The paper defends ontological individualism from a prominent challenge: that certain social properties depend on “non-individualistic” physical factors. I propose two responses to show that this challenge fails to undermine the thesis of ontological individualism. First, I argue that it uses an implausible interpretation of physical things to call them “non-individualistic.” Second, I raise some doubts regarding whether the challenge leads to an overly permissive dependence of social properties on physical objects in social-scientific explanations.
BhargavaRajeev. 1992. Individualism in Social Science: Forms and Limits of a Methodology. Clarendon Press.
2.
CurrieGregory. 1984. “Individualism and Global Supervenience.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science35 (4): 345–58.
3.
Di IorioFrancescoHerfeldCatherine. 2018. “Review of Brian Epstein, The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences48 (1): 105–35.
4.
Elder-VassDavid. 2017. “Material Parts in Social Structures.” Journal of Social Ontology3 (1): 89–105.
EpsteinBrian. 2014. “What Is Individualism in Social Ontology? Ontological Individualism vs. Anchor Individualism.” In Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate: Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science, edited by ZahleJulieCollinFinn, 17–38. Springer.
7.
EpsteinBrian. 2015. The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences. Oxford University Press.
8.
GualaFrancesco. 2022. “Rescuing Ontological Individualism.” Philosophy of Science89 (3): 471–85.
9.
HaslangerSally. 2022. “Failures of Methodological Individualism: The Materiality of Social Systems.” Journal of Social Philosophy53 (4): 512–34.
10.
HindriksFrank. 2013. “The Location Problem in Social Ontology.” Synthese190 (3): 413–37.
11.
HodgsonGeoffrey M. 2007. “Meanings of Methodological Individualism.” Journal of Economic Methodology14 (2): 211–26.
12.
KincaidHarold. 1986. “Reduction, Explanation, and Individualism.” Philosophy of Science53 (4): 492–513.
13.
KincaidHarold. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: Analyzing Controversies in Social Research. Cambridge University Press.
14.
KincaidHarold. 1997. Individualism and the Unity of Science: Essays on Reduction, Explanation, and the Special Sciences. Rowman and Littlefield.
15.
LauerRichard. 2017. “Predictive Success and Non-Individualist Models in Social Science.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences47 (2): 145–61.
16.
ListChristianSpiekermannKai. 2013. “Methodological Individualism and Holism in Political Science: A Reconciliation.” American Political Science Review107 (4): 629–43.
17.
LittleDaniel. 2024. “Rethinking Ontological Individualism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences54 (3): 187–202.
MellorD. H.1982. “The Reduction of Society.” Philosophy57: 51–75.
20.
PassinskyAsya. 2020. “Social Entities.” In The Routledge Handbook of Metaphysical Grounding, edited by RavenMichael J., 510–20. Routledge.
21.
PettitPhilip.2003. “Group with Minds of Their Own.” In Socializing Metaphysics: The Nature of Social Reality, edited by SchmittFrederick F., 167–93. Rowman and Littlefield.
22.
QuintonAnthony. 1976. “Social Objects.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society76 (1): 1–28.
23.
RuizNadia. 2021. “Social Ontology and Model-Building: A Response to Epstein.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences51 (2): 176–92.
24.
SawyerR. Keith. 2002. “Non-Reductive Individualism: Part I—Supervenience and Wild Disjunction.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences32 (4): 537–59.
25.
SugdenRobert. 2016. “Ontology, Methodological Individualism, and the Foundations of the Social Sciences.” Journal of Economic Literature54 (4): 1377–89.
26.
UzquianoGabriel. 2004. “The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Justices: A Metaphysical Puzzle.” Noûs38 (1): 135–53.
27.
ZahleJulie. 2007. “Holism and Supervenience.” In Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology, edited by TurnerStephen P.RisjordMark W., 311–41. Elsevier.
