Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think Cohen was right that
historical materialism is basically functional explanation,a nd I approve of
historical materialism. You mistake functional explanation for teleology if
you think it involves reference to the "purpose" of events in a "grander
scheme of things." Rather it explains events in terms of their usefulness for
phenomena that support them. Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare
is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping
social unrest, stabilizing the capitalist state that is itself functional for
capitalist reproduction. There is no suprahuman teleogy here; the only
uintentions are of actual political actors, class, state, and individual
operating within constraints. But read the paper, it's really quite useful. I
will send you a copy if you like. --jks
In a message dated 6/21/00 11:18:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Justin wrote:
>Functional explanation is legitimate, but Cohen's account of it in terms
>of "consequence laws" is wrong; you need a mechanical account of
>explanation, i.e., one that regards explanation as exposing the causal
>mechanisms
functional explanation isn't the same as seeing the feed-back from the
whole to the parts. I don't think functional explanation is reasonable in
most cases, at least in social science. We can't explain societal events or
institutions in terms of their purpose in some grander scheme of things.
They are instead the result of individuals "creating history" within the
pre-existing society, based on the ideology that's encouraged and rewarded
within that society.
>>
