities hold, the historical-epistemological analysis of this kind of macro-economic policy can provides us with a better understanding of the preconditions for the effectiveness of the current COVID-19 flatten-the-curve policy. Policy in terms of shaping a phenomenon presumes that the phenomenon in question exists and has a certain shape that can be moulded. This (...) moulding, however, is not assumed to be performed directly on the shape itself, but by operating the mechanism that generates this shape, and which is also believed to exist. Therefore the precondition for this kind of policy is knowing the mechanism at work. The knowledge of this kind of intervention needed to change the shape in a desired direction, this knowledge about the mechanism, is assumed to be captured by a mathematical model on which several policies can be tried out to see which one leads to the desired shape. Mid-twentieth century macro-economic policy aimed at shaping the business cycle, and hence was based on the belief in the existence of a business cycle mechanism. With the loss of the belief in the existence of such a mechanism, the policy of shaping the business cycle disappeared with that too. This paper unpacks this history and shows how this policy based on mechanical reasoning, which originated in natural science, was gradually replaced by an approach that takes into account non-natural aspects of human behaviour. (shrink)

Last paragraphe: Finally, we need to take on board the strange and disturbing fact that the modern destruction of environments has occurred not as if nature counted for nothing but, on the contrary, has occurred in a world of longstanding climatic theories that have earmarked environmental objects as the very things that produce humankind. Modern man, oblivious of the impact of his actions and blinded by his faith in progress and polarized vision of the world? Our postmodernity also has its (...) own mythologies. (shrink)

Research on economization processes is increasingly taking seriously the social and material processes through which various policy domains are transformed into economic problems and solutions. This article engages “Value Added Modeling” (VAM) in teacher evaluation systems as a case study in economization. VAM is a statistical technology for evaluating the effectiveness of schoolteachers using student test scores, which wrests authority for the determination of quality teaching away from education professionals and toward quantitative economic modelers. Mobilizing field theory, we trace a (...) half century of changing relationships among economists, other academics, and various policy audiences (from media to philanthropists to state and federal government) in struggles to define education policy concerning teacher quality. We show that economization is a set of overlapping, sometimes contradictory processes that can take different forms: in this case, the spread of an “economic style of reasoning” or the establishment of “economic policy devices.” The case of VAM shows stages of economization in which processes first proceeded independently of one another, then interacted in contradictory ways, and finally, mutually reinforced one another. What primarily drove these interactions was the struggle for scientific capital within the economics discipline and the changing place of education policy and VAM within it. Ultimately, VAM’s original role as a policy device for evaluating and selecting individual teachers has foundered even as it has become an important tool for economists to accrue scientific capital and expand their style of reasoning to broader audiences. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that recent sociological theory has become increasingly bifurcated into two mutually incompatible styles of theorizing that I label formalist and behavioral-realist. Formalism favors mathematization and proposes an instrumentalist ontology of abstract processes while behavioral-realist theory takes at its basis the "real" physical individual endowed with concrete biological, cognitive and neurophysiological capacities and constraints and attempts to derive the proper conceptualization of social behavior from that basis. Formalism tends to lead toward a conceptually independent sociology that (...) in principle requires only minimal reference to the empirical and ontological storehouse of other disciplines, while behavioral-realist theory leads to an interdisciplinary sociology that can be located within a hierarchy of behavioral sciences, leading to questions regarding the relationship between sociology and other disciplines as well as issues of transdisciplinary unification and possible interdisciplinary reduction. I explore the consequences of this split for the project of explanatory sociological theory within the context of how it has manifested itself in sociological network theory and social psychology. I close with a critique and assessment of formalist tendencies in sociological theorizing. (shrink)