This chapter takes the form of a discussion between the editors of this volume and Steven Lukes, one the most eminent critics of methodological individualism. The focus is on Lukes’ interpretation of methodological individualism in terms of linguistic exclusivism (i.e., naive reductionism), the multiple-realization problem, Boudon’s and Elster’s micro-foundationalist approach, ontological individualism, and the rationality of human action.

This chapter takes the form of a discussion between the editors of this volume and Joseph Agassi, regarding the relationship between methodological individualism and institutional individualism. The focus is on Agassi’s interpretation of traditional methodological individualism in terms of psychologism; the role of institutions and structural factors in social explanation; Popper’s theory of World 3; the application of Weber’s interpretative approach—Verstehen—to typical ways of thinking and acting; and the Austrian School of economics.

This chapter takes the form of a discussion between the editors of this volume and Daniel Little regarding the relationship between methodological individualism and methodological localism. The focus is on Little’s view that methodological individualism is incompatible with the assumption that actors are socially constituted and socially situated as well as on other topics such as micro-foundations, the micro–macro link, ontological individualism, causal explanation, rationality, Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, and Durkheim.

This study reflects on Harold Kincaid and Jule Zahle’s view that there is no necessary association between methodological individualism and agent-based models because the analysis of social phenomena in terms of the latter cannot always be regarded as an implementation of the former. Their view remains in contention with the standpoint of several philosophers of science and social scientists, including Chen and Di Iorio. Kincaid and Zahle’s main argument against such a standpoint is that agent-based simulation is compatible with holistic (...) explanations that are at odds with methodological individualism. The following study argues that Kincaid and Zahle’s conclusion remains untenable since it stems from inaccurate historical assumptions concerning the tradition of methodological individualism and the way the individualism-holism debate is understood within this tradition. (shrink)

This chapter analyzes the relationship between methodological individualism (MI) and reductionism. While the latter term is mainly used in reference to MI with a negative meaning, i.e. as a synonym of a naively atomistic and non-structural approach, it is also, though rarely, used to couch MI in terms of a non-atomistic micro-foundationalism that is compatible with systemic explanations (e.g. Elster). This chapter investigates the legitimacy of the pejorative use of the term reductionism with respect to MI. Three points are developed. (...) First, the chapter argues that two different kinds of interpretation of MI in terms of naively atomistic reductionism can be distinguished: one in terms of psychological reductionism and the other in terms of semantic reductionism, the latter of which has a nominalist and an anti-nominalist variant. Second, the chapter explains why the different interpretations of MI in terms of naively atomistic reductionism are unfounded. Third, the chapter analyzes and criticizes the view that MI must be replaced by a new anti-reductionist approach understood as a middle ground between holism and MI. (shrink)