Last things first. At least you admit you don't have a theory. I think you
are confused about Occam's razor. More economic theoretical resources are
better, but no theory is not better than some theory. What you want is an
economical theory.
Functionalism is your term, not mine. I think functional explanations are
legitimate, and historical materialist explanations are broadly
functionalist. That is why I think it right to sat that, e,g,, racism is
explained in part because it swerves ruling class interests, i.e., is
functional for them. I don't say everything is functional for something;
sometimes there are dysfunctional social phenomena that threaten a mode of
production. That is how change happens, or one way it does. I talk about
this stuff in my paper Functional Explanation and Metaphysical Individualism
(on Cohen and Elster), Philosophy of Science 1993.
*********
A great essay if I do say so meself. As for racism serving this function I'll submit that Justin take a look at Bell vs. Maryland [378 US Reports -1963] and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States [1964] where the court wrote of "the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency who wrote that it was his 'belief that air commerce is adversely impacted by the denial to a substantial segment of the traveling public of adequate and desegregated public accomodations.'" While ,yes it is anecdotal, it does send a strong signal that ending racism was in the economic interests of many capitalists [gotta increase aggregate demand]. This sets up one of the pitfalls for functionalist explanations; their hypersensitivity to context.
Although I think that Cohenite forces-of-priduction HM is a valid and
extextaully based account of Marx, I am a class struggle HM-ist. I put class
relations as primary before forces of production. Briefly, in my account,
class relations provide a structure taht selects functionally useful
institutions and practices (liked racism_. These are learned, and inherited,
hence Lamarkian (acqwuired characteristics are inherited). Internal
instabilities (dysfunctionalities) may arise when the class relations cannot
reproduce themselves without producing system-underming patterns. The best
account we have of this is Brenner's story about the rise of capitalism in
England, heavily debated here some time ago. I think this qualifies as a
historical amterailsim in the Marxian tradition. *********
Um, in the [very] long run they may possibly be generative of Baldwin effects, but the use of the Lamarkian approach is a misnomer-why not just say cumulatively path dependent.
I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is no plausible
rival that has been remotely as fruitful a historical reserach program as
historical materialism. EP Thompson (the writer who taught me to think about
history), Hobsbawm, Genovese, back when he was good, Christopher Hill, Marc
Bloch, GEM de Stee Crois, MI Finley, Roidney Hilton, Brenner himself--the
great HM--were (are) good because of their HM. Of course they were nor
orthodox. Neither, in case you had not noticed, am I. It;s sort of pathetic
to see you atry to pry them away from the deep theoritrical commitment taht
anim,ates their work, and suggest that their graet work does not vindicate
the principles that inform it.
********
Given the typos, somebody has had too much caffeine...
Neither. I don't go in for Parsons or the French stuff, though I like
Foucault for some things.
*****
Both of you would get a kick out of Niklas Luhmann....
Ian