I'm sorry that I started a discussion of the Rethinking Marxism conference.
Not having been there, I didn't know that people were so sensitive about
it. Worse, I didn't realize that it would open the Jerry vs. Louis debate.
Anyway, I think that pen-l has said enough about that conference -- because
there's not much more (or anything) left to say!
I agree that we need to avoid sectarian attitudes in the discussion between
the RM school and the various non-RM schools of Marxism. (Among other
things, the discussion of whether or not a school is truly "Marxist" or
not is a pretty sterile one.) It's also good to _welcome_ criticism from
others on the left (though without automatically accepting it as true) as a
way of clarifying or even revising one's ideas. No-one knows the truth, so
getting someone else's perspective on an issue can help one get closer to
an understanding of the truth. Even bourgeois critiques of Marxism can help
sometimes.
So why not keep the discussion at a theoretical level? let's all make an
effort to avoid attaching any personal emotions to the discussion. I am NOT
attacking any individual below. Rather, I am trying to "rethink Marxism"
(to coin a phrase ;-)).
Here goes: as I said in a pen-l missive awhile back (picking up on one of
Robin Hahnel's points about Walrasianism), it's important to know the
limits of any theory, i.e., where it does not apply. One problem with
people like Gary Becker is that he has little or no idea of where he should
stop applying his economic theory and so applies it to issues like
marriage. The same applies to some (though by no means all) versions of
what the RM school terms "orthodox Marxism," which were indeed
"essentialist," seeing class as the be-all and end-all of all social
phenomena. Ignoring the limits of a theory encourages tautological
thinking, among other things (in which, for example, all of society is a
class phenomenon by definition).
So what are the limits of overdetermination? I accept the idea of
overdetermination, for example as Resnick and Wolff [1987:4] define it,
under which: "Each entity only exists as -- or is caused by or constituted
by -- the totality of these different relations with all other entities. "
If I understand R&W accurately, this means (for example) that class
relations in society interacts with gender relations, so that the
character of class phenomena is partly determined by gender phenomena and
vice-versa. (Of course, class and gender are only two of many social
phenomena that seem relevant, so the overdetermination process is more
complex.)
That sounds fine by me (in fact, it sounds a lot like Heidi Hartmann's
excellent article a few years back in CAPITAL & CLASS, which didn't spring
from the RM school). I've complained in the past that this vision doesn't
help us decide which phenomena are more important than others (capitalism
vs. the Rotarians), but that doesn't concern me here.
Rather, the issue is that of cases where overdetermination does not -- and
cannot -- apply (which I didn't see when reading R&W). Specifically,
phenomena ("entities" or social processes) in the PAST cannot be
overdetermined in their relationships with phenomena in the PRESENT or the
FUTURE. The arrow of causation _has to_ go only one way, from past
phenomena to present and future ones. We cannot talk about the present
determining, causing or constituting, the past -- until a time machine is
invented.
This fits with an insight that Alan Freeman suggested as one part of a
longer paper he presented at the recent ASSA/URPE conference: when Marx (or
Freeman) talks about "objective conditions," he is not talking about "the
forces of production" (as the technological determinists do) or even "the
capitalist mode of production" as much as the left-overs, the hangovers,
from the past.
For pen-l's experts on the RM school, is this an accurate statement of the
theory of overdetermination and its limits? are there other limits?
BTW, one of the nice things about having tenure is that I don't have to
teach myself lens-grinding the way Spinoza did in order to speak (what I
perceive to be) the truth.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
