I – Social Ontology
Lecture 1: What is Social Ontology?
Ontology: the study of being; ‘onto’ means ‘being’, and ‘logia’ expresses the ‘study of’ –
ontology is the investigation into the nature, basic constitution and modes of being of
stuff, of all phenomena
o the study of the basic constitution of the social world – of basic natures,
structures and modes of being of all those phenomena that depend necessarily
on human beings and what human beings do
o two terms ontology and metaphysics – used today interchangeably
Who does ontology:
o We saw the central importance of natural scientific experiments can be rendered
intelligible only if we acknowledge that we live in structured and differentiated
world
o We saw world is not only made up of events/states of affairs – but also
constituted of underling structures + causal mechanisms
o Also, that we need to recognize that closed systems where strict event
regularities do exist and prediction is feasible are typically artificially engineered
and characteristically the world both social + natural are open systems where a
multiplicity of causal mechanisms are in play
o We were also interested in nature of social material
o Concerned w/ exploring why it was difficult to artificially create closed system in
social realm
We saw this was due to fact that social world is both highly processual +
relational
o We all do ontology and need social ontology
o We do it on regular basis – ex. If I enter unfamiliar part of town then I’m eager to
explore what kind of place – dangerous? Am I safe?
By considering nature of place I’m doing ontology
Also social scientists used to do ontology – Marx/Keynes/Hayek
Ontology is unavoidable
o Ontological presuppositions are there in all social science contributions
o All social scientists do ontology
o Problem is that ontological presuppositions of the work currently conducted by
social scientists are mostly left implicit and unexamined and so unsystematized
o By being more explicit about social ontology – we can avoid certain characteristic
errors made by many contemporary social scientists
And we can seek to develop methods and theories that are more relevant
which will help us understand the social world better
Ontological presuppositions of conventional social science
o Ontological presuppositions of most methods of mathematical modelling are:
Correlations or event regularities
Systems in which event regularities occur are called closed
, Closed systems are guaranteed by sets of 1.) isolated 2.) atoms
(where atom here is a factor that acts w/ a i.) separate ii.)
independent and iii.) invariable effect – whatever the context
o Just as all methods carry ontological presuppositions so too do policy proposals
o All policy proposals emanating from social science carry implicit presuppositions
about human nature – about what it means for human beings to flourish, the
nature of society, esp. the manner in which it can be transformed
o Aim of policy seems to be one of manipulating variables so as to control
behaviors
o So in economics it often seems to be hope that certain stable functional relations
can be identified and policy makers by manipulating variables that may be seen
as being under their control seek thereby to influence social outcomes
o Mostly the presuppositions are that human beings are gain isolated and
atomistic, conjoined to the presumption that we human beings are pretyy much
everywhere the same
An alternative social ontology
o Once an explicitly ontological orientation is adopted the implicit ontology
presupposed by formal mathematical methods so often adopted by social
scientists can be shown to be inadequate
o Alternative social ontology needs to be advanced that can be defended and not
shown to be adequate
o An alternative social ontology (to closed systems couched in terms of isolated
atoms):
1. Open systems (rather than closures)
2. Depth (rather than flatness)
3. Relationality (rather than isolation and independence)
4. Transformation (rather than fixity)
5. Plus: emergence, meaning, value/morality
If the above correctly express features of social reality – then 1. 3.
And 4. Are sufficient to explain why social sci conducted deploying
formal mathematical techniques often fail and 2 highlights that
explanatorily powerful social sci remains feasible
Lecture 2: Social Positioning Theory
A Relational and Transformational Account of Society
o Social phenomena: can be defined as those whose existence depends
necessarily on human beings
there are phenomena such as natural phenomena that we have the
power to destroy – that depend only contingently on human beings and
shouldn’t be classified as social
o The nature of social phenomena:
A social atomist view that insists there’s nothing to society apart from a
collection of individual
, Idea is that social reality is made up entirely of externally related
individuals so that all things exist and act in ways that are quite
independent of any relationships in which they stand
A social holist view holds that there’s nothing to people except their
positions in society
Both these views must be avoided in favor of a relational conception
Society is neither a bundle of separate individuals nor is it a
collective subject – rather it’s constituted through the relations
formed b/w individuals and their environment
o The resulting social structures pre-exist any given
individual and provide the conditions of possibility within
which they act
Social phenomena whilst dependent on, and constituted by
human beings aren’t reducible to those human beings
o How does social activity occur?
In voluntarism social structure is reduced to or conceptualized as the
mere creation of human individuals
In determinism – human agency is reduced to external, coercive structure
Whilst both these extremes are to be avoided – each view contains
insight
Voluntarists stress the fact that making history is something that
people do
Determinists stress the fact they do so in ways not of their own
choosing but enabled and constrained by social structure
Both of these insights must be retained in more encompassing
Transformational Model of Social Activity
o The Transformational Model of Social Activity
When human beings come to act, they find social structure given to them
Human intentional activity doesn’t create social structure for the latter is
presupposed by such activity
Instead individual agents draw upon social structure as a condition of
acting, and through the action of individuals taken in total, social
structure is reproduced or transformed
Human beings are always human beings in social relations – they always
exist in communities of some sort
Our actions are always taken w/in a social structure of some sort and
those actions both reproduce and, at least in part, transform those
structures in a never-ending back and forth
A Theory of Social Positioning
o The Community
Society can be seen as being made up in large part of communities –
communities are most basic form of social totality
Lecture 1: What is Social Ontology?
Ontology: the study of being; ‘onto’ means ‘being’, and ‘logia’ expresses the ‘study of’ –
ontology is the investigation into the nature, basic constitution and modes of being of
stuff, of all phenomena
o the study of the basic constitution of the social world – of basic natures,
structures and modes of being of all those phenomena that depend necessarily
on human beings and what human beings do
o two terms ontology and metaphysics – used today interchangeably
Who does ontology:
o We saw the central importance of natural scientific experiments can be rendered
intelligible only if we acknowledge that we live in structured and differentiated
world
o We saw world is not only made up of events/states of affairs – but also
constituted of underling structures + causal mechanisms
o Also, that we need to recognize that closed systems where strict event
regularities do exist and prediction is feasible are typically artificially engineered
and characteristically the world both social + natural are open systems where a
multiplicity of causal mechanisms are in play
o We were also interested in nature of social material
o Concerned w/ exploring why it was difficult to artificially create closed system in
social realm
We saw this was due to fact that social world is both highly processual +
relational
o We all do ontology and need social ontology
o We do it on regular basis – ex. If I enter unfamiliar part of town then I’m eager to
explore what kind of place – dangerous? Am I safe?
By considering nature of place I’m doing ontology
Also social scientists used to do ontology – Marx/Keynes/Hayek
Ontology is unavoidable
o Ontological presuppositions are there in all social science contributions
o All social scientists do ontology
o Problem is that ontological presuppositions of the work currently conducted by
social scientists are mostly left implicit and unexamined and so unsystematized
o By being more explicit about social ontology – we can avoid certain characteristic
errors made by many contemporary social scientists
And we can seek to develop methods and theories that are more relevant
which will help us understand the social world better
Ontological presuppositions of conventional social science
o Ontological presuppositions of most methods of mathematical modelling are:
Correlations or event regularities
Systems in which event regularities occur are called closed
, Closed systems are guaranteed by sets of 1.) isolated 2.) atoms
(where atom here is a factor that acts w/ a i.) separate ii.)
independent and iii.) invariable effect – whatever the context
o Just as all methods carry ontological presuppositions so too do policy proposals
o All policy proposals emanating from social science carry implicit presuppositions
about human nature – about what it means for human beings to flourish, the
nature of society, esp. the manner in which it can be transformed
o Aim of policy seems to be one of manipulating variables so as to control
behaviors
o So in economics it often seems to be hope that certain stable functional relations
can be identified and policy makers by manipulating variables that may be seen
as being under their control seek thereby to influence social outcomes
o Mostly the presuppositions are that human beings are gain isolated and
atomistic, conjoined to the presumption that we human beings are pretyy much
everywhere the same
An alternative social ontology
o Once an explicitly ontological orientation is adopted the implicit ontology
presupposed by formal mathematical methods so often adopted by social
scientists can be shown to be inadequate
o Alternative social ontology needs to be advanced that can be defended and not
shown to be adequate
o An alternative social ontology (to closed systems couched in terms of isolated
atoms):
1. Open systems (rather than closures)
2. Depth (rather than flatness)
3. Relationality (rather than isolation and independence)
4. Transformation (rather than fixity)
5. Plus: emergence, meaning, value/morality
If the above correctly express features of social reality – then 1. 3.
And 4. Are sufficient to explain why social sci conducted deploying
formal mathematical techniques often fail and 2 highlights that
explanatorily powerful social sci remains feasible
Lecture 2: Social Positioning Theory
A Relational and Transformational Account of Society
o Social phenomena: can be defined as those whose existence depends
necessarily on human beings
there are phenomena such as natural phenomena that we have the
power to destroy – that depend only contingently on human beings and
shouldn’t be classified as social
o The nature of social phenomena:
A social atomist view that insists there’s nothing to society apart from a
collection of individual
, Idea is that social reality is made up entirely of externally related
individuals so that all things exist and act in ways that are quite
independent of any relationships in which they stand
A social holist view holds that there’s nothing to people except their
positions in society
Both these views must be avoided in favor of a relational conception
Society is neither a bundle of separate individuals nor is it a
collective subject – rather it’s constituted through the relations
formed b/w individuals and their environment
o The resulting social structures pre-exist any given
individual and provide the conditions of possibility within
which they act
Social phenomena whilst dependent on, and constituted by
human beings aren’t reducible to those human beings
o How does social activity occur?
In voluntarism social structure is reduced to or conceptualized as the
mere creation of human individuals
In determinism – human agency is reduced to external, coercive structure
Whilst both these extremes are to be avoided – each view contains
insight
Voluntarists stress the fact that making history is something that
people do
Determinists stress the fact they do so in ways not of their own
choosing but enabled and constrained by social structure
Both of these insights must be retained in more encompassing
Transformational Model of Social Activity
o The Transformational Model of Social Activity
When human beings come to act, they find social structure given to them
Human intentional activity doesn’t create social structure for the latter is
presupposed by such activity
Instead individual agents draw upon social structure as a condition of
acting, and through the action of individuals taken in total, social
structure is reproduced or transformed
Human beings are always human beings in social relations – they always
exist in communities of some sort
Our actions are always taken w/in a social structure of some sort and
those actions both reproduce and, at least in part, transform those
structures in a never-ending back and forth
A Theory of Social Positioning
o The Community
Society can be seen as being made up in large part of communities –
communities are most basic form of social totality
