Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:41:50.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Individualism and Marxism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Julius Sensat
Julius Sensat
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent years have witnessed an increasing number of attempts to reconstruct Marxian theory in forms that can be assessed by reference to currently received standards in various disciplines (economics and “analytic” philosophy, for example). The work has even been said to establish a new paradigm: “analytical Marxism.” One doesn't have to endorse this claim to recognize a good deal of merit in the work. Through creative application of state-of-the-art methods to traditional Marxian issues, researchers have promoted productive cross-fertilization with non-Marxian programs and have revealed many problems that must be resolved for fruitful development of Marxian theory. Marx's work can be relevant to today's problems only if it is examined from vantage points provided by subsequent scientific and philosophical achievements. Moreover, critical engagement with the best science of the day has been an essential part of the Marxian theoretical project from the beginning.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 189 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Addis, L. 1975. The Logic of Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. 1977. “Toward a Theory of Price Adjustment.” In Studies in Resource Allocation Processes, edited by Arrow, K. and Hurwicz, L., pp. 380–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. 1962. “Irrational Behavior in Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 70:1–13. Reprinted in Becker, 1976, pp. 153–68.Google Scholar
Becker, G. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodbeck, M. 1958. “Methodological Individualisms: Definition and Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 25:1–22. Reprinted in Brodbeck, 1968, pp. 280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. (editor). 1968. Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1979. “Individualism and the Mental.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4:73–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 1981. “Other Bodies.” In Thought and Object, edited by Woodfield, A., pp. 97–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1982. “Two Thought Experiments Reviewed.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23:284–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 1986. “Individualism and Psychology.” The Philosophical Review 95:3–45.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Colletti, L. 1973. Marxism and Hegel. Translated by Garner, Lawrence. London: NLB.Google Scholar
Colletti, L. 1975. “Marxism and the Dialectic.” New Left Review 93:3–30.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 1984. “Individualism and Global Supervenience.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35:359–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1980. “Hempel on Explaining Action.” In Essays on Actions and Events, pp. 261–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1987. “Knowing One's Own Mind.” Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association 60:441–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 1982. “Marxism, Functionalism and Game Theory.” Theory and Society 11:453–82.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1985. Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1986. “Further Thoughts on Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory.” In Roemer, 1986, pp. 202–20.Google Scholar
Fisher, F. 1983. Disequilibrium Foundations of Equilibrium Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1982. “Cognitive Science and the Twin-Earth Problem.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23:98–118.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1987. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, A. 1981. Forms of Explanation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1976. Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1977. Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1952. The Counter-Revolution of Science. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. 1978. “Accuracy and Actuality.” Erkenntnis 12:209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G., and Thompson, F. 1975. “Physicalism: Ontology, Determination, and Reduction.” The Journal of Philosophy 72:551–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. 1977. “Physicalist Materialism.” Noûs 11:309–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited.Google Scholar
Homans, G. 1967. The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar
Homans, G. 1974. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Revised edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. 1982. “Supervenience and Microphysics.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63:29–43.Google Scholar
Hudelson, R. 1986. “Marxist Science as Ordinary Science.” Noûs 20:53–63.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. 1986. “Reduction, Explanation, and Individualism.” Philosophy of Science 53:492–513.Google Scholar
Levine, A., Sober, E., and Wright, E. 1987. “Marxism and Methodological Individualism.” New Left Review 162 (03/04):67–84.Google Scholar
Little, D. 1986. The Scientific Marx. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Macdonald, G. 1986. “Modified Methodological Individualism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 86:199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. 1963. Theories of Surplus Value. Part I. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1967. Capital. 3 vols. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1970. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1974. Grundrisse der Kritik der politichen Ökonomie. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1978. “The Value-Form.” Capital & Class 4:130–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K., and Engels, F. 1973. Werke. Vol. 32. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1983. Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 5. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Miller, R. 1978. “Methodological Individualism and Social Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 45:387–414.Google Scholar
Miller, R. 1984. Analyzing Marx: Morality, Power and History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R. 1987. Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, S. 1963. “The Metaphysical Argument in Marx's Labour Theory of Value.” Cahiers de L'Institut de Science Economique Appliquée. Études de Marxologie (7). Supplement No. 140:73–95.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1977. “On Austrian Methodology.” Synthèse 36:353–92.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. 1958. “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 2, edited by Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G., pp. 3–36. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 1984. “In Defence of a New Methodological Individualism: Reply to J. E. Tiles.” Ratio 26:81–7.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1964. The Poverty of Historicism. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1966. The Open Society and its Enemies. Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1973. “Reductionism and the Nature of Psychology.” Cognition 2:131–46.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning.’” In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume II, pp. 215–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, J., and Saposnik, R. 1968. Introduction to General Equilibrium Theory and Welfare Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Quine, W. 1951. “Ontology and Ideology.” Philosophical Studies 2:11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. [1961] 1963. From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row, Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Rescher, N., and Oppenheim, P. 1955. “Logical Analysis of Gestalt Concepts.” British journal for the Philosophy of Science 6:89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. 1966. An Essay on Marxian Economics. Second edition. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. 1981. Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. 1982. “Methodological Individualism and Deductive Marxism.” Theory and Society 11:513–20.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. (editor). 1986. Analytical Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. (editor). 1973. The Philosophy of Social Explanation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheman, N. 1983. “Individualism and the Objects of Psychology.” In Discovering Reality, edited by Harding, S. and Hintikka, M., pp. 225–44. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Schotter, A. 1981. The Economic Theory of Social Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schotter, A. 1983. “Why Take a Game Theoretical Approach to Economics? Institutions, Economics and Game Theory.” Economie Appliquée 36:673–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwödiauer, G. 1978. Introduction to Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in Economic Theory. Edited by Schwödiauer, G., pp. xi–xlviii. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Scitovsky, T. 1951. Welfare and Competition. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.Google Scholar
Sensat, J. 1987. Review of Wolff, 1984. The Philosophical Review 96:97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shubik, M. 1975. “The General Equilibrium Model is Incomplete and Not Adequate for the Reconciliation of Micro- and Macro-Economic Theory.” Kyklos 28:545–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shubik, M. 1978. “Competitive and Controlled Price Economies: The Arrow-Debreu Model Revisited.” In Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in Economic Theory, edited by Schwödiauer, G., pp. 213–24. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Stich, S. 1983. From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 1953. “Ideal Types and Historical Explanation.” In Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Feigl, Herbert and May, Brodbeck, pp. 723–43. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc. Reprinted in Ryan, 1973.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 1957. “Historical Explanation in the Social Sciences.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8:104–17. Reprinted as Watkins, 1968.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 1968. “Methodological Individualism and Social Tendencies.” In Brodbeck, 1968, pp. 269–80. Reprint of Watkins, 1957.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 1973. “Ideal Types and Historical Explanation.” In Ryan, 1973, pp. 82–104. Reprint of Watkins, 1953.Google Scholar
Wolff, R. P. 1984. Understanding Marx: A Reconstruction and Critique of Capital. Princeton: Princteon University Press.Google Scholar
Woodfield, A. (editor). 1981. Thought and Object. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar