Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> At 08:02 AM 4/5/00 -0700, Michael wrote:
> >Excellent, except it is not true.
>
> Michael:
>
> Ceratinly, linking the design of the space shuttle to the size of the
> horse's posterior in the Roman times is overstreatched a bit, to say the
> least (it is humor after all) - but the exaggeration does draw attention to
> a frequently overlooked factor in collective (including economic) behaviour
> - habits, customs, rituals, social expectations etc., in a word - stock
> knowledge as sociologists call it.
>
> My favorite example is the QWERTY keyboard layout- which was initially
> designed to slow the typist down (since the first typewriters jammed
> frequently) - a convetion that even BIll Gates with his trmendous
> propensity for planned obsolescene did not dare to break. Another example
> is the US measurement system - that is extremely cumbersome,
> counterintuitive, and impractical (especially when fractions are involved)
> - but persists by the sheer power of habit and inertia (even though
> scientists use the much more efficient metric system).
>
> Another example of ritulaitic behavior disguised as rationality is
> corporate contingency planning in situations that are basically untrollable
> given current technology, such as nuclear explosions (either war-related or
> industrial accidents) or oil spills. These "plans" are nothing more than
> rationalizing rituals to give the involved stakeholders an illusion that
> they can control what they are doing.
>
> So the point I tried to get across is that explanations seeking either
> beneficial or evil rationality in human behavior (cf. neo-classcial
> "invisible hand" or the world-system theories) is a fallacy of confusing
> rationality with rationalizations. Everything can be ex-post-facto
> rationalized by smart people (that is the amazing power of human brain!) -
> but that does not mean that the actual social actors were rational at the
> time of making decisions that are subejct to our explanations. Most
> likely, they were not due to two factors: "bounded rationality" (imperfect
> information) and the role of "stock knowledge" and related cognitive
> factors (such as framing) that affect information processing & behavior.
>
> The implication of this train of thought for social activists is to be wary
> of "systems" - such as "capitalism." It is one thing to construct a
> theoretical model that simplifies, exaggerates and ignores certain things
> for heuristic purposes, and quite a different thing to maintain that such
> models and kindred abstractions have a real-life existence. In all
> likelihood "capitalism" i.e. the economic principle of profit-maximization
> through expropriation of labour-power, commmodity exchange and monopoly
> power is but one of many social forces that shape modern organization of
> the economy. Maintaining that it is the only or dominant force is
> tantamount to reductionism that ignores a plethora of other forces, such as
> social institutions, traditions, strategic location, or simply accident.
>
> I think we had that debate before in connection with Brenner's position
> advocating the importance of social institutions in capitalist development
> in Europe - which some more "orthodox" marxist-leninists view as a
> reactionary heresy.
>
> In sum, it makes little sense to me to look for "contradictions" within the
> "system" - let alone hoping that such contradictions will somehow bring the
> social organization of the econonomy down. Contradictions belong to the
> realm of thought, not reality. Everyday life is full of contradictions
> embedded in multiple social institutions, which nonetheless exist.
> Studying those instiutions is more fruitful that searching for
> contradictions that will destroy the rule of capital (which is tantamount
> to magic or prayer - they are all based on a belief that the realm of the
> mind affects the material world).
>
> wojtek
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu