ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the most prominent, narrowly circumscribed, mathematically tractable neoclassical version of rational choice theory. It indicates the kinds of cases in which neoclassical models are most persuasive and those where they break down. The chapter also examines those modifications that relax some of the more troubling neoclassical assumptions, and assesses that what is gained and what is lost in the less "economic" versions of rational choice. It shows that even the more nuanced formulations run into insurmountable problems in explaining certain important types of social phenomena. The chapter looks at arguments that are counterposed, not only to the universal explanatory claims of rational choice theory, but also to a philosophical criterion of methodological individualism as an important requirement for constructing rigorous social science explanations. The ontological argument is traceable to Aristotle, who argues that humans are zoon politikon, that is, fundamentally political animals, who cannot be understood as isolated, autonomous individuals.
