MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master‘s Thesis “Clash of Paradigms – The Formalist-Substantivist Debate and its Wider Implications for the Explanation of Human Behaviour” verfasst von / submitted by Karoline Ringhofer, Bakk. angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2016 / Vienna 2016 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 066 810 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Masterstudium Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Dr. Helmut LUKAS Univ.-Doz. ii For every subtle and complicated question, there is a perfectly simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong. H.L. Mencken iii iv Table of contents Preamble ..................................................................................................................... 1 1. Philosophy of Science – The Analytical Framework.......................................... 4 1.1. Philosophy of Science ........................................................................................... 4 1.2. The Underlying Principles..................................................................................... 7 1.3. Incommensurability of Paradigms? ..................................................................... 19 2. A Debate in Principle: The Formalist-Substantivist Controversy .................. 24 2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 24 2.2. Formalist Explanatory Approaches ...................................................................... 35 2.3. Substantivist Explanatory Approaches................................................................. 51 2.4. A Paradigmatic Evasive Strategy ......................................................................... 59 3. The Potlatch Case ............................................................................................. 68 3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 68 3.2. Formalist Explanatory Approaches ...................................................................... 70 3.3. Substantivist Explanatory Approaches................................................................. 74 3.4. Concluding Analysis ........................................................................................... 82 4. The Naturalistic Turn – The Formalist Principle in Bio-Psychological Approaches and its Relevance to the Triumph of Homo Economicus............ 85 4.1. Homo Economicus as Homo Sapiens .................................................................. 88 4.2. What’s Wrong With the Building Blocks ............................................................. 93 4.3. Culture is the Human Nature – Thinking Outside the Bio-psychological Box .... 103 5. A Scientific Critique of the Formalist-Substantivist Debate ......................... 111 5.1. A Scientific Refutation of Formalist Approaches ............................................... 111 5.2. “Scientific Substantivism” ................................................................................ 118 5.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 121 6. Bibliography .................................................................................................... 124 v List of Figures Graphic 1: Formalism-Substantivistm 18 Graphic 2: Paradigms 29 Graphic 3: The Naturalistic Turn 43 Graphic 4: Psychologism 48 Graphic 5: Biologism-Psychologism 87 vi Clash of Paradigms The Formalist-Substantivist Debate and its Wider Implications for the Explanation of Human Behaviour Preamble What is man? How – and on what level – can human behaviour be explained and analysed? To answer this research question, we will revisit the “formalist-substantivist” debate in economic anthropology as it serves as an exemplary clash of paradigms over the authority in explanatory approaches regarding social systems and human behaviour. “(…) [E]conomic anthropology addresses questions of human nature and well-being, questions that have preoccupied every society’s philosophers from the beginning” (Hann and Hart 2011: x). The so-called “formalist-substantivist” debate in economic anthropology constitutes a controversy about the universality of Homo economicus – economic man – exploring the fundamental question of “human nature”1 and human behaviour. The central topic of contention in the debate concerns the question whether formalist economic analytical tools are apt to explain empirical economic phenomena in non-market societies. The present analysis seeks to answer whether the fundamental assumptions underlying the body of standard2 economic theory are universally valid for all societies at any point in history. This question has led to heated controversies after the economic historian Karl Polanyi suggested that orthodox economic theory was only applicable to modern market economies, however useless for the analysis of non-market societies. For the understanding of non-market societies, where economic relations are “embedded” in the social structure, or, to speak with Mauss, where economic transactions can’t be separated from “faits sociaux totaux” – total social facts – in which they are integrated (Humphrey, in Polanyi 1979: 8), Polanyi opts for a substantial institutional analysis that does justice to the structures and functions of non-market societies on their own terms. The resulting “formalist-substantivist” debate shall serve as a case study to set forth general paradigmatic fault lines that traverse the realms of academia. 1 The term “human nature” is hereby set under quotation marks to indicate the provisional use until its closer analysis in the course of the present argument. 2 Also referred to as “mainstream economics”, or “orthodox economics”. 1 The question of human behaviour and its key determinants has developed into a major contested battleground of paradigms over the prerogative of academic explanations with a strong emphasis and an immense interest in biologistic and standard economic models that are widely spread in the public media (Hakami 2004: 157). The reason why this debate still matters today and why I am adding another chapter to the already vast amount of literature concerning this controversy, is the lack of framing the debate analytically in terms of its fundamental principles. Thus, this analysis takes as its point of departure the “formalist- substantivist” debate in question and seeks to detect the underlying assumptions regarding Homo economicus. To answer the research question, analytical tools informed by the epistemological principle of science will be applied. As the assumption of economic man saw backing from bio-psychological approaches, we will link our analysis to the fundamental questions of human universals and whether or not human behaviour can be explained in terms of biologically determined instincts in the individual. Due to the fact that bio-psychological approaches, as we will argue, fail to explain differences and similarities in socio-cultural phenomena and human behaviour, we will introduce an alternative scientific-materialist-holistic account which provides a fruitful explanatory framework, fully taking into account Homo sapiens ability to symbol as a phenomenon of emergence. Controversies and debates surrounding a certain topic constitute de facto a clash of paradigms. Consequently, participants in these controversies usually talk past each other which renders these debates futile, unless we explain the underlying paradigms that inform the respective theories. This task shall hereby be done in the present analysis which offers a systematic approach towards the paradigmatic understanding of the multiplicity of theories surrounding the question of “human nature”. In order to do so, we will apply an analytical framework which is based on the angle of philosophy of science. The aim of the present analysis is thus to detect the underlying principles of the various theories rambling around the “formalist-substantivist” debate. The emphasis hereby lies in the precise application of the terms formalist and substantivist, as the assumption of the existence of “the” formalist or “the” substantivist present a clear misconception of the terms. The use of formalist or substantivist methodological approaches are embedded in a set of principles that only together form a paradigm. Thus, a formalist (or substantivist) approach can present itself in various – even competing – paradigms. Hence, it is of key importance to dissect paradigms into their respective underlying principles. By doing so, the findings of this analysis will allow us to 2 penetrate into the core of the discussion and the foundations of the discussed theories and will enable us to evaluate the respective theories by introducing an analytical framework to relate and compare them and eventually refute those who have proven to be sterile in terms of their ability to provide productive scientific contributions. The value of this analysis lies thus in the introduction of a systematic frame of analysis and the enabling and facilitation of an evaluation of prevalent theories in the discourse surrounding Homo economicus. We will explore which set of principles proves itself suitable in the explanation