Date: 	Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:23:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: BHA: RM conference


I think it is worth pursuing the general question of the relationship
between postructuralism and positivism and the more specific one of the
presence of postructuralism at the Rethinking Marxism Conference. Sorry
about the length of this post, and its tendency to ramble.

To begin, I just want to note that the strong presence of postructuralism
(P/S) at the conference has much to do with the type of Marxism espoused by
the journal RM, and in particular that of the theoretical founders of the
trend, Resnick and Wolff (R/W). From the outset they have made
"anti-essentialism" the cornerstone of their re-interpretation of Marxism,
with "overdetermination" as its central concept. It strikes me that the key
to appreciating the differences between CR and R/W's anti-essentialist pomo
Marxism lies in seeing that R/W's appropriation of overdetermination as the
simultaneous determination of eveything by everything does, indeed, open
wide the door to the epistemic fallacy. 

But the line of demarcation between CR and R/W is, in some ways, a fine one,
which is also why I find that an openness to the possible contributions of
postructuralism (as both Tobin and Hans seemed to me to be arguing) is in
order. One key question in this regard is what we mean by "science" when we
say that CR must defend the possibility of science. I apologise if I am
covering old ground here, but I must admit that I am inclined to agree with
Jack Amariglio (the editor of the journal RM) that rejecting the notion of a
single thing called "science" can in fact have important progressive
implications. (Of course, I would add that this is only true insofar as it
does not lead to the rejection of all objective knowledge of a world that
exists independently of our knowledge of it.) The main claimants to
scientific authority remain the ruling class. So, despite its important
presence within at least certain sections of the academy, I still find it
hard to see the grounds for Callinicos' claim (cited by Colin Wight) that
post-ism is now "normal" science.

I think Hans D. is right to insist on the centrality of the question of
agency in this debate. I would argue that only CR can provide the
theoretical basis for developing a truly transformative notion of agency
which avoids the defects of traditional Marxism (with its determinist
inclination to endorse a pre-ordained historical mission of the working
class to change the world in its own image). Such a critique of classical
Marxism, I would argue, overlaps with an "anti-essentialist" one, a la R/W,
that denies any pre-given essence to social phenomena. We must get rid of
teleology if we are to have a conception of agency that embraces the sui
generis character of human intentionality that Bhaskar talks about in
Reclaiming Reality.

Where CR differs from P/S, as many have noted, is in its refusal to collapse
external reality into thought. CR, as I understand it, goes further still.
The rejection of the epistemic fallacy entails the recognition of the
existence of generative mechanisms which function independently of our
volition. The acceptance that we can develop knowledge about the outside
world then means that we can acquire a sufficient degree of understanding of
how these generative mechanisms work so that we can intentionally,
consciously, alter the shape of the external world. This never proceeds
exactly as we intend, our knowledge is never perfect, and most importantly
the social structures that make up an important part of that external world
are themselves human creations which depend on our intentional activity for
their reproduction (or transformation). In other words, the social is an
ontologically open system. This, too, is a similar conclusion to the one
embraced by such P/S stars as Laclau and Mouffe.

There are two analogous relationships that need to be explained: the
relationship between philosophy and politics and that between science and
politics. These are not identical relationships, but they share the
characteristic that politics cannot be directly derived from either
philosophy or science. At the same time, both necessarily enter into
political decisions, and this regardless of one's intentions. To me CR
allows us to begin to grasp the complexity and the inherent openness of
these relationships in a way that neither positivism nor P/S can, because of
their respective one-sidednesses. 

One conclusion that I draw is that the best possible relationship between
"is" and "ought" can only be worked out under contingent historical
circumstances, with the full awareness that all "solutions" to social
problems potentially contain the seeds of their own betrayal. The fact that
Marxism became a thoroughly reactionary ideology in the hands of numerous
dictators illustrates this, but, at the same time, it does not delegitimate
all of Marxism's insights into the workings of capitalism. It does tell us,
however, that there can be no prior immunization against the misuse of
scientific insight by abusers of political power. The political migration of
positivism that Tobin noted might also be a function of an analogous shift
>from a philosophy linked to oppositional movements to one embedded in the
predominant orthodoxy.

A progressive side to much P/S is its recognition that we are in fact the
authors of our own history. What we do, what we think, matter. It is
possible to draw from this the conviction that we can in fact change the
world. This seems to me to be compatible with the CR insight that social
structures only exist in and through the activity of living human beings
(who are never reducible to the influence of their surroundings). Thought in
these terms social transformation becomes both a highly contingent and a
necessarily political undertaking. 

To conclude, for now, it seems to me that CR enables a third way, between
positivism and P/S, while still retaining some overlap with both. The middle
ground is seldom comfortable, but I don't see any alternative to trying to
stake it out.

Howie Chodos



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---