From Schutz to Goffman: The Search for Social Order (original) (raw)
Related papers
Intersubjectivity, Subjectivism, Social Sciences, and the Austrian School of Economics
This article is an attempt to demonstrate that the subjectivism of the Austrian School of Economics could be based on Husserl's intersubjectivity theory. At the same time, this could be a realistic view of the "hermeneutic turn" already done by some of the younger members of the Austrian School. The theoretical foundations of this realistic phenomenology are based on Aquinas' thought on human action, Husserl's intersubjectivity, Schutz's analysis of the lifeworld (lebenswelt), and Gadamer's horizons theory. This research program has consequences for Mises's praxeology, Hayek's spontaneous order, and Kirzner's middle ground in economics. Finally, certain consequences for contemporary epistemology of economics are briefly taken into account.
Alfred Schutz’s main contributions to the field of economic reflection
For several decades, contemporary social theory has held a considerable misunderstanding around phenomenologically oriented sociology, which has undermined its heuristic potential and, as a consequence, has pushed its conclusions to a marginal place in current discussions. In contrast, our article aims to recover that hermeneutical framework in order to think economic phenomena such as the economic action and the order of the market processes. It is undeniable that Alfred Schutz's work provides theoretical and methodological elements for the sociological analysis of the economic world. The linkages between Schutzian sociology and economic reflection vary widely, ranging from his formative stage within the context of the Mises Circle to the current recovery of his work by Economic Sociology. Within this framework, the aim of this work is to summarize Schutz's main contributions to the field of economic reflection. The recovery and systematization of the Schutzian vocabulary -in the interface between sociology and economics- can contribute with new elements not only to think from a theoretical point of view but also to address economic phenomena empirically.
The Review of Austrian Economics, 2008
is based upon Sugden's analysis of Smith's fellowfeeling and Gui's relational goods, which together provide a shared theoretical understanding of interpersonal relations that yields a coherent book consistent with the spontaneous order tradition, which includes David Hume, Adam Ferguson, Carl Menger, Friedrich von Hayek, and Robert Sugden, although that link is not explored. In particular, Robert Sugden's rediscovery of Adam Smith's concept of fellow-feeling provides a common denominator of the book, which definitely is of interest to Austrian economists, as it certainly sheds light on the emergence of morality of markets. However, some comparison with contributions of Austrian economics on that issue would have been appropriate. After all, Hayek (1973 [1982]) considers the spontaneous order to be what Adam Smith called 'the Great Society' and Karl Popper called 'the Open Society'. Whereas Benedetto Gui stresses relational goods, Robert Sugden uses Adam Smith's concept of fellow-feeling to stress that interpersonal relations nurture norms of cooperation. Nicholas Bardsley studies voluntary contributions of public goods, whereas Vittorio Pelligra uses game theory to analyze trustful and trustworthy behaviors, proposing trust responsiveness as 'relational' explanatory principle. Carlo Borzaga and Sara Depedri assess how Italian workers value relational goods they 'consume' on the job, whereas Angelo Antoci, Pier Luigi Sacco, and Paolo Vanin show in a dynamic model that the satisfaction of citizens depends on the accumulation of both ordinary private capital and social capital in suitable proportions. Serge-Christophe Kolm examines the implications of people's caring about the procedure by which they obtain goods, whereas Shaun Hargreaves Heap observes how personal preferences are confirmed or refuted by dialogue with others. Luigino Bruni shows how interpersonal relations were excluded historically from economics, whereas Bernard Gazier and Isabelle This Saint-Jean bring authority and power into the picture. Finally, the book ends with two commentaries. Julie Nelson develops a view of individualsin-relation from a feminist perspective, whereas Louis Putterman offers an evolutionary
Philosophical Problems in Science, 2024
Philosophical action theory seems to be in pretty good shape. The same may not be true for the study of human action in economics. Famous is the rant that the study of human action in economics gives reason to tremble for the reputation of the subject. But how does this come about? Since economic action is about action, the broader study must surely have a strong impact on the more specific field. The paper sets out, from the ground up, how an essential concept in economic theory–the concept of competition–can fundamentally benefit from insights derived exclusively from analytical action theory broadly con- ceived. In doing so, the paper delivers on an old Austrian promise: it is sometimes claimed that Austrian economists understand competition better than most economists. This may be a bold claim, since Austrian economists have neither traced the understanding of subjectivity to its very origin (the theory of intentionality), nor have they traced their sympathy for methodological individualism in relation to market pro- cesses to its very ground (the theory of (human) action). This paper aims to fill this gap. Moreover, by grounding an Austrian view of competition in analytic action theory, it succeeds in avoiding the seri- ous problems of the dominant equilibrium approach. By explaining competition as rivalry, the paper draws on the philosophy and logic of human action to bring the (economic) agent back into play. In this way, a case is made for an integrated view of Austrian theory as an amalgam of Austrian economics and analytic action theory.
The study of individual action and the pillars of the Austrian School of Economics
2011
Despite its longevity, numerous fundamental contributions to the economic science and its genuine originality, the Austrian School of Economics is to a great extent still unknown and ignored, if not despised. The Austrian economic tradition is however vivid and active, and moreover still consistent with its intellectual roots. The main reason for this is to be found in its solid and strongly performing methodology used in its inquiry of human action. This paper aims at presenting concisely the methodological foundations on which builds the Austrian analysis. It is more of an attempt to popularise rather than critically discuss those methodological pillars.
On Rationality, Ideal Types and Economics: Alfred Schüutz and the Austrian School
The Review of Austrian Economics, 2001
A comparison is made of the views on economic theory and method of the Austrian philosopher and sociologist Alfred Schütz and those of his mentor, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises . Schütz basically agreed with the fundamental parts of the Austrian program, but he also had disagreements with Mises on the epistemological character of the core assumptions, on the formulation and status of the rationality principle, and on the use of ideal types in economic analysis. In several of these aspects Schütz had important points of value not only for the use of ideal types in economic modeling, but also within political science and sociology. In the end, however, there is more which unites than separates Schütz and Mises.