Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Anthony Giddens Introduction To A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism

    Transféré par

    archaeologista
    8 vues14 pages
    Introduction

    Titre original

    Anthony Giddens Introduction to A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Introduction

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    8 vues14 pages

    Anthony Giddens Introduction To A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism

    Transféré par

    archaeologista
    Introduction

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 14
    PNT eh Giddens A CONTEMPORARY CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL IVAW ssa 0 NB ESI Introduction This study is the first part of a projected two-volume critical appraisal of some of the main themes of Marx’s historical materialism. In the volume to follow — as yet unwritten — I shall be concerned with Marx’s conceptions of the transition from capital- ism to socialism, and of the nature of socialist society itself. In the present book my objectives are concentrated upon phenomena relevant to the rise of capitalism, in conjunction with prior phases of world history. My intention is not to produce a critique of historical materialism written in hostile mien, declaring Marxism. to be redundant or exhausted. There has been an abundance of attempts of that sort, written either by implacable opponents of Marx or by disillusioned ex-believers.* I belong in neither of these categories, though nor do I accept the label ‘Marxist’. Marx’s analysis of the mechanisms of capitalist production, I believe, remains the necessary core of any attempt to come to terms with the massive transformations that have swept through the world since the eighteenth century. But there is much in Marx that is mistaken, ambiguous or inconsistent; and in many respects Marx’s writings exemplify features of nineteenth-century thought which are plainly defective when looked at from the perspective of our century? Let me try to put the facts of the matter as bluntly as possible. If by ‘historical materialism’ we mean the conception that the history of human societies can be understood in terms of the progressive augmentation of the forces of production, then it is based on false premises, and the time has come finally to abandon it. If historical materialism means that ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’, it is so patently erroneous that it is - of Historical Materialisyn, ult to see whi It final ees Y So many have felt ob|j zs > Ds is oblige y seri Pic. ace Materialism Means Me ne ne On 5 cle} *, Sche: eudalism, to canine, (fom tribal society mee d 0 capitalism: Ancient i e 5 3a i a sutane offshoot of 1 oo 19 Socialism, together with te les defensible IC Mode Of Productio my e 320 1 be teiecteg fei tSiNg world history. tee) t & 2 > the; dying ee ap If historical Materialism is te ae : ais, snippets ntact elements of a th tha ee i Which ¢. Be itaned « 4 theory of human Tom ‘al Social theory todays It remain a SC are my a © indispensable contribution to More gene, Teuments in th ral le book, 2 = - those most g,Prnounc * 4nd they imply that Mary's ‘Ments - bution riots of all See suman history, especially in ; h i ir s le ‘Preface’ aa Feat canton hid in teal Econom ceil OF what T shah say that yrooe FESPects, sim Sacra r ie t Mary's : ee 'Y discarded. Of a ‘On pre-capitalist, » SOcieties are wholly parently contrary t. cele tially y cri us, as many Grundy, Pred fey, V2 © ing in Cree 4 282inst himself, wees in which WEES in. why apter 3, in anal de Capita Ich 4S Come ee ysing develo, Vie alist Prod Isc Bea be known as the f ae Society that 3ese pages Marx IESE '~ ‘Qa Introduction 3 whatever gems they claim to find there which is astonishing. We have today a much wider Tange of comparative evidence about the range and diversity of human societies than was ever available to Marx. Although it is not my purpose to formulate a detailed classification of types of society, I have drawn upon a considerable span of contemporary disciplines in developing my arguments: particularly work from anthropology, archaeology and geography. In formulating the conclusions I have reached, I have given special attention to those societies that Marx barely mentioned, or could not have studiéd in any case since little or nothing of them was || “known in his time: such as the ancient civilisations of Mesopota- || mia, or those of Meso-America, Not only in respect of ‘Europo- centric’ interpretations of ‘Oriental Despotism’ do we need to| escape from the deeply entrenched tendency to read history from | the vantage-point of the West. ‘ This book stands in the closest possible connection with an earlier study, Central Problems in Social Theory. It invokes the theoretical notions developed in the work as a whole; at the same time it is in large part a direct expansion of a few pages in Central Problems .* In that study, influenced abstractly by the philosophy of Heidegger, and more substantively by the writings of modern geographers, I argued that time-space relations have to be brought into the very core of social theory. In Central Problems and the Present book I’continually revert to the issues that this concern, brings to the fore: issues that are epistemological, methodological and empirical. Let me attempt to summarise here some of the main empirical themes of this book, before coming to the more abstract suppositions which it involves — reversing the actual Organisation of the book itself. I have called it A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, but my concerns are by no means wholly critical or destructive; in diverging from Marx I want to propose the elements of an alternative interpretation of his ory. A fundamental component of my arguments is the supposition that the articulation of time-space relations in social systems has to be examined in conjunction with the generation of power. A Preoccupation with power forms a leading thread of this book. I maintain that power was never satisfactorily theorised by Mi and that this failure is at origin of some of the chief limitations of Ais_scheme_of historical analysis. But in analysing power and domination, I do not seek to replace Marx by Nietzsche — a 4 A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism tendency that can teadily be discerned in the writings of Max cently become fashionable in a new guise }o-called ‘new philosophers’ and others in Merely to supplant Marx’s reductionist etiatos crear imacy of the forces of production in the les, and their process of change, with a ism of power, Rather, power Hag to be eae in the constitution of s ion an id Chaige In capitali eSOTCes tal inge. In capitalism, b Seek to analyse = a 4 Very particular significance Pters of the ice ME considerable detail in the MN€ct the ti IMe-s] i S Of dominant, Pace COnstituti i : r ‘ lomi S lution of space distanciation’ — one nq” I introduce the oe aa ~ i 3 a = dlulgence. The stash rs te Ologisms for which Tasks 01 am 101 in time-space. but S¥stem in 2 Put aso ‘bac Y some wi distanciatio cee + every social LOSS t re Space. Time-space such ‘stretching’ takes atty,, OW social systems are Introduction 5 ‘embedded’ in time and space. In the smaller societies, hunters and gatherers or settled independent agricultural communities, time- space distanciation occurs primarily as a result of two connected features of societal organisation: the grounding of legitimation in tradition, and the role played by kinship in the structuration of social relations, each of which is in turn normally anchored in religion. But these societies above all involve presence, or whatI , term ‘high presence-availabilit’. There are relatively few social / transactions with others who are physically absent. In_th societies, the human memory (expressed in knowledge of ti tion, as a series of continuing practices, and in story-telling and} myth) is the principal ‘storage container’ which ‘brackets’ tim space. eran Throughout the book I emphasise the significance of storage capacity to the state, in both non-capitalist and capitalist societies. Storage capacity is a fundamental element in the generation of power through the extension of time-space distanciation. Many. accounts of the nature of the state in non-capitalist societies give primacy of place to the storage of ‘material’ or allocative resources in their analyses, as part of the thesis thatthe production of a ‘surplus’ is the key to examining how states come into being. My claim, however, is that storage of authoritativs resources is normally_ of more decisive importance Storage of authoritative resources is the basis of the surveillance activities of the state, always an under- girding medium of state power. ‘Surveillance’ involves two things: the collation ofinformation relevant to state control of the conductof its subject population, and the direct supervision of that conduct. The formation of agrarian states is almost everywhere associated with the invention of writing and notation. Writing seems to have originated in most cases as a direct mode of information storage: as a means of recording and analysing information involved with the administration of societies of increasing scale. In non-capitalist societies both aspects of surveillance are developed in a fragmen- tary way, when contrasted to the formidable apparatus of the capitalist state. Lack of analysis of the phenomenon of surveil- lance, I claim, is one of the major limitations of Marx’s interpret- ation of the state. The concentration of the surveillance acti : Of the state in modern times is the chief basis of the looming threat | 3 of totalitarianism, a phenomenon that has to be distinguished from ‘the ‘despotism’ of non-capitalist states. Although it is not my 6 AC itic ‘ontemporary Critique of Historical Materialism ssion of totalitarianism, | Provides the means of ill be one of my aims to le theory of the city is integi 80 I wish to clai centre, rally involved with these ‘monial issues - or exts, and upon these 'y in question. In been og much attention aeologists 3 ene interest to many lastres’s © question of the ‘origin’ of View that what he ¢; ets Not the n Place most ce ral feature of t het than the * €mphasis upon disco we ISes alls the ‘political accumulation of he emergence of vering the conse- tion. This is not : ie ecavane ° tant, but because World ushered Ra ie with contrasting © existence oF Y.industrial capitalism. Casita forms of ‘class led ‘Asint: ——Cal world and Hh the cocsis oue Of Production howe ‘ oe et ‘self-contained’ village : ie stitutions prevented the © Subject of the Asiatic Mode of Prod- Sciences eae discussions in the of State forma origins’ unimpor xB oe 8 have been very f the concept of : € no attempt to survey lebate. M. Ow! ie ne UY ova ewe! uro eee 5 pean Civilisations is 0 R? Sai a—ASYS MAGy SF Introduction 7 strictly limited, for various reasons, and that the term ‘Asiatic Mode of Production” should be dropped. First of all, much of th is book is an attack upon the idea of ‘mode of production’ as a useful analytical concept anyway. More specifically, there are three pronounced difficulties with Marx’s analysis. He does not explain how it is that a state can come to be ina society without classes; at the very least this seems to run counter to the thesis that the state only exists as the organising medium of class domination. Ia addition, even if Iookedat only from the point of view of the development of the ‘forces of production’, the Asiatic societies were far from being the ‘stagnant’ systems portrayed by Marx. Finally, Marx seems simply to have been wrong in laying so much emphasis upon the ‘self-contained’ character of the local villag communities in India and China, which he linked to the absence of private property. Private property seems to have been important (in varying ways and at varying levels) not only in the Asiatic civilisations, but in virtually all agrarian states (including probably even Peru, which has commonly been regarded as involving a rather extraordinary form of ‘agrarian socialism’) In the light of these considerations I use the term class-divided society to refer generically to agrarian states. Marx was right, I think, to entertain reservations about the significance of class within the Asiatic societies, on grounds that apply also to the ancient Near Eastern civilisations as well as to Meso-America and Peru. But it was an error to suppose that Greece or Romie, or European feudalism, were distinctly different in this respect. That is, that they were ‘class societies’ whereas the others were not. In none of these societies was class, as founded on control of private Property, unimportant; but in none of them was class domination in any direct sense the basis of state power. I define a class-divided Society as ‘a society in which there are classes, but where class analysis does not serve as a basis for identifying the basic structural principle of organisation of that society’ (p. 108). By contrast, capitalism, I argue, is in certain very definite respects specifically a class society. Spelling out the implications of the contrasts between class- divided societies and capitalism does not mean repudiating Marx’s views, but again is in some degree to use Marx against himself. For in characterising ‘capitalism’, both as a mode of economic enterprise, and as an over-all type of society, Marx’s writings are 8 A Conte os sy porary Critique of F listorical Mater ialism indispensable I thi - I think it espec eo specially import: a, wtih ‘ portant to relate w) 4 ut the mechanics of capitalist produced pee Nn to t ee Space constitution of society. Cha a X of the book, in seeking to ge (eae 2 organisation of socia ei in ti eat is eve cial oe in time- y ‘alist societies. My arguments a is here depend is mesa pitaicn : ; he neon of es pone - In this bi it > I “al been Strongly influenced by oxi Tien T in his vg ) i ae various attempts to formulate an ; fen Neither time nor space can be i and social ue © been in so many forms of modern Phe on Bettie Ory, following Kant, as ‘frameworks’ of a ‘presencing : 4 n Social theory time-space can be nde absence that const continual intermingling of Presence and Ooitissaan “S social conduct. I beli implicati ai s lieve the implications the enigmatic int, whic! h does not Pretend to resolve In the book I try to demonstrate Character of tj time, to b an affinit » €0 be profound Y betwee ae S Maths of time-space as o labour-time, as focal to the Heidegger’ i" arx’s analysis m, S ants Maturation of capitalism oo Products v to processes of commodi- nature of Capit, very directly upon th Fieri“ Possible by the (Ormati i Prevalen, » Via the time itseig. « ae Marx Makes fiat un \Odities ...> Clear, is ae D Presuppose the oS exist only F the commodification of t a Commogdif;.... uPoral 2 xchange-val a fied space) sanitation of en of units ne ae which in Social jn, PI he nd its se : : IStitr ue ny Paration from a eee Which « ab ny Oly to the fee a sopottance in cap; Production’ 4 ¥ capitalism, but ES to a Stes. In ISt soci » the economy? rately intry, a Sv cio tite foreign ae assumes an Process, Th ina Signifi ies Ocesse, class-divided nd with : ity of St Maya t S Of class exploitation 101 Of wort : na: ee ants wi nk “°*eStimatin, ers in such ae Of the labour Ystems, ag M8 the gi leties are peasants, h integrate S° Modes j : N schen.. Within by i which the fOader i are ea MVolved, it is broadly’ Introduction 9 true to say that the character of peasant labour is not determined by the exploiting class. In Marx’s terms the peasant retains a high degree of control over the labour process (labour also being closely interrelated with the autonomous customs of the local community). The expropriation of workers from control of their means of production, creating a mass of saleable labour-power, involves the intrusion of class relations into the production process itself: labour-power, the medium of the creation of surplus value, becomes capable of being ‘programmed’ into the over-all organisa- tion of the labour process, as co-ordinated by the dominant class. In Chapter 5 I try to document the transmutations in social life brought about by the twin processes of the commodification of time and space, and by their interpolation in the labour process as mentioned above. In class-divided societies, as in non-class societies of all sorts, the experience of time is not separated from the substance of social activities. The development of ‘clock time’, as the organising measure of activities in day-to-day life, is a specific feature of the rise of capitalism. Mumford’s writings are again of particular importance here. Power-machines, he points out (as does Gimpel), existed in Europe well before the arrival of capitalism. The harnessing of machinery to the formation of a novel system of production was made possible by the clock. The public, objectified time of the clock, I propose, is the very expression of the commodification of time; time as ‘measured duration’ is commodified time, separated from the contents of existence. In class-divided societies there were a variety of examples of the large-scale, disciplined co-ordination of human beings in produc- tion processes: in plantations, or the construction of temples, city walls, roads or other such projects. But these were never more than ancillary to the economic order of those societies. The advent of capitalism, in which labour-power is co-ordinated within a broader production process, brings about the separation of home and work-place. In the capitalistic work-place the mass of workers experience demands for labour discipline previously only approached in isolated sectors of class-divided societies. Workers have to be ‘managed’. The labour discipline sought through modern management, however, is not immediately backed by the threat of the use of force, as was most often the case in the examples alluded to above. This is a very important element in my eh ee ON er erat eer ate RaS GRem 10 AC ontemporary Cr; Mique of Histor, cal Materialis, ism discussio, Ssion of capita capitalist state ort and connects to the theory ees ani capitalism, employers are not the ‘ies ie hands of the state gn °! Violence, these being ce ae oe “ag The m; a oe oho in the orkers j on which employ © capitalist | market in order t i ivi st la : ‘0 obta emergence if oe Contract is the key to soniye anagement’ Sere opment of I; ‘sement’ on the > ha ‘ abou : i one hand, and managed! Riaccnc on the other. Workers mi the lap, cither relig : : Settee gious o; a Sala contract is both tease * moral props to obeisance: re . By sce » and concerns only economic Cat of with, inte Workers acquire sanctions of the Dur tha bes 4 he the cornersteine since the nineteenth century i : Stone of « u ae ic economies, Then ‘ industrial relations’ in the ly ‘anagement’ of labour is achieved laa h the exte en Eitan iS Surveillance into the work- aes © and work-place . ‘act, that promotes the separa- discipline «. th Bi 3 ipline © recogniti Fe, Under one roo MOTE satisfactorily a in employers that Sustaine. f © corr ed if workers are jain form of san S that the latter drawal of Clate of ti : , to regard the urban life? italism as the universal- cities. Neither ina existed in germ in cities in totant’® © property Class-divided nor in capitalist ce . class divine TStOOd in separation from f the state, ana ed societies the city was the of those gs ountyside relations gave Of the city at cee Capitalist urbanism ‘Uctural tran, = €xpense of rural social me ie ey ‘rmations introduced by MS between cit ity. Capitalist urbanism ca cian countryside that are : contemp ctions: In their stead e ome art tbanism ig ee urban living. The thing of a teh “Veryday jj. OVE. on ect try to ical sen, ue yc, pare emergence of “Mall sociggn Y, life’ here has ies, of course, human 1S not © ch; " m lara fe: lerely the : cter Introduction 11 beings live day-to-day lives, in which there is a strong element of continuity in the things they do one day after another. But in non- capitalist societies daily life is geared to tradition, and time is experienced as part of the re-enactment of traditional practices. Tradition is the basis of routinisation. In the capitalistic urban milieu, however, the routinisation of day-to-day activities is stripped away from tradition. In the ‘everyday life’ of capitalist urbanism large tracts of activity are denuded of moral meaning; they become matters of habit or of ‘dull economic compulsion’. In such circumstances the level of what Laing calls ‘ontological security’ in the routines of daily life is low. This is a phenomenon of some significance, which later in the book I relate directly to the theory of nationalism. Even the most orthodox of Marxists are today prepared to concede that there is little to be found in Marx’s writings relevant to the interpretation of the rise of nationalism; and it is commonly admitted that Marx supplied no more than the rudiments of a theory of the capitalist state. Indeed, a considerable amount of recent work by Marxist authors has been directed towards remedying the second of these deficiencies. In my analysis in this book I offer a critical evaluation of some of this recent work. But my discussion follows closely lines of thought opened up by the ideas I have sketched in previously. The capitalist labour contract is an integral element of the separation of ‘economy’ and ‘polity’ that is a basic institutional feature of the capitalist state. I take some pains to make it clear that the separation from, or ‘insulation’ of, economy from polity should not be equated with competitiveness in product or labour markets. But I also want to insist that this insulation of economy and polity involves the phenomenon I have mentioned previously: the extrusion of control of the means of violence from the principal axis of class exploitation, the capital/wage-labour relation. Commitment to freedom of contract, part of a wider set of claims to human liberty fought for by the bourgeoisie, became institutionally distinguished from ‘public’ authority, bolstered by monopoly of the means of violence. In this book I do not claim to examine the historical conditions giving rise to these phenomena in anything like the detail they merit. I do wish to say that there was more continuity between the period of European absolutism and the formation of the capitalist 12 AC mporary Critique o rical Materialism ‘ontemp, porary Critique of Historic f State — or, more (Chapter 8). Ab: accurately, states — th; pclitlons ot an is often acknowledges ystem, which was ¢ nexus out which nation-states became Syst ich he ‘i state States becant formed. | 4 argue that capits ReScatio, a capitalist states emerged as nation-st; Betident oth’ en and the nation-state = aa Beas rae at it has appeared to be to many Man : ae Seat in alike, In seeking to substantiate a nation-state inction: betwee: ! ge ie een the absoluti ationalism. The absolutist state colnial : st ste led only With the ve. TY early forma use the term, cake mation of capitalism. The ‘nation-state’, as! Bo came to maturity j oth the absolutist aad eens in the nineteenth century. “state are specificall it s ly European in system become a world: my analysis, I think, is the the nation-state claim that ae ie distinctive about : lergence of th, i le Natio) Ofaclage *Pansion of capital; n-state was integrally bound : divided society Beis oe absolutist state we part r orm fi » aS elsewhere — ape relati ROM tacis 3 ‘ ere — although in quite cg, 8 the foundation of scmites ~ the city crue Container eat the nation. © social order. My argument, in ect di Shaping the ene Teplaces the city i th ‘power: cision with OUNtryside ¢, ‘pment of the capitalist societies, a Which the nadation becomes dissolved. The pre al Ties of aoe i eee to the come nation-state are drawn is century ee of the city by its walls. velopment State has played a far more ionally and Ee capitalism as a form of rxist theo nationally) than was ever onomy. As Lt TY, Or in that of its opponent, °t this analyti *Y to indicate in the text, one of social hought SE Rny is the prevalence in sentially non. ibe Notion that capitalistic dl to the eat in nature. Such a view activitig « *8S0ciated ne Pacification of states, ing eri 0 thE state gan 2 Massive expansion of devine with radical alterations : ox it ignores the fact ei eyor of violence Test of System and in the in the world, tel ~ “tM ‘nation-state’ and Introduction 13 ‘nationalism’ are used more or less synonymously. But I think it important to distinguish between these, since they may be associated in various diverse ways. What makes the ‘nation’ a necessary element of the ‘nation-state’ in my definition is not the existence of sentiments of nationalism (however strong these may be) but the unification of an administrative apparatus whose power stretches over precisely defined territorial bounds. ‘Nation- alism’, by contrast, may be understood as symbols or beliefs which attribute a communality of experience to the members of a particular regional, ethnic or linguistic category — which may or may not be convergent with the demarcation of a nation-state. While there is a very large literature on nationalism, theoretical interpretations of the phenomenon have been notoriously lacking. Within the confines of this book I do not pretend to develop a theory of nationalism in any depth; but I do offer a discussion of some of the features that such a theory might involve. Nationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon and as such, I believe, expresses psychological sentiments that feed upon the rootlessness of an everyday life in which what Geertz calls the ‘primordial sentiments’ of social reproduction, grounded in tradition, have become substantially disintegrated. Virtually all writers on nation- alism have commented on its ‘Janus-faced’ character. Nationalism may seemingly be associated with images of enlightenment and justice, but it also conjures up brutal forms of cultural imperialism. We can explain the ‘Janus-faced’ nature of nationalism, I argue, in terms of the fragility of ontological security in the wasteland of everyday life. A prominent component of the more active forms of nationalism has been affiliation to leaders who are felt to embody the unity of the group. The theory of identification with authority- figures worked out by Le Bon and Freud, I try to show, helps explain why such identification is both a powerful motivating force, and why it is ‘Janus-faced’. Identification involves ambiva- lence that can fuel sentiments of either a benign or a virulently aggressive sort. In Chapter 9 I pose the question: what is the specific nature of the capitalist state? Such a question can be perhaps best approached through a critical analysis of contemporary Marxist writings on the issue. My discussion in this chapter draws heavily upon some of the theorems of the earlier part of the book. While the recent Marxist literature has mostly approached the problem 14 4 Con ‘mporary Cr; of Historical Materi lism “mporary Critique of Hi torical Materiali of the Capitalist state in the ‘actually ©xisting’” or h Uiitraitin. bd ypothetical, I am ma The key alot State with the state in dane dniee H Suggest, in sone ae internal dynamics of the capitalsteui State’s revenue is deme fo nine ideas of Claus Offe, is that te accumulation a Scare Upon processes of valorisation al Raritan ree 2 Aber It itself does not directly control economy an pane Of this circumstance is the insulati t relevant faiths geet @ phenomenon imate a vhat has bee Tae nam Of the state. T protest a analysing th, se le auto Activities of Momy of the ct: ‘ the doming fe state, in relation classes. Sis inant class and to the struggles of esse pais the view that the uggles are concerned, I argue strongly itizenship yj Re: € Consolidation of vha ' ights what T. H. Marshall calls her as merely the rei ca 2 ; Neficen, n be validly interpreted eit or as some kind of ‘functional Tesponse' gf's Of a liberal state “Cas Pitalism Se ae a €nship Fain need to protect its source of labour- litical soUSE the active inna Coo" Achieved in some substantial *Cepitatig et AL this junen iO” OF labour movements in the fee at ee Bae Treturn to the significance of the have somes? © Control the Aoi. Sanctions that employers ‘aye Paid emplo. * force are that workers must = Iscip]; . lent to i Constity, pline j Wo tto sury: i ii tity fe ‘ in the ae Ive, and the imposition -Onte ‘ Context of comparisons with socialisn Pita Major sites . ce through surveillance. These er the * OVEr the condi; rome class struggle within Marx expec ct tHe labour pn 10M Of the labour contract, and ation of capinste 88 conic res: j in the talism by (litt to be th f lis ._ © medium of the transform- a isnot m next . 52 Matte; Xt Volum, to sey ~ : a Purpose to discuss this is ee to examine in he stage fo, © Concluding chapter, 5 a this second phase of a psoas My particular # But in thon? 2nd its relation to themes cc final sections of the Ween Cap, 0! the volume to follow, between Laie ocialism. In the ind socialism’ in en if Actually @ aPitalism Y €Xisting? reste ® teality, one side of a ee ee ee ae Introduction 15 power-bloc sandwich with the capitalist states. But socialism also represents a set of ideals, the radicalisation of the promise of equality and freedom generated within the capitalist West. Can we still hope to be ‘between capitalism and socialism’ in this second sense? No question of political theory today poses itself more acutely. I have said earlier that this book is based closely upon the abstract theoretical considerations raised in Central Problems in Social Theory. In working out the theory of structuration con- tained therein, I had two main general objectives. First, to acknowledge the essential importance of a concept of action in the social sciences, the corollary of this being that social science must elaborate a satisfactory account of the competent and knowledge- able human agent.’ Second, to formulate such an account without relapsing into a subjectivist view, and without failing to grasp the structural components of the social institutions which outlive us, as individuals who are born and who die. In the opening chapter I sketch a brief outline of the theory of structuration. It will be useful here, however, to mention some of the methodological considerations that are associated with the standpoint it rep- resents, so far as these concern the present book. My position in this book is anti- functionalist and anti-evolutionary. I have devel- oped a critique of functionalism in Central Problems and other publications;? and my objections to evolutionism are stated in the body of this book. The relation between Marxism and functionalism is a somewhat opaque one. There are probably very few of those sympathetic to Marx who would accept the label ‘functionalist’. But functionalist notions appear, and with some considerable prominence, in the writings of many Marxists as well as in those of other social scientists nominally hostile to functionalist thought. Many Passages in Marx are directly functionalist in tone, or can be construed in a functionalist way. So the repudiation of function- alism is certainly not irrelevant to a ‘contemporary critique of historical materialism’. Now, to raise the question of functionalism is almost enough to put everyone immediately to sleep. For has not functionalism been the subject of one of the most protracted and boring debates known to sociology? Might not the same be said of systems theory, sometimes thought to be closely allied to functionalism? To a 16 A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism certain degree | am Prepared to gr alities of the years ago, Wh, sed by functionalist functionalist not another, ant these things — especially the functionalism debate of some at I cannot accept is that the authors can be quietly forgotten, ; tons still flourish in a Variety of ticat.. bain, the functionalism debate to my mind functionalic, e ‘iesppiahomagd to the question of the relevance of appeals ta pe ‘sina Sciences. Nor are they resolved by stFucturaisn. ie sioner, ~ €ven if Luhmann’s ‘functional a : eniably more C2 i eo of structural-functionalien oe ae : gument ig a, ‘ S folk fea Ows. The term ‘function’ i f No Use to cy eee function’, I want to claim, t history; indeed it would do no functionalism, in any interesting Y ordina upon subjectivist views. Those é TY language Philosophy, for example, or by leties of Pheno, menol a . ’ Pe of thought, ms have seen functionalism as a Ves primacy to th nd have attempted to replace it e) er, they have € ¢ intending, Teasoning agent. Inso Sociay 1 Strongest: the s¢ “¥aY from that area where dicated in PrOP*SSES. In dive IS OF institutions, of large- beginning of ay summary of

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi