Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology [Paperback]

Once upon a time sociological theory was not an oxymoron. There were Weber and Durkheim and Simmel and Cooley and Mead and more. The was Parsons, who put it all together in a magnificent edifice that exhibited the articulation of sociology with psychology and economics. But, all that has disintegrated, and now there is no sociological theory. The smartest sociologists, Hedstrom being among them, putter around in methodology and the specification of basic building blocks. The only reason sociology remains at all is that there are sociology departments and sociological problems. There is no sociological theory.

The most cogent analysis of social interaction is presented by game theory, which is not even mentioned in this book. The most cogent analysis of culture is presented by gene-culture coevolutionary theory in biology, which is not even mentioned in this book. Why does Hedstrom think that sociology can grow its own theory independent from the other behavioral sciences, just when the other behavioral sciences are increasingly recognizing their interdependence? Why does Hedstrom not even mention socialization and the internalization of norms, which are sociology's most salient contribution to behavioral science?

Hedstrom is very smart and very cogent, but he cannot create sociological theory on his own, simply because we are in a age of consilidation of the behavioral sciences, not their individuation.

The most interesting part of this book is Hedstrom's defense of DBO (Desire, Belief, Opportunity) theory. I learned a lot from his analysis, but what he does not admit is that this is simply the rational actor model in a new suit. Indeed, in my work, I call the same theory the Beliefs, Preferences, and Constraints (BPC) model to make it more palatable to non-economists. But, it is the same theory, and a very very good one. Why does he not mention the many successes of the theory in economics and biology? Rather, he calls rational-choice theory an "alternative" to DBO theory, which is simply absurd.

Hedstrom's critique of rational choice theory (p. 60ff) is simply ignorant of the Savage axioms. The term 'rational' in decision theory means nothing more that consistency (transitivity) over the appropriate choice space. Nothing more. Nor should it mean anything more. Of course, this leaves us with a very strong theory of preferences and a very shakey theory of beliefs, but this is not a sufficient reason for attempting to distance action theory in sociology from standard decision theory.

Hedstrom makes a cogent argument for agent-based modeling, but he does not inspire us with examples of successful agent-based models from other behavioral fields. Nor does he make clear that agent-based modeling is a tool of complexity analysis. Moreover, agent-based models are tools, not theories. Where is the theory behind the models? Agent-based models are ways of solving sets of equations that cannot be solved analytically. Since there is no sociological theory, there cannot be a basic role for agent-based modeling, since there is nothing systematic to model.

Hedstrom is at his best when suggesting interesting research projects that sociologists might undertake, and by describing important tools for undertaking this research. Ignoring game theory, evolutionary theory, biological theory, and economic theory, however, is not the way to create an analytical sociology, in my estimation.

In the 1950s Merton introduced the notion of middle-range theory; theories capable of explaining specific empirical events and processes, yet built upon general explanatory principles. Hedstrom's book is the best example of this type of approach in contemporary sociology. It may not appeal to the likes of H. Gintis who wants grand and speculative theories of the evolution of human societies, but for the rest of us, this is the way to go!

I was EXTREMELY impressed by this book. It packs a huge punch in content on philosophy of science, methodology, and causation in social science in a small volume and says so many thing I've been preaching for years. I have a few points of disagreement, but the authors position is clearly stated, well positioned in the logical geography, and strongly supported. The example models are simplistic, but they are meant to demonstrate a kind of modeling rather than teach people to become proficient in that kind of modeling...and so for their purpose they are perfect.

If you are a scientist (of any kind but especially a social scientist) and you read only one book this year...then there is something wrong with you. But seriously, you should definitely read this as soon as you can. You'll either find clear statements of solid thinking that you already hold, or you'll gain some valuable insights. Either way you win.