James Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> 02/09/00 04:16PM >> 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.
&&&&&&&&&&&
CB: Again on this relations/forces of production thing, I think Marx considers working classes to be both force and in a relation of production. But more to the point here, even the instruments and means of production ( which are the other forces besides the working classes) do not develop independently of the class struggle. I don't think that Marx had the idea that "inventors" of new technology the independent variable causing revolution. Afterall, who invented the cotton gin ? Was it really only Eli Whitney , or was it that Eli Whitney stole some ideas from the slaves who were constantly picking cotton and likely to come up with ideas to make their work easier and more efficient ? So, the working classes are also a cause of the development of the instruments and means of production, the other forces of production. Or probably most of the technological inventions that were the development of the instruments and means of production in feudalism that became ripe for a trans! formation to capitalism were made by the bourgeoisie ,who were a partial working and oppressed class in feudalism.
>
> 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.
&&&&&&&&&
CB: Don't tell me I'm an Analytical Marxist ?
CB