Abstract

In this short rejoinder to Daniel Little's paper on Alaytical sociology, the author defends three arguments: 1) Little caricatures the ambitions of AS; 2) Little's conception of social ontology and explanation is in fact virtually the same as that of AS; 3) Little's distinction between a "strong" and a "weak" form of micro-foundation is not a robust basis on which to attack AS because this distinction is internally contradictory.