Pierre Demeulenaere

Individualism and Holism: New Controversies in the Philosophy of Social Science

The concept of holism is of great use in philosophy of science. But its meaning does not correspond to the traditional use of holism in social sciences. The aim of the paper is to criticize an attempt to link the two meanings. Such a confusion derives from a misunderstanding of methodological individualism which is erroneously considered to be an atomism. Since the concepts of holism can be related to many different meanings, and since there are many different models of action (including different models of rationality) behind the concept of methodological individualism, the debate should be cautious of all those differences. The papers gives a brief survey of these and discusses specific theses expressed by Vincent Descombes to support holism in social sciences.

Methodological Individualism: Philosophical Aspects

This article is a revision of the previous article by G. Currie, volume 5, pp. 9755–9760,

Interests in Sociological Analysis

A sociological study of interests involves a definition of the concept of interests, since they can be said to vary socially. It is also concerned with the relation between interests (notably economic ones) and other human ends, for instance the values that lie behind any social order. Therefore, it implies a methodological debate about human agency: should it be considered as intrinsically selfish or unselfish, and how does one interpret any behavior that departs from the pursuit of selfish interests? This methodological debate is related to an appreciation of the different kinds of rationality that can be associated with human behavior. This article will describe mainly the way classical sociology has conceptualized the issue of interests, and the contemporary developments of those classical positions.

Conformity: Sociological Aspects

Conformity is a central feature of social life. There are three main approaches to conformity in the social sciences. One stresses the role of psychological motives that lead to similar behavior. The second insists on the existence of a social level that would exert pressure on individuals. And the third describes the role of reasons and justifications, in various situations, in order to interpret conformist attitudes. The article will explore the ways those various approaches interpret social conformity. It will do so however by distinguishing three main fields where social conformity arises: first factual beliefs; second, the moral, political, and religious rules and norms which strongly encourage or forbid certain attitudes; third, lifestyle or cultural attitudes, including food, language, aesthetics. The articles main point stresses that the very formal notion of conformity disguises various problems when the specific fields of action are taken into account.