Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> 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.
It does serve those interests, but do those interests serve to explain _either_ the origins _or_ the perseverance of racism? I don't think so, and I would expect that to be the case for most social relations, however functional they may be. At most the fact that racism serves capitalist interests could explain the resistance of most actual capitalists to measures that would reduce racial discrimination. I would be happer, however, if even such resistance was explained in more systematic terms.
I tend to understand functionalist arguments as being like that 18th century suggestion (I don't remember now whether it was serious or in jest) that we had noses in order to support spectacles -- i.e. I tend to identify functionalist explanations with teleological explanations. They tend to identify what needs explanation rather than provide an explanation.
Carrol