**5.1 General theoretical obstacles to a counter-neoliberal agenda**

At a general level, the causes of the weakness of the heterodox approach are to be sought in the flaws present in the strands of economic theory which have challenged the standard model so far. Setting aside Marxism, which has developed autonomously, in the seventies, stemming from the criticism of some unrealistic assumptions underlying the neoclassical paradigm – such as informative problems, bounded rationality, non trivial transaction costs, long term and relational contracts, strategic behaviors, path-dependent processes-, many alternative economic theories began to flourish. Over the last forty years many new theoretical approaches have enriched the economic science, among which, to mention just a few: neoinstitutionalism, behavioral economics, bioeconomics, neuroeconomics, evolutionary economics, transaction cost economics, institutionalism, economic sociology, feminist economics, caring economics. All these fields of research are still evolving and there are no unambiguous classifications. However it is generally acknowledged that the neoinstitutional school is the most conservative while institutionalism encompasses nearly all the criticism made of the standard model. In fact institutionalism aims to overcome the rational choice model and the methodological individualism, claiming that in order to understand the complex socio-economic system one should focus on conflicts and power, path-dependency, bounded rationality, historical and cultural dimensions, evolutionary processes, strategic behaviors and network effects. In figure 1, different theoretical approaches (including Marxism and the two approaches in the field of law and politics which have "internalized" the standard economic model, namely the public choice theory and the field of law and economics) are positioned with respect to their consistency with the two opposite neoclassical and institutional frameworks. This figure serves to highlight the main point which is sustained in this paper, that is that the failures of alternative approaches to defeat the hegemony of the standard model - and therefore of neoliberal ideology and policies - depend upon the fact that they have not yet achieved the construction of a new and theoretically consistent, politically acceptable operational model of society (and economy) able to overcome the two key mystifications of the mainstream theory.

The two key mystifications of the standard model refer to its tenet that a market economic system can allocate resources 1) without relying on moral values (i.e. ethics does not matter) and 2) without relying on relations of subordination (i.e. power and politics do not matter). A corollary of the second mystification is that a market system can allocate resources in a perfectly decentralized way, without planning and leaders, through an acephalous network of individuals. As a consequence, following the liberal/libertarian tradition à la Nozick, any form of state intervention in the economy is deemed to be useless.

are both of a theoretical and political nature. Political causes, such as the existence of consolidated centers of political and economic power backing neoliberal policies, have been more or less well investigated by supporters of anti-neoliberalism; nevertheless there is still a lack of suggestions for possible concrete counterbalancing strategies. Theoretical causes have instead received much less attention and this is maybe one of the reasons why the old paradigm is so hard to defeat. In the following part of the paper an effort is made to show the theoretical flaws of the alternative food policy program, first at a general level and then with respect to the two particular issues of food as human right and private food governance.

At a general level, the causes of the weakness of the heterodox approach are to be sought in the flaws present in the strands of economic theory which have challenged the standard model so far. Setting aside Marxism, which has developed autonomously, in the seventies, stemming from the criticism of some unrealistic assumptions underlying the neoclassical paradigm – such as informative problems, bounded rationality, non trivial transaction costs, long term and relational contracts, strategic behaviors, path-dependent processes-, many alternative economic theories began to flourish. Over the last forty years many new theoretical approaches have enriched the economic science, among which, to mention just a few: neoinstitutionalism, behavioral economics, bioeconomics, neuroeconomics, evolutionary economics, transaction cost economics, institutionalism, economic sociology, feminist economics, caring economics. All these fields of research are still evolving and there are no unambiguous classifications. However it is generally acknowledged that the neoinstitutional school is the most conservative while institutionalism encompasses nearly all the criticism made of the standard model. In fact institutionalism aims to overcome the rational choice model and the methodological individualism, claiming that in order to understand the complex socio-economic system one should focus on conflicts and power, path-dependency, bounded rationality, historical and cultural dimensions, evolutionary processes, strategic behaviors and network effects. In figure 1, different theoretical approaches (including Marxism and the two approaches in the field of law and politics which have "internalized" the standard economic model, namely the public choice theory and the field of law and economics) are positioned with respect to their consistency with the two opposite neoclassical and institutional frameworks. This figure serves to highlight the main point which is sustained in this paper, that is that the failures of alternative approaches to defeat the hegemony of the standard model - and therefore of neoliberal ideology and policies - depend upon the fact that they have not yet achieved the construction of a new and theoretically consistent, politically acceptable operational model of society (and

economy) able to overcome the two key mystifications of the mainstream theory.

form of state intervention in the economy is deemed to be useless.

The two key mystifications of the standard model refer to its tenet that a market economic system can allocate resources 1) without relying on moral values (i.e. ethics does not matter) and 2) without relying on relations of subordination (i.e. power and politics do not matter). A corollary of the second mystification is that a market system can allocate resources in a perfectly decentralized way, without planning and leaders, through an acephalous network of individuals. As a consequence, following the liberal/libertarian tradition à la Nozick, any

**5.1 General theoretical obstacles to a counter-neoliberal agenda** 

Fig. 1. Alternative economic theories

The first mystification depends on the fact that when claiming that the economic sphere should be independent from value judgments, many defenders of neoliberalism seem to forget that the standard model is completely imbued with ethics; in fact, in order to retain its theoretical consistency, it must subscribe a well defined ethical theory, that is the utilitarianism.

The second mystification is more subtle. Two arguments clearly demonstrate it.

The first argument is taken from the social theory of Coleman (Coleman, 1990) and refers to the legitimization of property rights through power relations. By completely relying on the rational choice theory Coleman, like the economic neoclassical model, assumes exchange and property rights to be the two institutions which are sufficient to have an "ordered" society (as well as an ordered economy)4.

Nevertheless, unlike neoclassical economics, which does not question where is the source of property right (it is considered a natural right), Coleman locates the source of property rights in power. When explaining the origin of rights, Coleman says that a right is held by an actor "at the pleasure of the relevant others", where the relevant others are those with the

 4 In the Coleman's construction actors are conceived as rational utility maximizing individuals, and resources are conceived as rights. Taking for granted the existence of a legal system of property rights, Coleman notes that when exchanging a resource what really is exchanged are the rights to exercise a certain degree of control over the resource.

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 393

arguments is that as long as wage labor contract is at the core of capitalism - this is clearly stated by Pateman and the same idea is stressed by Ellerman (1992) and Screpanti (2001) - a capitalist system is inconsistent with democracy. Therefore, the western model of capitalist liberal economy is an example of "allocation through power" and not through decentralized processes of "free choices" made by "free" economic actors. Moreover, it is clear that when subscribing contractarianism economists end up with reducing their scope of analysis to those problems of resource allocation for which private property rights can be defined, they

Finally, it is worth noticing that utilitarianism and contractarianism are both consistent with methodological individualism, which is the hallmark of the standard model, as well its main

The two analyzed mystifications of the standard model, together with its theoretical elegance, are at the base of its success and of the spreading of the neoliberal ideology. In fact a system which is deemed not to be based on any ethical and political stance finds much less criticism and opposition than one recognizably based on specific values and power

As a consequence of the various arguments given so far, it is now possible to state that an effective alternative proposal to neoliberalism should be able to accomplish the following tasks: 1) to denounce the central mystification of the mainstream economic theory, by demonstrating (as has been just done) that actually neoliberalism is instead imbued with specific ethical and political credos; 2) to demonstrate that the neoliberal ethical and political stances (based on utilitarianism and contractarianism) prevent the system from achieving the goals of general well-being; 3) to offer an alternative "credible" (i.e. internally consistent and culturally acceptable) theory able to support (in the sense of furnishing models and frameworks, even weak and flexible models, which help to clarify the rationales and illustrate the possible effects of diverse policies) effective policy interventions. An assessment of the current economic (and social and political) theories alternative to the standard model (and to the rational choice model) with respect to the accomplishment of these tasks is beyond the scope of this paper; nevertheless some rough judgments may be advanced. As drawn in figure 1, only a few alternative approaches have reached a considerable distance from the rational choice model. Let us scrutinize the case of economic sociology. A core element of economic sociology is the acknowledgement of the embeddedness of economic facts in the wider social and institutional environment. As recalled by Smelser and Swedberg (2005, p.7) in their masterly introduction to this field of

7 The consequences of economists (and economic policies) subscribing contractarianism (or libertarianism, in Pateman's words) are egregiously underlined by Pateman (2007, 212): "Taking contract seriously as a way of ordering social life –contracts all the way down, or social life as an endless series of discrete "origins"- throw light onto trends that have gained pace rapidly since I wrote *The sexual contract*. The doctrine that all parts of social life and individuals can and should be seen as private property and thus as open to commodification in the market now has global reach. Prevailing domestic and international policy proclaims that everything should be alienable for private profit, from individual "agency" to health care, water supplies, and transport; from animals, seeds, and plant life to genetic materials. All relations should be seen through the lens of contract and private property, so teachers make contracts with pupils, social workers with clients, and governments treat their citizens as consumers of public services rather than

citizens who share in decision about, and have a right to, those service."

thus exclude from their analysis all resources for which this is not possible7.

limit.

relations.

power to enforce the right. Coleman explicitly states that "this is a less than fully satisfactory definition because it does not give criteria for determining where the power lies in a specific case. Nevertheless it does locate the source of right in power, where the power itself may be constrained by the prior existence of other rights" (Coleman, p.58)5.

The second argument which uncovers the second mystification is based on the evidence that neoclassical theory implicitly relies on a specific political theory, that is contractarianism, which is an extreme form of contractualism. As it is evident in the latest version of neoclassical paradigm, that is neoinstitutionalism, contract is a conceptual artifact that allows to "clean" the economic discourse with regards to the very uncomfortable themes of power and violence. When an economic exchange occurs within a contract voluntarily entered into by counterparties with equal civil and political rights, then any concern about justice and fairness is ruled out and one can concentrate exclusively on the efficiency issue. Instead, as stressed by Pateman, contractarianism not only gives little help in dealing with some basic problems of democracy, but leads to libertarianism, "a political theory that goes hand-in-hand with neo-liberal economic doctrines and global policies of structural adjustment and privatization" (Pateman, 2002). One of the central arguments of Pateman's critique to contractarianism can be synthesized as follows. The starting point is that a real democracy is inconsistent with relations of subordination among citizens. A relation of subordination occurs anytime a person gives another person the right to dispose of her/him. In a relation of subordination the one in power (the master) can command the subordinate to supply services whose outcomes are appropriated by the master. The very example of such a relation is the wage labor contract that is at the core of the capitalist system. Like contratarianism Pateman sees the autonomy of the individual (that is the liberty of choosing "what to do" with her/his person; or put in contractarian terms one can argue that in liberalism the most plausible set of rights is rights of self-ownership) as the basic moral rights on which democratic states must rely. But unlike contractarianism Pateman claims that some kind of contracts that take the form of civil subordination (like the wage labor contract) are inconsistent with the basic moral right of autonomy. To make this point clear Pateman suggests changing the term "self-ownership", generally used in the contractarian theory, for the term "property in the person". When this second term is assumed, it is clear that to say that a person sells, giving others the right to dispose of, some part of her/his person, it is to state an absurdity because the person cannot be divided (the part who sells and the part that is sold)6. The term self-ownership obscures this incongruence and legitimizes the "finction of property in the person" on which the contractarian theory is built. In other words, when it is made clear that relations of subordination deny people the enjoyment of their basic right of autonomy, it is also clear that these relations are inconsistent with a true democracy. One consequence of Pateman's

<sup>5</sup> It is almost paradoxical that an author like Coleman, who has contributed to make the theory of rational choice the dominant paradigm in social sciences, has in fact helped to highlight one of its the biggest weaknesses, namely the contradiction with the declared libertarian stances and the role of power for the consistency of the entire theoretical edifice.

<sup>6 &</sup>quot;The idea of property in the person is a political fiction precisely because in practice "agency", "services" or "labor power"-property in the person- are inseparable from the body. But the fiction that what is available as a commodity for sale or rent in the market is merely a piece of property, just like any other, is necessary if such contracts are to be said to constitute free relations." (Pateman, 2007, 210)

392 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

power to enforce the right. Coleman explicitly states that "this is a less than fully satisfactory definition because it does not give criteria for determining where the power lies in a specific case. Nevertheless it does locate the source of right in power, where the power itself may be

The second argument which uncovers the second mystification is based on the evidence that neoclassical theory implicitly relies on a specific political theory, that is contractarianism, which is an extreme form of contractualism. As it is evident in the latest version of neoclassical paradigm, that is neoinstitutionalism, contract is a conceptual artifact that allows to "clean" the economic discourse with regards to the very uncomfortable themes of power and violence. When an economic exchange occurs within a contract voluntarily entered into by counterparties with equal civil and political rights, then any concern about justice and fairness is ruled out and one can concentrate exclusively on the efficiency issue. Instead, as stressed by Pateman, contractarianism not only gives little help in dealing with some basic problems of democracy, but leads to libertarianism, "a political theory that goes hand-in-hand with neo-liberal economic doctrines and global policies of structural adjustment and privatization" (Pateman, 2002). One of the central arguments of Pateman's critique to contractarianism can be synthesized as follows. The starting point is that a real democracy is inconsistent with relations of subordination among citizens. A relation of subordination occurs anytime a person gives another person the right to dispose of her/him. In a relation of subordination the one in power (the master) can command the subordinate to supply services whose outcomes are appropriated by the master. The very example of such a relation is the wage labor contract that is at the core of the capitalist system. Like contratarianism Pateman sees the autonomy of the individual (that is the liberty of choosing "what to do" with her/his person; or put in contractarian terms one can argue that in liberalism the most plausible set of rights is rights of self-ownership) as the basic moral rights on which democratic states must rely. But unlike contractarianism Pateman claims that some kind of contracts that take the form of civil subordination (like the wage labor contract) are inconsistent with the basic moral right of autonomy. To make this point clear Pateman suggests changing the term "self-ownership", generally used in the contractarian theory, for the term "property in the person". When this second term is assumed, it is clear that to say that a person sells, giving others the right to dispose of, some part of her/his person, it is to state an absurdity because the person cannot be divided (the part who sells and the part that is sold)6. The term self-ownership obscures this incongruence and legitimizes the "finction of property in the person" on which the contractarian theory is built. In other words, when it is made clear that relations of subordination deny people the enjoyment of their basic right of autonomy, it is also clear that these relations are inconsistent with a true democracy. One consequence of Pateman's

 It is almost paradoxical that an author like Coleman, who has contributed to make the theory of rational choice the dominant paradigm in social sciences, has in fact helped to highlight one of its the biggest weaknesses, namely the contradiction with the declared libertarian stances and the role of power for the consistency of

6 "The idea of property in the person is a political fiction precisely because in practice "agency", "services" or "labor power"-property in the person- are inseparable from the body. But the fiction that what is available as a commodity for sale or rent in the market is merely a piece of property, just like any other, is necessary if such contracts are to be said to constitute free relations." (Pateman, 2007, 210)

constrained by the prior existence of other rights" (Coleman, p.58)5.

 5

the entire theoretical edifice.

arguments is that as long as wage labor contract is at the core of capitalism - this is clearly stated by Pateman and the same idea is stressed by Ellerman (1992) and Screpanti (2001) - a capitalist system is inconsistent with democracy. Therefore, the western model of capitalist liberal economy is an example of "allocation through power" and not through decentralized processes of "free choices" made by "free" economic actors. Moreover, it is clear that when subscribing contractarianism economists end up with reducing their scope of analysis to those problems of resource allocation for which private property rights can be defined, they thus exclude from their analysis all resources for which this is not possible7.

Finally, it is worth noticing that utilitarianism and contractarianism are both consistent with methodological individualism, which is the hallmark of the standard model, as well its main limit.

The two analyzed mystifications of the standard model, together with its theoretical elegance, are at the base of its success and of the spreading of the neoliberal ideology. In fact a system which is deemed not to be based on any ethical and political stance finds much less criticism and opposition than one recognizably based on specific values and power relations.

As a consequence of the various arguments given so far, it is now possible to state that an effective alternative proposal to neoliberalism should be able to accomplish the following tasks: 1) to denounce the central mystification of the mainstream economic theory, by demonstrating (as has been just done) that actually neoliberalism is instead imbued with specific ethical and political credos; 2) to demonstrate that the neoliberal ethical and political stances (based on utilitarianism and contractarianism) prevent the system from achieving the goals of general well-being; 3) to offer an alternative "credible" (i.e. internally consistent and culturally acceptable) theory able to support (in the sense of furnishing models and frameworks, even weak and flexible models, which help to clarify the rationales and illustrate the possible effects of diverse policies) effective policy interventions. An assessment of the current economic (and social and political) theories alternative to the standard model (and to the rational choice model) with respect to the accomplishment of these tasks is beyond the scope of this paper; nevertheless some rough judgments may be advanced. As drawn in figure 1, only a few alternative approaches have reached a considerable distance from the rational choice model. Let us scrutinize the case of economic sociology. A core element of economic sociology is the acknowledgement of the embeddedness of economic facts in the wider social and institutional environment. As recalled by Smelser and Swedberg (2005, p.7) in their masterly introduction to this field of

<sup>7</sup> The consequences of economists (and economic policies) subscribing contractarianism (or libertarianism, in Pateman's words) are egregiously underlined by Pateman (2007, 212): "Taking contract seriously as a way of ordering social life –contracts all the way down, or social life as an endless series of discrete "origins"- throw light onto trends that have gained pace rapidly since I wrote *The sexual contract*. The doctrine that all parts of social life and individuals can and should be seen as private property and thus as open to commodification in the market now has global reach. Prevailing domestic and international policy proclaims that everything should be alienable for private profit, from individual "agency" to health care, water supplies, and transport; from animals, seeds, and plant life to genetic materials. All relations should be seen through the lens of contract and private property, so teachers make contracts with pupils, social workers with clients, and governments treat their citizens as consumers of public services rather than citizens who share in decision about, and have a right to, those service."

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 395

reclaiming a notion of humanity and of human subjects endowed with powers of reflexivity. Human power of reflexive deliberation is what gives humans degrees of freedom in determining their own courses of action (Archer, 2003, pp.7-9); personal reflexivity may have real causal powers over structure, it is the missing link in mediation between structure and agency. Even if Archer does not even quote Castroriadis, somehow she addresses the very same "enigma" investigated by this author throughout his professional life, i.e. the possibility of an autonomous society made of free autonomous individuals, instead (and this is the Marxian legacy of Castroriadis intellectual journey) of the heteronomous capitalist (and now neoliberal) society whose members attribute their "ordering imaginaries" to the extra-social

As discussed in previous sections, the concept of food as human right is the milestone of any food policies alternative to the neoliberal project. In article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human right to adequate food is explicitly recognized as part of the broader human right to an adequate standard of living, with this latter included among economic, social and cultural rights in addition to political and civil rights. Despite the frequent references to the principle of food as human right in the official literature of international organizations, it has never become a normative guide to food security policy (Rae, 2008; Sodano, 2009). For instance, in the US during the last 30 years various groups of scientists and exponents of civil society have proposed making the human right to food the moral and legal cornerstone of US domestic and international initiative in the area of food security, without any success. The U.S. government has consistently opposed formal rightto-food legislation as overly burdensome and inconsistent with constitutional law (Messer, Cohen, 2007). More in general, The U.S. government has repeatedly asserted that economic, social and cultural rights are not part of American legal and political culture, whose liberal

ideals would conflict with the agenda requested for the upholding of positive rights.

This is a narrow interpretation of liberal ideals, which hinges upon the unwillingness to question in any way the utilitarian ethics as a normative base for economic policy. It clearly demonstrates the ideological force of neoliberalism, which indeed is a form of ultraliberalism very close to anarcho-capitalism. In fact, it is worth noticing that even in the western liberal tradition, some scholars have argued that the state mandate may be extended to the upholding of positive, besides negative, obligations. This is the case, for instance, of the Human Development Capability Approach (HDCA). HDCA complements the international human right framework by providing normative support for positive obligation and duties (Vizard, 2006), thanks to a definition of liberty that entails a concept of freedom as the range of valuable things that a person can do and be (Nussbaum, 2000). This definition, relying upon ethical principles consistent with Kant's categorical imperatives, goes a far much beyond the definition of liberty given by the classical utilitarianism of classical liberal theories. HDCA stresses that if personal freedom and security are part of the policy aims and if economic (income) and political (freedom) aspects of a person's wellbeing are seen as necessary for assuring basic human capabilities, then state direct intervention for upholding human rights must be accepted. From the consequentialist perspective of utilitarianism what counts is the outcome of the action taken, not the intent of the action. On the contrary, HDCA endorses a deontological ethics, from a Kant's idealistic

**5.2 The case of food as human right and private food governance** 

authority of self-interest and profit.

research, "a major thread in the tradition of economic sociology is that investigation must combine the analysis of economic interests with an analysis of social relations". This thread connects the authors of the classical tradition (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel) with the renovators (Mauss, Schumpeter, Polanyi, Parsons) and the current field of "new economic sociology", initiated by Granovetter in the mid-1980s. Granovetter gives a very general definition of embeddedness, which states that "economic actions are embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations" (Granovetter, 1985, 487). As shown in the figure 1, economic sociology, due to its premises and methods, partially overlaps with institutionalism and in fact the boundaries between the two approaches are very blurred. None of the two anyway has been able so far to build a consistent alternative paradigm to oppose to mainstream economics. They both have rightly shifted the focus onto the study of institutions and society, but have not offered a consistent theory of these two elements able to overcome the many limits of the rational choice model and methodological individualism. Putting it bluntly, it does not make sense to say that economy is embedded in society if one does not have a clear definition of what society is. In the same way, it is a rhetoric exercise to say that one has to build institutions which serve the general interest while safeguarding individuals' autonomy without having a clear understanding of how structure (institutions) relates to agents. Sociology is still far from resolving these two puzzling problems (i.e the definition of society and the structure/agency relationship), as witnessed by Latour and Archer. Latour, recognizing the inconsistency of previous definitions, seeks to redefine the object of sociological research without "limiting in advance the sort of beings populating the social world" (Latour, 2005, p.16) and conceiving the study of society as the observation of minute associations within a collective. Latour questions the confusion, made by critical sociologists like Durkheim, consisting in replacing the understanding of the social link (which is specifically what Latour maintains should be the scope of sociology) with a political project aimed at social engineering, based on the presumption that society is a special domain of reality<sup>8</sup> . The problem of structure and agency - i.e. the question of how the objective features of society influence human agents and viceversa9 - has been faced by Archer throughout her work. Stemming from her previous work on culture and agency (1988) Archer has developed a research program aimed at overcoming the shortcomings of both methodological individualism and collectivism responsible for what she calls the two fallacies of social theorizing, namely 'upwards conflation' and downwards conflation'. In her 1995 book Archer builds a realist social theory (the Morphogenetic Approach) based on a realist ontology of the social world. In her successive works (2000, 2003) she specifically addresses the problem of human agency and completes her realist program by

<sup>8</sup> Latour is extremely critical of critical sociology, which pretends to explain new social objects (institutions) without investigating on the various elements which form social ties. "Whatever its claims to science and objectivity, critical sociology cannot be sociology – in the new sense that I propose – since it has no way to retool itself to follow through on the non-social elements. When faced with new situations and new objects, they risks simply repeating that they are woven out of the same tiny repertoire of already recognized forces: power, domination, exploitation, legitimization, fetishization, reification…..The problem of critical sociology is that it can never fail to be right." (Latour, 2005, p. 249). 9 "The 'problem of structure and agency' is now familiar phrase used to denote central dilemmas in social theory- especially the rival claims of voluntarism versus determinism, subjectivism versus objectivism, and the micro-versus-macro-scopic in sociology. These issues are central for the simple reason that it is impossible to do sociology at all without dealing with them and coming to decision about them. " (Archer, 1995, p. 65).

research, "a major thread in the tradition of economic sociology is that investigation must combine the analysis of economic interests with an analysis of social relations". This thread connects the authors of the classical tradition (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel) with the renovators (Mauss, Schumpeter, Polanyi, Parsons) and the current field of "new economic sociology", initiated by Granovetter in the mid-1980s. Granovetter gives a very general definition of embeddedness, which states that "economic actions are embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations" (Granovetter, 1985, 487). As shown in the figure 1, economic sociology, due to its premises and methods, partially overlaps with institutionalism and in fact the boundaries between the two approaches are very blurred. None of the two anyway has been able so far to build a consistent alternative paradigm to oppose to mainstream economics. They both have rightly shifted the focus onto the study of institutions and society, but have not offered a consistent theory of these two elements able to overcome the many limits of the rational choice model and methodological individualism. Putting it bluntly, it does not make sense to say that economy is embedded in society if one does not have a clear definition of what society is. In the same way, it is a rhetoric exercise to say that one has to build institutions which serve the general interest while safeguarding individuals' autonomy without having a clear understanding of how structure (institutions) relates to agents. Sociology is still far from resolving these two puzzling problems (i.e the definition of society and the structure/agency relationship), as witnessed by Latour and Archer. Latour, recognizing the inconsistency of previous definitions, seeks to redefine the object of sociological research without "limiting in advance the sort of beings populating the social world" (Latour, 2005, p.16) and conceiving the study of society as the observation of minute associations within a collective. Latour questions the confusion, made by critical sociologists like Durkheim, consisting in replacing the understanding of the social link (which is specifically what Latour maintains should be the scope of sociology) with a political project aimed at social engineering, based on the

agency - i.e. the question of how the objective features of society influence human agents and viceversa9 - has been faced by Archer throughout her work. Stemming from her previous work on culture and agency (1988) Archer has developed a research program aimed at overcoming the shortcomings of both methodological individualism and collectivism responsible for what she calls the two fallacies of social theorizing, namely 'upwards conflation' and downwards conflation'. In her 1995 book Archer builds a realist social theory (the Morphogenetic Approach) based on a realist ontology of the social world. In her successive works (2000, 2003) she specifically addresses the problem of human agency and completes her realist program by

8 Latour is extremely critical of critical sociology, which pretends to explain new social objects (institutions) without investigating on the various elements which form social ties. "Whatever its claims to science and objectivity, critical sociology cannot be sociology – in the new sense that I propose – since it has no way to retool itself to follow through on the non-social elements. When faced with new situations and new objects, they risks simply repeating that they are woven out of the same tiny repertoire of already recognized forces: power, domination, exploitation, legitimization, fetishization, reification…..The problem of critical sociology is that it can never fail to be right." (Latour, 2005, p. 249). 9 "The 'problem of structure and agency' is now familiar phrase used to denote central dilemmas in social theory- especially the rival claims of voluntarism versus determinism, subjectivism versus objectivism, and the micro-versus-macro-scopic in sociology. These issues are central for the simple reason that it is impossible to do sociology at all without dealing with them and coming to decision

. The problem of structure and

presumption that society is a special domain of reality<sup>8</sup>

about them. " (Archer, 1995, p. 65).

reclaiming a notion of humanity and of human subjects endowed with powers of reflexivity. Human power of reflexive deliberation is what gives humans degrees of freedom in determining their own courses of action (Archer, 2003, pp.7-9); personal reflexivity may have real causal powers over structure, it is the missing link in mediation between structure and agency. Even if Archer does not even quote Castroriadis, somehow she addresses the very same "enigma" investigated by this author throughout his professional life, i.e. the possibility of an autonomous society made of free autonomous individuals, instead (and this is the Marxian legacy of Castroriadis intellectual journey) of the heteronomous capitalist (and now neoliberal) society whose members attribute their "ordering imaginaries" to the extra-social authority of self-interest and profit.
