Introduction: Rational Choice Social Research

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karel Dobbelaere

The author proposes a reflection on challenges that the three anthropological articles in this issue present for secularization theory. The first two discuss “performances” of religion in two different Chinese cultural periods: welfare services offered by recognized religious associations in the People’s Republic of China and the judicial rituals in colonial settings. The author suggests similarities with such “performances” in western culture. The second part of the article discusses some issues raised by Szonyi in his comparison of recent social research literature on Chinese religion and sociological literature on secularization: a critique of the concept of “modernity” in relation to secularization; a reflection on the possibility of establishing a secularization theory with universal validity; how to integrate rational choice theory and secularization theory; the validity of secularization in view of individual religious sensitivity; and secularization as an ideology and a discussion of the so-called “privatization of religion” in secularized settings.


2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 749-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Maloy

Abstract. Unlike previous methodological debates in political science, the recent rational choice controversy has excluded consideration of normative questions altogether. These can be recovered, in part, through a genealogy of counter-utopian democratic theory which connects modern rational choice theory to the fin-de-siècle sociology of elites via the mediating figure of Schumpeter. The family resemblances include the aspiration toward a pure science of society, the search for a “realistic” theory of democratic politics, and the shading of an empirical proposition about elite domination into a normative celebration. Though democratic theorists have learned much from the counter-utopian tradition generally, both sides of the rational choice controversy have failed to take seriously the elitists' recognition of the ineluctable normative and ideological dimensions of social research.Résumé. Les débats récents sur le choix rationnel, à contre-pied d'autres disputes méthodologiques en science politique, ont exclu les questions normatives. Ces questions peuvent se rétablir, en partie, par l'intermédiaire d'une généalogie contre-utopiste de la théorie démocratique, qui lie la théorie moderne du choix rationnel au retour de la sociologie élitiste de fin de siècle, avec le personnage de Schumpeter comme médiateur. Les ressemblances familiales portent l'aspiration à une science pure de la société, la recherche d'une théorie «réaliste» de la démocratie et la transition d'une proposition empirique sur la domination des élites vers une célébration normative. Bien que les théoriciens démocratiques aient beaucoup appris de la tradition contre-utopiste, aucune des deux parties du débat sur le choix rationnel n'a pris en compte la reconnaissance élitiste des aspects idéologiques inévitables de la recherche sociale.


Sociologija ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 598-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojan Krstic ◽  
Milos Krstic

The paper is devoted to the analyses of methodological and metatheoretical problems of rational choice theory. The methodological challenge is associated with the questions: whether rational choice theory can be appropriately empirically tested and whether RCT allows researchers to derive interesting hypotheses with regard to substantive fields of application? The answers to these questions have important implications for the rational choice theory?s ambition to be appropriate basis for the implementation of social research. In this paper, allso, we analyse the following metatheoretical problems: how to deal with the apparent counterevidence that stems from applied fields of sociological research: Is it possible to provide explanations of this evidence within RCT by widening its core assumptions and thereby broadening the set of allowed auxiliary assumptions? Or does RCT have to be enriched (and if so, how?) by integrating concepts and mechanisms of other sociological approaches for it to remain a reasonable workhorse and starting point for sociological research?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document