Rationality of action and rationality of theory

Abstract

This article offers a critical analysis of the four central arguments with which the rational choice theory claims to be a privileged methodological instrument of sociology: the «reasonable presumption» argument outlined by Elster, the «paradigmatic privilege» of Abell, the «integrating framework» of van Parijs and the explanatory strength of Freedman and Becker. After presenting these, a brief approach is made to the problem of the possibility of a theoretical construction that is capable of making a complex approach at the level of actions that is compatible with one that is complex at the level of «aggregates».