Atomic sociology (labeled)
Depictions of “atomic sociology”, namely of scientists, e.g. Albion Small (1899), Arthur Iberall (1970s), Serge Galam (1990s), or Mark Buchanan (2000s), thinking of people as “atoms” (human atoms or social atoms), using the super-observer perspective, and attempting to study their behavior as such (as conceptual particles).
In hmolscience, atomic sociology, a simpler variant of “molecular sociology”, dubbed a bankrupt “pseudoscience” (Alex Simirenko, 1966) (Ѻ), refers to a sociology based on the model of a human as an metaphorical atom, i.e. social atom, human atom, human atomism, i.e. a general “humans-as-atoms” model, that tends to use the billiard ball model.

In 450BC, with the advent of “atomic theory”, by Leucippus and his followers (Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, Cicero, etc.), people began to think of society as made of types of atoms, and the soul of humans as made up of a special type of atoms that have “clinamen” (Ѻ), i.e. a swerve property, hence allowing for a semblance of free will and choice.

In 1899, Albion Small, founder of the sociology department of the University of Chicago (1892) and American Journal of Sociology (1895), in his article “A ‘Unit’ in Sociology”, argued that ‘general sociology’ might be able to be defined in the future as ‘the science of human atoms and their behavior’, on the model of ‘general chemistry’, which is defined as the science of atoms and their behavior.

In 1950, Feliks Gross, in his “Atomic Sociology” article, outlined some type of blurry sociology of basic energies, in short. [2]

Others to employ “humans-as-atoms”, human atom, or human atomism models include: Arthur Iberall and Serge Galam two name two of numerous examples.

The following are related quotes:

“The unholy alliance of Newton and Locke produced an atomic psychology, which explained mind as a mosaic of ‘sensations’ and ‘ideas’ linked together by laws of association (attractions); we have had, too, atomic sociology, that reduced society to a cluster of human atoms, complete and self-contained each in itself and only mutually attracting and repelling each other.”
— Alexandre Koyre (1950), “The Significance of Newtonian Synthesis” [3]

1. Small, Albion W. (1899) “Briefer Communications: A ‘Unit’ in Sociology.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (pgs. 81-229; esp. pg. 83: “human atom”), Vol. 13.
2. Gross, Feliks. (1950). “Atomic Sociology”, Calcutta Review (pgs. 5-). University of Calcutta.
3. (a) Koyre, Alexandre. (1950), “The Significance of Newtonian Synthesis”, Archives Internationales d’Historie des Sciences, III:291-311; in: Koyre, Newtonian Studies (pg. 22-23). University Chicago Press, 1965.
(b) Brown, Robert. (1986). The Nature of Social Laws: Machiavelli to Mill (pg. 80). CUP Archive.
(b) Goldsmith, Edward. (1992). The Way: An Ecological World-View (pg. 22). University of Georgia Press.

Further reading
● Ogburn, William F. (1946). “Sociology and the Atom” (abs), Journal of Sociology, LI(4):267-.

TDics icon ns