At my IHS seminars last summer, there was a lot of perhaps deservedly condescending talk of the importance of methodological individualism. I distinctly remember asking the question of the presenters "What would happen if methodological individualism were followed in the social sciences?" Dan D'amico pantomimed that it would blow up the social sciences. I was transfixed. Here it was, this revolutionary concept that is at the heart of most (but not all!!) of classical liberal social science that was unjustly neglected by the academy. Or, rather, it was relegated to prosaic discussions of Popper's later works and modern rational choice (constantly referred to as "rat choice"). But I wanted to know more!!!
After having finished my first year, I brought some of my Mises-inspired problems with methodological apriorism and methodological individualism to our resident philosopher of science and asked her to square the two. She pointed me towards an amazingly important idea. Methodological individualism exists in both objective and subjective epistemologies and ontologies. One can claim both objective knowledge on the behavior of a person or say it depends when looking at individuals. Now that I write this out, it doesn't seem nearly as revolutionary as it was in my mind.
Originally, I had difficulty placing Mises' methodological apriorism, in which what is true is axiomatically derived using logic outside of the subjectivist frame. But it must be that axiomatic knowledge exists in the subjective realm! Well, not knowledge that applies to all. Individuals may use their reasoning skills to create their own (axiomatic, if you like) truths, but those are not true for everyone. It seems only natural now to put him in the radical structuralist paradigm, along with that other mad freethinker Marx.
Back to methodological individualism. What I find so wonderful in understanding this is that it helps me make sense of Hayek much better. Hayek, though not a thorough subjectivist, I would argue DID make the subjectivist/interpretivist turn. He brought classical liberals into alternative paradigms. The influence of Polanyi is really felt now. Mises' individual is a prototypical person who does not turly exist. He is an abstraction. He encompasses many. But we can make generalizations about his behavior, much as we can the individual in postivist or functionalist research.
Hayek's individual, and I would assume Elinor Ostom and Vernon Smith's individual, is the epistemological and ontological opposite. She only makes sense once her context is known. That context can only truly be known by the acting individual, and even then, imperfectly known as part of a evolutionary process. In this frame, history matters, culture matters, and institutions structure action!
So, when I think of methodological individualism, I now know why Hayek's approach rings true with what I know. Value is subjective. The social world is already interpreted. And local knowledge is incredibly valuable.
Then again, perhaps this is out of my sincere desire to never have to read Mises' voluminous tome Human Action...
