>
>That things produce and are themselves produced by unintended and
>unanticipated consequences can lead to some interesting observations.
>But these are not the same as functional explanations, especially
>if we attend to the meanings these things have for people.
>
>DB
Yes of course. Nonetheless, there may be good functional explanations, e.g., that racism persists because it serves ruling class interests in dividing the working class. Dennis and Yoshie are siding up with Elster against functional explanation. Many Elsterian worries are legitimate, but these just call for care in deploying functional explanations where they are appropriate. I agree with Cohen that you cannot make sense of historical amterialism without functional explanation, although it is not the only thing going on in HM. I think giving up on HM because of an a prioi objection to FE is a high price to pay, and premature; the proof of the pudding si in the eating. Let the functional explaantions and their rivals content, and see what comes out. --jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com