Justin wrote:
> >>I think Cohen was right that historical materialism is basically
> functional explanation,a nd I approve of historical materialism.
I responded:
> > Cohen's version of historical materialism . . . is a bunch of
> transhistorical and thus unhistorical abstractions that say little or
> nothing about real human history. Its connection with Marx's ideas is
> weak,. . . .
Justin ripostes:
>I didn't say I approved of Cohen's reconstruction of Marx's theory
>of history, either as an account of Marx or the truth about history
you said something something about the "proof of the pudding" as if GA
Cohen had proven the validity of functional explanation in a way that was
extremely pleasing to you.
>In fact I don't, I rather think Brenner is a lot closer. What I said what
>that I thought that Cohen was right that historical materialism, correctly
>construed (both in Marx and in real history) turns centrally on functional
>explanation. This is also true in Brenner's version.
I was not making a brief for Brenner's view, though his is better than GA
Cohen's. Rather, I prefer my own interpretation.
Justin said:
> >>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, . . .
I replied:
> > I don't think that "welfare" can be seen in this way. Welfare does
> dampen social unrest (in some cases, but remember the Welfare Rights
> movement). But in the US, it was simply a result of the conflict between
> classes
Justin ripostes:
>Maybe not. I won't argue the point. As I said, it was just an example. The
>point is that explanations of this sort don't involve any obnoxious form
>of teleology.
It does if you don't introduce the dysfunctional mechanisms in conjunction
with the functional ones. It's like NC economics, which acknowledges
endogenous processes of equilibration, but not endogenous disequilibration
(crisis tendencies, class antagonisms, etc.) NC economics is of course a
version of functionalist sociology, though NC economists sneer at sociology
rather than studying it, so that they don't realize their affinity with
Talcott Parsons.
>Joel Blau writes: >The other problem with functionalism is the implicit
>tendency to homeostasis. Whatever happens serves the function
>of maintaining the whole.
Justin says:
>This confuses functionISM with functional EXPLANATION. I have explained
>this in a previous post.
functionalism and functional explanation are the same thing if
dysfunctional mechanisms -- i.e., the way in which capitalism is a
contradictory system -- are ignored.
I wrote:
> > The basis [i.e., basic] functionalist fallacy is to read the present
> as justifying the past.
Justin says:
>So what makes historical materialist explanations that use
>functional explanation committed to homeostaic and justificatory of the
>past, including even Cohen's version?
see above.
> >> I will send you a copy if you like. --jks
>
> > I have a copy somewhere already. In fact, in moving to my new office,
> I created a Justin Schwarz pile of papers. But my life is too
> disorganized to get to it...
he writes:
>I am flattered.
hey, don't let it go to your head. I've never read most of them. Too busy
with pen-l....
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
