From a great post on methodological individualism:
As I’ve said, our political regime and our way of life invite us to reduce all spiritual masses to the individuals that constitute them. Finally, however, however much we may desire to see everywhere only rights-bearing subjects and individuals seeking their own interests, we run into a number of great collective facts that are decisive for world affairs.
People tend to refuse to see that the total is bigger than the sum of its parts. I run into this problem all the time whenever I talk about capitalism or the nation-state. People balk at hearing me say things like “whatever capital wants, capital gets.”
The resistance to the idea that there exists anything but a collection of individual wills of individual people all of whom do and want exactly what they say comes, I believe, from the vulgarized American sociology with its insistence that “studies” asking people about their motivations and desires are actually a source of truth.
What people say, however, is evidence of nothing but that they chose to emit these particular sounds at this particular time for no reason outsiders are aware of. How these people are and how their actions will contribute to collective forces that are larger than any individual’s stated desires remains unaddressed.
This is the death of actual social sciences that never doubted the existence of unstated motives and collective forces that go against the stated wishes of individuals. However much people might be saying that they want to retain the nation-state model or however much it might be in their interest to save it, collectively they are busily taking it apart. It’s only methodological individualism that prevents us from seeing this.
P.S. It’s very rewarding to find a post that actually says something valuable and contributes to my analysis after 15 minutes of sifting through the breathy posts by covert Trump admirers like all those Corey Robins, Mahan, Eschatology, and the rest of these shallow, gushy folks. But they illustrate the point of the main post perfectly. Whatever they say they want, they are part of a larger force that is working to get Trump elected.
Clarissa's Blog 
I think this heavily misrepresents what actual methodologically individualistic research programmes do, which is often to explain why is that individuals as an aggregate get results that are different from what their actual priorities are. This can have a positive or negative spin on it.
For example of a positive spin on it, a smithian baker doesn’t much care about anyone else – but because other individuals exist and he needs to adapt to that to have his own needs met, he has no other recourse but to act in a way that approximates a compromise between him, his buyers, and other bakers. And no sane selfish baker wants a compromise.
On the flip side, there’s the prisoner’s dilemma – all the actors in that want what’s best for them, but because of limited information and the need to adapt to what they think the other guy’s thinking, the actors instead end up with something that is in fact the worse possible outcome for both of them.
It’s true that individualistic explanations do not typically allow unconscious desires (because how does anyone get clear access to those?) or collective forces (because they only allow for a collective in nominal terms). The explanatory weight is usually carried by the fact that methodological individualism usually expects individuals to behave in a strategic (what are the other fuckers doing and how can I benefit) rather than purely automatic (want fruit-go take fruit) way.
I would go as far as to say as that polling people for their beliefs, deriving what the majority belief for that is and then expecting reality to closely follow the reported majority belief is (aside from being just plain stupid, we agree on that, but I am not sure if any actual researcher does that) actually methodologically holistic, as it doesn’t allow for any sort of complexity at the individual level, and jumps to “what does the aggregate do?” very quickly.
(Also, as a sidenote… The original blog post talks about methodological individualism, which is simply the assumption that the best way to study reality is through the individual actors that compose it (which don’t even need to be human individuals – both cells and countries can be “individuals” in this methodological sense). The Mannet quote, on the other hand, is against for, want of a better word, metaphysical individualism – that there’s literally nothing real aside from individuals, and that any statement, belief or argument otherwise is, at its very best, harmless error, and it’s very worst, a dangerous delusion.
Methodological individualism and ‘metaphysical’ individualism obviously share a relationship, but it’s definitely not one of perfect correspondence).
LikeLike
Hi Clarissa,
Thank you for your wonderful and enlightening posts! I was wondering if you think there will eventually be a political ‘realignment’ as the nation-state transitions into non-existence. As in, will right- and left-wing positions on issues become irrelevant or change since the goals of social conservatism or an expansive welfare state will become impossible to attain in the ‘market/network’ state system?
Thank you!
LikeLike
Thank you, Nicholas. This is an important point. The political rhetoric we are used to is definitely becoming outdated and the new one hasn’t been created. This is why we have a Republican candidate arguing against free trade and a Democrat president who is arguing in favor. A new language has to be found and a new political philosophy because the one we have is steeped in nation-state mentality.
LikeLike
Does anyone even yet have an idea of what contours the new politics might take, and is there any justice to be had for the losers of Globalization in the market state?
Also, what do you think is the role/future of nationalism after the nation-state? Can ideologies like Zionism survive in any substantive way into the new era?
Thanks! 🙂
LikeLike
I think Zionism will survive like the Amish lifestyle did. An endearing curiosity of a small minority. But consumerism will be too strong for Zionism to keep mattering to many people.
As for the losers of globalization, it seems like we’ll have a growing stratification with a highly mobile elite and sedentary, tied down excluded folks. People who will join the elite will be the brightest and most adaptable of all countries. Borders will mean nothing to them. And the excluded will have their screens to make them happy.
LikeLike
Do you mean with the end of Zionism that the Jewish state/cultural hegemony in the area will cease to exist, or just that the founding ideology of the state will eventually become irrelevant the way that Americans no longer identify as Loyalists or Abolitionists, etc.
Also, is there no way to preserve a social safety net in the era of mass globalization? Bobbitt’s Garden state sounds like it could be the contrary. Or will collective goals and social/economic rights completely be tossed out the window?
You may find these articles interesting 🙂 :
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new
http://www.economist.com/node/21564556
Thank you, as always, for your insights.
LikeLike