Understanding Man in the Modern Academic Philospohy after the Marginalist Revolution

The article is devoted to the topical subject of the dynamics of the transformation of worldview and methodological paradigm of man and society understanding, stemming from the marginalist revolution of the late 19th century. This revolution determined a methodological turn to searching for subjective fundamentals of economic behavior and the focus shift from cost to economic performance. The novelty of this study lies in establishing the theoretical significance of such a transition for modern philosophical anthropology. Accordingly, the purpose of the study is to determine the specifics of the changes that the marginalist revolution in economic science brought to the doctrine of man, associated with the characteristics of their social behavior and a new vision of the foundations of social psychology. To do this, it was necessary to solve such problems as, 1) the reconstruction of evolution and the identification of the fundamental principles of the classical (the so-called Marxist) economic-centric model of man; 2) establishing the main directions for revising these principles within the framework of the new paradigm; 3) explication and conceptual analysis of ideological and methodological innovations that the marginalist revolution entailed; 4) a conceptual justification for the prospects of the ideological and methodological paradigm, the core of which is the modernized model of economic man. The study used the method of categorical analysis with elements of discourse analysis. A critical examination of the classical Marxist ideological and methodological paradigm in understanding man and society made it possible to identify the main features that have been revised in the new model. As a result of the study, it was established that the marginalist revolution led to a conceptual rejection of methodological holism, the substantial approach, and the concept of equivalent exchange, substantiating the heuristic value of the principles of individualism, anti-substantialism and unequal exchange. In fact, in this way an understanding of man and society was finally formed, considering the concept of the formation of individual wills on a new scientific basis. The logically impeccable justification for this concept belongs to K. Menger, who was able to resolve the paradox of methodological individualism by showing why this concept does not necessarily lead to an understanding of economic exchange as deception. As a result, the limited understanding of modern domestic Marxism as a purely economic theory is revised, the costs of the classical Marxist understanding of man are shown, and the need to include ideas of a new understanding of economic man, transformed as a result of the marginalist revolution, into the philosophical and anthropological theory is justified.

1. Avtonomov, V. S. (2001) ‘Model’ cheloveka v ekonomicheskikh teoriyakh i drugikh sotsial’nykh naukakh [Model of man in economic theory and other social sciences]’, in Istoki: voprosy istorii narodnogo khozyaystva i ekonomicheskoy mysli [Origins: questions of the history of national economy and economic thought]. Moscow: SU HSE Publ., pp. 24–71. (In Russian).

2. Becker, G. S. (2003) Human Behavior: Economical Approach. Moscow: SU HSE Publ. (In Russian).

3. Bigeev, R. R. (2023) ‘The economic man in the interpretation of various schools of economic thoughts’, Creative Economy, 17(2), pp. 541–556. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18334/ce.17.2.117170

4. Chernikov, M. V. and Filatov, D. A. (2018) ‘Model of human in modern scientific knowledge’, Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series Philosophy, (1), pp. 71–90. (In Russian).

5. Chernikov, M. V., Filatov, D. A. and Bukreev, V. A. (20020) ‘Behavioral Warfare Principles: Modern Scientific Approach’, Informacionnye vojny, (3), pp. 32–41. (In Russian).

6. Chernikov, M. V., Perevozchikova, L. . and Avdeenko, E. V. (2023) Ponimaniye cheloveka: sotsial’nofilosofskiy analiz [Understanding man: socio-philosophical analysis]. Voronezh: Voronezh State Technical University Publ. (In Russian).

7. Dahrendorf, R. (1958) ‘Homo Sociologicus. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte. Bedeutung und Kritik der Kategorie der sozialen Rolle’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 10(2), pp. 188–208.

8. Kapeliushnikov, R. I. (1989) ‘V nastuplenii homo oeconomicus [On the offensive of homo oeconomicus]’, World economy and international relations, (4), pp. 46–52. (In Russian).

9. Lakatos, I. (1968) ‘Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 69, pp. 149–186. (Russ. ed.: (2008) ‘Fal’sifikatsiya i metodologiya issledovatel’skikh programm’, in Izbrannyye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proyekt; Triksta Publ., pp. 281–463.).

10. Medema, S. (2019) The Economics Book: From Xenophon to Cryptocurrency, 250 Milestones in the History of Economics. New York: Sterling. (Russ. ed.: (2021) Velikaya ekonomika: ot Ksenofonta do kriptovalyut, 250 krupneyshikh v istorii ekonomiki. Moscow: Laboratoriya znaniy Publ.).

11. Robbins, L. (1935) ‘The Subject-Matter of Economics’, in An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan, pp. 1–23. (Russ. ed.: (1993) ‘Predmet ekonomicheskoy nauki’, THESIS, (1), pp. 10–23.).

12. Spano, R. (2022) ‘Kakova rol’ dolga, otvetstvennost’ i otvetstvennost’ cheloveka v nashem yevropeyskom diskurse o pravakh cheloveka? [What is the Role of Human Duty, Responsibilities and Obligations in Our European Discourse on Human Rights?]’, Bûlletenʹ Evropejskogo Suda po pravam čeloveka, (1), pp. 148–153. (In Russian).

13. Timoshevskiy, A. V. and Savin, V. V. (2020) ‘Transgressions of human: from man in culture to culture without man’, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University of Culture, (1), pp. 97–105. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.30725/2619-0303-2020-1-97-105

14. Urbina, D. A. and Ruiz-Villaverde, A. (2019) ‘A Critical Review of Homo Economicus from Five Approaches’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(1), pp. 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ajes.12258

15. Vikulina, V. V. (2022) ‘History of economic thought: on the question of the development of models of “economic man”’, Journal of Economy and entrepreneurship, (7), pp. 83–86. https://doi.org/10.34925/ EIP.2022.144.7.012

16. Zahle, J. (2016) ‘Methodological Holism’, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos0738