The concept of relation in methodological individualism and holism: a reply to a functionalist critique

In an article entitled "Agency, functionalism and all that. A Sraffian view", published in the Journal of Philosophical Economics, Professor Cesaratto (2024) has proposed a functionalist methodology to study the relation between agency and structure. In doing so, he made some criticisms of an article of ours that had previously appeared in the same journal in issue XV, entitled "Towards a unity of sense: a critical analysis of the concept of relation in methodological individualism and holism in economics" (Ianulardo and Stella, 2022). We take Cesaratto's critique as an invitation to a dialogue on the methodology of the social sciences, and we would like to clarify some aspects in response to his critique. In essence, we clarify that our article consisted of two parts, which we can call pars destruens and pars construens, respectively. In the first, we show that while the determinate identity of the individual postulated by methodological individualism cannot stand without reference to difference, the relational methodology postulated by methodological holism requires its terms (i.e. individuals) to stand as a relation. In the second part, we make it clear that the sense of unity to which we have referred is not represented by an actual community, but by the drive towards unity that is common to all individuals when they intend to form a social entity (group, class, nation, party, institution etc.). Every unification makes it possible to shed new light on the moments that led to it. In this sense, we have spoken of a teleological perspective, since the end point allows us to re-signify the intermediate moments that led to it.