sign in sign up
<<
Home , Georg Simmel

------

by Francesco Di Iorio Francesco by Di Iorio’s originalityDi Iorio’s lies in his linking theory Hayek’s The The historymethodologicalof is the the of attempt eradicate to the concept of hiddendetermination fromthe studysociety, of and make thehuman being the starting social point of analysis. Methodological individualism rests the on understanding that the social is the order uninten tional human many product of actions. autonomous Onthis reading, the conflict between sociologicalho lism and methodological individualism be may inter preted as a conflict between a theoryheteronomy of 3). and a theory (p. autonomy of Di Iorio explainsDi Iorio that methodological individualism, as of human autonomy and human methodologicalof autonomy individualism to cognitive science, specificallyto enactivism, via Hayek’s theory the of sensory that order considers the human mind beto a self-organizing system. complex The book goodis a example interdisciplinary of dialogue between cognitive science and usually , treated independently. understood posits Hayek, by that social can phenomena be regardednot as predetermined; they must be explained in terms The a spontaneous of inherent complexity order. socialof the of is one main phenomena reasons Hayek why criticizes social planning and political constructivism. The interesting thesis thing is that Di about highlights Iorio’s it the between human actions and their uninten tional consequences, focusing conceives of Hayek how on action. According a detailed Di to Iorio study Hayek’s of theory action of has often beenneglected in the scholarly literature: causethe consequencesindividual of actions areoften un intentional and unpredictable. ------paradigm. The latter con Cognitive Autonomy and Methodologi Autonomy Cognitive is a revised his of version doctoral thesis

The The book discusses two fundamental assumptions con Accordingmethodological Di to Iorio, individualism has

given environment and freedom. be considered to of devoid The second assumption is that social cannotphenomena be understood only as the planned results human of action be found infound the external environment, in but the individual. Accordingly, this assumption, challenges various holistic paradigms in that individuals cannot be “pigeonholed” in a The first, the concept of “autonomy”, as applied as The tofirst,the so “autonomy”, of concept the is understood as “self-determicial agent. “Autonomy” meaning thatnation”; the cause the of action be to is not Boudon, MichelBoudon, Crozier and Elster. Jon methodologicalcerning (non-atomistic) individualism. , Georg Simmel, Karl Max Menger, Alfred , Schütz,Weber, Ludwig Mises, von RobertKarl C. Merton, Popper, Friedrich Raymond Hayek, tradition that is non-atomistic. Thisnon-atomistic indi vidualistic tradition is long-standing and includes , Bernard Mandeville, , , argues that methodological individualism cannot be re duced this to atomistic variant because there and is a long authoritative philosophical and sociological individualistic atomistic conception . of While acknowl Di Iorio edgesthat an atomistic variantmethodological of indi vidualism does exist standard he (e.g. economic models), action, strives Di Iorio offer to originalan reading of Hayek. often been misunderstood, having been confused with an ceives individual of actions be to understood as being caused an by active process interpretation of the on part of the subject. Focusing issues on related the to of cal Individualism andinvestigates contribution Hayek’s methodological to individualism and the Francesco Di Iorio’s Francesco Di Iorio’s Di Iorio, Francesco. and New York: Springer, 2015, 189 pages. $129.00 189 pages. 2015, Springer, York: Berlin and New Francesco. Di Iorio, GABRIELE CIAMPINI GABRIELE University Florence/Paris-Sorbonne of University Cognitive AutonomyThe and Interpretative Methodological Foundations Individualism: of Social Life REVIEW VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 104 COSMOS + TAXIS

Chapter 2 deepens Hayek’s critique of the holistic ap- by connecting spontaneously to each other. They cre- proach to the social sciences. Holism denies the intentional ate complex chains of impulses that correspond to the dimension of human action, maintaining that social order different kinds of “patterns” humans are able to recog- is predetermined by social laws—laws that control the in- nize (p. 40). dividuals. Hayek takes holists to task for not understanding that the social world is largely the result of unintentional Taking Hayek’s idea of mind as a self-organizing-system, purposeful human actions. Di Iorio clarifies the cognitive Di Iorio illustrates how Hayek uses the idea to criticize presuppositions of action from the standpoint of non-at- some cognitive theories, such as behaviorism and, especial- omistic methodological individualism. Di Iorio illustrates ly, methodological holism. Despite their differences, these the agreement between Hayek and Gadamer regarding the two approaches share the basic assumption that the cause of interpretative nature of knowledge, stating that Hayek’s action must be sought outside the individual: “Behaviorists theory of the sensory order is consistent with the herme- consider action to be determined mechanically by physical neutical theory of knowledge: “Hayek and Gadamer also reality, understood as a pre-given reality, while sociological agreed that, since the human being is an interpreter, he/she holists consider action to be determined mechanically by is hermeneutically free” (p. 12), i.e., a self-determined being. the socio-cultural environment, which they similarly regard For Di Iorio, Hayek’s originality resides in that he was one as a pre-given reality” (p. 55). of the first thinkers who sought to establish a link between Both approaches deny the interpretation that social a theory of individual autonomy analogous to hermeneutics agents give their surroundings is relevant and that the mind and phenomenology with cognitive . Di Iorio is a self-organizing system that acts as a “cause of itself”, argues that the epistemological implications of Hayek’s The meaning it is self-determined and cannot be perturbed by Sensory Order (1952) have not been sufficiently analysed by external factors (p. 44). This is where the connection be- 105 social . In his view, the connections between tween Verstehen sociology and Hayek’s cognitive psychol- Hayek’s theory of mind and the Verstehen tradition are ogy comes into play. According to Hayek, the social context relevant from the standpoint of the individualism-holism does not determine the actions of individuals, but how debate precisely because Hayek’s theory of mind supports they interpret the context is what causes their actions. Di human autonomy as understood by methodological indi- Iorio further explains that for Hayek human interpretative COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS vidualism: “One of the goals is to demonstrate that Hayek’s autonomy is not absolute. Social factors play a role in the reflections on mind include a very original argument in fa- cognitive process and influence individual action. However, vor of Verstehen, an argument that has been rather neglect- their influence is not mechanical because there is always a ed within the philosophy of the social sciences” (p.1). Hayek dialectic between these factors and the way in which the conceives of the mind as a complex dynamic system—a sys- individual interprets them. tem that can only be explained through an “explanation of Chapter 3 investigates in more detail the relevance of the principle” (p. 40). The of this system determines Hayek’s The Sensory Order to the individualism/holism the existence of from a neurophysiological debate. Hayek argued that methodological holism and be- point of view as well as the cognitive autonomy of the agent. haviorism are governed by the same mechanistic paradigm, Hayek’s philosophy of the mind is inconsistent with the that denies the interpretative activity of the individual. Di mind-computer analogy. Those who believe that the mind Iorio, interestingly, connects Hayek’s theory of mind to that works like a computer assume that every cognitive func- of Maurice Merleau-Ponty who also argued that the mind tion is due to a “decision-making center,” i.e., to the Central is a self-organizing system and that action is always de- Processing Unit (CPU) which controls every mental activity termined by the interpretation by the subject, and on that through a predetermined “protocol.” Hayek’s vision is dia- ground criticized sociological holism. Hayek and Merleau- metrically opposed to this: Ponty (a phenomenologist strongly influenced by ), are commonly regarded as being very dissimi- the mind is made up of billions of components— lar to each other. However, Hayek claimed that Merleau- neurons—whose activity is not pre-programmed but Ponty developed a perspective very similar to his own. As self-determined. The neurons do not follow specific Di Iorio stresses, both these thinkers shared a critique of instructions, but work in a sense in an independent the objectivist conception of knowledge and explained the manner. They build up the perceptive categorizations mind in terms of self-organizing system and interpretative

REVIEW Cognitive Autonomy and Methodological Individualism: The Interpretative Foundations of Social Life by Francesco Di Iorio ------Following Hayek,

tradition as understood herme by Verstehen

The finalchapter of the book deals with the relationship In Chapter Di Iorio stresses 5, that methodological indi of methodological individualismof compatible with the meth theodology natural of sciences?” (p. 8). MisesPopper, and Carl Hempel, Di Iorio argues “that the interpretative approach is incompatible not with the use of covering and laws, more generally with the methodology the naturalof While sciences” and (Ibid.). Hayek Mises are sometimes ambiguous on this issue, their some of writings “imply in a belief a common methodology between the so and support a broader conception rational of claimingity, that all human actions,including those carried without out utilitariana purpose,based not on an instru mental rationality, must be considered rational. Following andHayek the neutics and interpretative Di Iorio defends a sociology, broad concept rationality. considers He of rationality to be generala feature humanof action and assumes that even religious beliefs, ethical and choices, attitudes that cannot be explained in utilitarian terms and that are commonly regarded as irrational, are actually rational because they presupposealways “an intelligent process interpretation of and meaning-construction” must Action be never (p. 125). seen as an uncritical adherence to existing cultural mod becauseels presupposes always it an on the active part role the socialof agent. As argued Boudon and by Gadamer, rationalitythe agent’s necessarily is not utilitarian and Cartesian. can It also be argumentative, fallible and char acterizedcertain a by vagueness. This second kind ra of tionality is termed Boudon as by “cognitive” or “ordinary” rationality. between interpretation and explanation. attempts It to an swer the question:following “Is theinterpretative approach have conceived societyhave in holisticterms and regarded ac tion as determined holistic by macro-laws that control the individual and make the social order possible. Even struc turalism is affected this by holistic approach: the idea that the eachhistorical of period are characterized theby presence ‘structures’ of that determine a particular cultural and economic order has at its base the conception originally and Comte. Hegel by developed vidualism has often been confused with a utilitarian theory actionof and criticized because its commitment of to utili tarianism. According to Di the Iorio, confusion between methodological individualism and utilitarianism must be becauseavoided utilitarianism is only one variant meth of individualism.odological and Hayek other methodological individualists such as Mises and Boudon agree do not with ------Following Hayek, thisFollowing “chapter attempts to

ry provide to a reassuring view and drive the out fear 87). chaosof (p. Onthese grounds, society is conceivedas something of theirof epoch. Theirorganicism must be considered, among other things, as a conservative reaction the to ideas its , subversive andFrench the de structive modern egoism of industrial society. Both andComte in their Hegel, of spite philosophical dif ferences, developed a collectivist and historicist theo Comte’s and Hegel’s organicist and Hegel’s theoryComte’s society of is re lated their to concern the social for profound changes Chapter 4 analyses the “how interpretative autonomy of

Alfred Radcliffe-BrownParsons. and Talcott Theseauthors harmony and social order have Comteand possible. Hegel influenced, albeit in differentways, several social theories that came from later, Durkheim to Bronislaw Malinowski, that transcends the individual; from is ‘emancipated’ it its individual components. is seen It as an independent phe nomenon thatcontrols individuals fromoutside and makes connected to a deterministic conception historical of devel Di Iorio statesopment” that: (p. 79). between Positivismand Idealism,never Comteand Hegel theless share some common points. In particular, both de a theoryfend action of based on the heteronomy idea of and Hayek, DiOrio targetsand Comte, two Hegel very differ entthinkers, shared who but an organicist conception of society: “In the spite strong of and undeniable differences Kinkaid,Lars in the Udehn) last decadesfew arecarefully analysedand criticized. This chapterreconstructs theintel lectual roots both of individualism and holism. Following pretations methodologicalindividualism (non-atomistic) of Bhaskar, Harold Roy various by developed authors (e.g., omistic methodological individualism, and the that way this approachreconciles theindeterminism action of and exis tence socialconditioning” of (Ibid). The reductionist inter the actor is related to the systemic structure the social of (p. 76). world” clarify thetheory socialsystems of as intended non-at by terpretative apparatus implies a criticism sociological of holism” (Ibid.). Andreading “Consequently, in Hayek the Merleau- light of Ponty isextremely useful understanding for the why idea that mind self-organizing is a complex system and an in device: “Merleau-Pontydevice: studied in greater depth the is thesue impossibility of explaining of consciousness as an epiphenomenon sociality” of in (p. holistici.e. 6), terms. VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 106 COSMOS + TAXIS

cial and the natural sciences” (Ibid.). Hayek’s epistemology is compared to Mises’ and Popper’s ideas. Following Barry Smith, and Hayek himself, Di Iorio criticizes “the wide- spread thesis that the epistemological views of these two authors are radically incompatible” (p. 8) and stresses “that Mises’ apriorism and Popper’s fallibilism are reconcilable” (p. 9). On these grounds, Di Iorio argues “that Hayek’s de- fense of fallibilism must not be interpreted as a radical cri- tique of Mises” (p. 9). Di Iorio’s book is an original and valuable contribution to the philosophy of that breaks new ground in our understanding of Hayek’s thought and of methodologi- cal individualism more generally. One of the great merits of the books is that it demonstrates why many biases on the account of which methodological individualism is usually criticized must be rejected as being both logically and his- torically unfounded.

107 COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS

REVIEW Cognitive Autonomy and Methodological Individualism: The Interpretative Foundations of Social Life by Francesco Di Iorio