Jose Mourinho vs methodological individualism

Chris Dillow discusses Jose Mourinho vs methodological individualism.

The same can be true in other contexts.Granovetter's riot model (pdf) shows us that violent disorder can emerge not because all individuals are violent but simply if large numbers imitate a few others. Adam Smith's invisible hand theory says that a benign social order can emerge from individual self-interest. Marx's theory of exploitation shows how Christian Victorian gentleman can produce a viciously inegalitarian economy. Schelling's spatial segregation model shows how ethnic segregation can happen even if people aren't especially racist. And I suspect that non-sexist individuals can also generate a patriarchal society.

All these are examples of what Mourinho said — that aggregates can have properties which individuals do not. This can happen — as in my examples — because of emergence. Or — as in Mourinho's case — it can happen because a coach consciously shapes a team. And in other cases, it might be a mix of the two: Irving Janis's examples of groupthink, I suspect, arise partly from bad luck and partly bad leadership.

All this is a challenge to methodological individualism; what's the point of studying individuals' motives and rationality if these are not necessarily related to social phenomena?

Emphasis Mine

This is why revolutionaries should join a party because unified action can create something greater than the sum of the individuals. This is a phenomena that Trotsky noted during the Russian Revolution.