On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 14:44:57 -0500 "Charles Brown"
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
>
>
> >>> Kelley <oudies at flash.net> 02/09/00 11:05AM >>>
> yoshie sez
>
> >I think it best to avoid organic metaphors to describe "society."
> As I
> >argued in my posts on Habermas, I think that organicism is a
> dialectical
> >twin of individualism. "Society" is not an individual organism
> writ large.
> >"Culture" cannot be usefully examined if it is seen as a giant
> version of
> >an individual mind. Organic metaphors obscure contradictions in
> social
> >relations and ideology. They attribute to what exists a false
> sense of
> >monolithic wholeness.
>
> So, what's the alternative, then, Yosh? To get to Bhaskar with
> this, what
> is it about society that makes it an an object *for us* --so that
> can be
> systematically examined? And more importantly, the problem with
> Ken's
> response [He sez that individuals are society writ large] is that he
> [zizek] collapses any distinction between the two and thus, as
> Bhaskar
> argues, such a theory lacks any capacity for theorizing social
> transformation without reversion to an appeal to something outside
> the
> whole and/or to a functionalist organicism.
>
> Typically, the charge against organic metaphors in social theory is
> that
> they represent society as operating according the homeostatic
> equilibrium:
> the body sweats to cool itself down; shivers to warm itself up. On
> this
> view, it has been argued that structural Marxism is sometimes
> represented
> in subtle organicist metaphors which are in relations of conflict,
> not
> unlike the description of fetus and mother described here not too
> long ago
> as competing over limited resources. You find it in Marx, [more
> accurately
> interpretations of Marx], in all that economicistic biz about the
> forces
> of production inevitably coming into conflict [through technological
> innovation] with the social relations of production where
> equilibrium must
> be achieved but through conflict. I read it a great deal in the
> evolutionary marxism discussed on this list.....
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&
>
> CB: Not that I am proposing using organic or physiological metaphors
> for human society ( for example, a la Radcliffe-Brown's functional
> anthropology buttressing British colonialism with physiological
> equilibrium metaphors of the type Kelley mentions), but one can get
> around the homeostasis issue by bringing in the evolutionary part of
> biology. That is extend the metaphor, such that some "species" of
> society go extinct, and new ones come into existence. This
> qualitative transformation is due to "internal contradictions". etc.
> The conflict between forces and relations of production does not
> come into equilibrium in the old society. It destroys the old
> society, and is the means by which the new society is created. In
> other words, punctuated equilibrium , a la Stephen Jay Gould.
Speaking of functionalism, Justin's old intellectual hero G.A. Cohen in his KMTH proposed a form of functionalism which rejected the three theses of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski:
(1) that all elements of social life are interconnected such that
they strongly influence one another so as to 'form one
inseparable whole.'
(2) all elements of social life support or reinforce one another,
and hence the whole society in aggregate which they constitute.
(3) each element is as it is because of its contribution to the whole.
Cohen argues that thesis (2) is falsified by the conflict, strain, and crisis that is endemic to many societies and is in any case to be rejected as viciously conservative. And likewise theses (1) and (3) will be rejected by most Marxists. Nevertheless, Cohen argued that the rejection of theses of classical functionalism need not entail the rejection of reliance upon functional explanations in the social sciences. Furthermore, in Cohen's interpretation of Marxism, historical materialism is seen as reliant upon functional explanations. Historical materialism embraces a type of functionalism that is revolutionary in that it predicts large-scale social transformations and it claims that their course is necessarily violent.
Forms of society are said to rise and fall in accordance to their advancing or retarding of the development of the forces of production and this implies that social structures will undergo massive transformations over time. Whereas, classical functionalism posits that social institutions are to be functionally explained in terms of their sustaining existing society, historical materialism posits that they are to be functionally explained in terms of their adaptations to the development of the forces of production and that social forms that resist this development are doomed to disappear. Also, this process by which social forms become adapted to the forces of production is not a quiet and easy process. On the contrary, it is often violent and disruptive. Society adjusts itself to nature through the rise to power of new classes. Class struggle plays a crucial role in this adaptive process. Without class struggle the adaptation of social forms to the developing forces of production cannot occur.
>
> But I am not for using biology as a metaphor in cognizing human
> society. I am for recognizing that human society remains the society
> of a biological species in dialectical contradiction with its
> uniquely human, symbolic, historical qualities. Marxism is the
> understanding of society as a contradiction between the natural and
> the cultural; not the utter obliteration of the natural. The
> Marxist focus on production is based on the fact that human society
> is still partially determined by biology or fulfillment of
> physiological needs, even if , as I say, this determination is in
> unity and struggle with historical or cultural or "super"natural
> determinations. The subject matter of physical anthropology is not
> empty.
>
That seems pretty much the position that Cohen took in KMTH.
Jim Farmelant ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.