Social Ontology

What is the current state of Economics?

Well, it’s in a bit of a mess. Mostly, I would say, it’s irrelevant. It does not attempt to address

Prof. Tony Lawson 

the way the world really is. It’s much more concerned with conforming to an image of science which, as it happens, is not a good image of science, leading very many modern economists to proceed in ways that are mostly irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Is it because of the features of social reality?

Yes, precisely. Let me take the opportunity to say the problem stems from the use of certain methods. But I’m not criticising the methods, I’m criticising the inappropriate use of them. Economists choose the methods in an a priori fashion. I mean, to be blunt, or specific, they use methods of mathematical modelling whatever the context. In any other discipline, they start with a problem and the context, they look at the nature of the problem being addressed, and they design methods to fit the task, the world, the context they’re dealing with. Economists, for the last 60 years, have started from the assumption, ‘This is the method. Give me the problem.’ If I said to you, ‘I’ve got a task. Will you come and help me? Bring your tools,’ without telling you what tools to bring, I mean, first of all you’d probably say, ‘Get lost,’; but if I offered you a few million pounds, you’d likely say, ‘Well, what tools? What’s the task? What do I need to bring?’ 

Economists don't ask that question — ‘What is the nature of the task?’ For the last 60 years, they’ve insisted on the same type of tool for all jobs, all applications. Forms of mathematical modelling. As it happens, these methods don't fit social reality very well at all, they are mostly inappropriate to its analysis everywhere, given its nature. So, this is the problem. It is firstly a failure to consider the nature of context and say, ‘What are the appropriate tools?’; and it is secondly, in erroneously adopting a universal approach a priori, they have relied upon tools of a sort that, as it happens, actually are hardly useful at all.

Why is that the case?

The sorts of methods mathematical economists use presuppose closed systems; worlds in which correlations, event regularities occur. Such regularities are guaranteed in conditions where economic agents, whatever they are, conform to acting as isolated atoms. By atoms I mean they have the same independent invariable effect whatever the context. Social reality is just not like that. Its open. Rather than agents being fixed, they’re in process. Rather than agents being isolated, as social beings all are relationally constituted.

You argue that we need more discussion of the ontology of social reality. Why is that? 

One thing I think it’s important to recognise is that ontology is not something mysterious. It’s not something that only goes on in philosophy departments. In fact, social ontology doesn't formally happen there very much. Implicitly though, we all do it. Walking down the street, you’ll act differently according to whether the thing in front of you is a lamppost, a person, an elephant or whatever. You just react differently. Arguing for an ontological turn is not about recommending a turn to something that’s mystical or for the experts. It’s just about making explicit and systematic what we do each implicitly all the time. If you’ve got a problem in the house or in the garden you choose tools appropriately. You don't just take the nearest tool or the tool you like best and go and try it out for everything. You condition your choice according to the nature of the task…

It’s not an anti-methods proposal. It’s a pro being critically aware proposal. I think that’s important. I’ve already stressed it, but I will stress it again. This is not an anti-mathematics stand. It’s not an anti-science stand. In fact, I think it’s a pro-mathematics and a pro-science stand. It’s an anti-mismatch stand. An anti using the wrong tool for the task, stand. Or, more positively, it’s pro making sure that whatever your task, you’ve got the right sort of tools for it. If in certain situations they turn out to be mathematical in nature, fine. But, typically, they won’t be, in the social realm.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjSi0gS3-oE&t=590s