On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:02:33 -0500 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
writes:
> >>I haven't read the above paper & intend to do so later, but could
> you
> >>tell me when you think intentional-functional explanations are
> useful
> >>& when you think they aren't?
> >>
> >>It seems to me that intentional-functional explanations aren't
> useful
> >>for explaining the origins & transformations of ruling-class &
> >>working-class racisms, for instance. Intentional-functional
> >>explanations don't seem useful for explaining imperialism either.
> >>
> >>Yoshie
> >
> >I don't think there is an a priori rule as to when
> >intentional-functional explanations are useful. For example, there
> >is no question but that racist ideologies were intentionally
> >promulgated by US, British, and South African elites in the 19th
> and
> >early 20th centuries, in part with the idea of fighting communism.
> >You can see this, e.g., in some Thomas Nast cartoons. Whether such
> >an explanation is useful depends on the facts of the case, no?
> --jks
>
> _Once racism arose_, it could & has sometimes been employed
> intentionally by the governing elite & their lackeys (e.g., Willie
> Horton ads). In such cases, intentional-functional explanations are
>
> obviously useful. They cover, however, only a small part of what is
>
> to be explained, I think. For instance, what of the very origin of
> racism? It doesn't make sense to argue that the ruling class
> intentionally created racism in order to enslave Africans for racism
Hence, my contention that Robert Merton's distinction between latent and manifest functions can be useful for understanding how historical materialist explanations work. (Jerry Cohen as I recall in his *Karl Marx's Theory of History* seemed to have little to say concerning this issue despite what I would contend is its great importance in understanding how functionalist explanations in general work, as well as how Marxist functionalist explanations work. Thes distinction that Merton draws between latent and manifest functions can be linked to the Marxist distinction between science and ideology. Latent functions operate beyond or behind the conscious awareness of those who are effected by them. Ideological consciousness can comprehend manifest functions but not latent functions, which cannot be perceived and understood without the application of a scientific analysis.
>
> is functional to slavery under capitalism. What of the differences
> between ruling-class & working-class racisms? I doubt that
> intentional-functional explanations help to illuminate them.
Although racist ideologies are sometimes promoted by ruling classes intentionally for the purpose of dividing workers against themselves, it would seem to be a vulgar error to infer that the evolutions of racism is best understood in terms of intentional-functional terms.
>What
> of
> contradictory themes within racism (e.g., Mammy versus Jezebel,
> Uncle
> Tom versus Criminals)? And laws, customs, & institutions that
> produce racist outcomes but are not intended for such a purpose,
> which I believe accounts for much of post-Civil Rights racism?
>
> Most importantly, what's functional for capitalism as a mode of
> production isn't necessarily good for individual capitalists or
> capitalist factions, & vice versa. Imperialism is functional for
> capitalism, but it isn't necessarily good for individual
> capitalists.
A point that was not fully grapsed by Kautsky for instance. Kautsky correctly perceived that imperialism harmed some capitalists, while benefiting others. From this he drew the conclusion that imperialism as such was not necessarily functional for capitalism since he could see that not all capitalists benefited from it. But on that point he was arguably wrong, wheras Lenin seems to have been right. However, the determination of who was right, Lenin or Kautsky is one that cannot be made except by making a scientific analysis, which in this case requires a painstaking study of political economy and history. Many of the functions that imperialism performs for capitalism are clearly latent in nature, not being readily evident to most people including presumably most capitalists.
> I think intentional-functional explanations have difficulties
> accounting for these important phenomena (unless you attribute
> intention to the World Capitalist Spirit or something like that in a
>
> Hegelian fashion).
Hegel did talk about what he called the "cunning of reason" which owed much to Adam Smith with his "invisible hand." Smith having argued in *The Wealth of Nations* that the free market could compel competing capitalists to act for the general good, when they were only intending to act in their own self-interests.
>For instance, intentional-functional
> explanations
> of ruling-class racism are subject to criticism from those who think
>
> like Gary Becker.
>
> At 5:05 PM -0500 3/21/01, Charles Brown wrote:
> >CB: Oppressing ruling classes are elite minorities and must be more
>
> >conscious than the classes they oppress to rule them. The
> >consciousness means that many ruling class practices are
> intentional
> >on the part of at least the ruling class "central committees".
> >"Functional" has a lot of baggage in social scientific literature,
> >but these intentional practices preserve the ruling class as
> >oppressing ruling class, and preserve the relations of production
> >and private property.
> >
> >Racism does not spontaneously persist in the U.S. It must be
> >continuously promoted and adapted to new circumstances. The ruling
> >class knows this and they foster and reinvent it.
> >
> >Tautology is not foreign to fundamental theory.
> >
> >On teleology, the end or purpose of capitalist society _is_ more
> and
> >continuing capitalism from the capitalists' point of view. They
> >consciously act toward that end.
>
> When the ruling class rule directly (e.g., by making investment
> decisions), they do so without an intention of reproducing
> capitalism
> as a mode of production; otherwise, the ruling class rule only
> indirectly, via the governing elite, lobbyists, think-tank
> intellectuals, the mass media, etc., and it's the job of the latter,
>
> not the former, to consider what's good for capitalism as a mode of
> production, if & when they consider it at all.
>
> Only a small minority of capitalists actually become members of the
> governing elite.
>
> Yoshie
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.