>JM: On a more serious and clam level, one does not have to posit anything
>about human behavior, as your response previously indicated. This is simply
>a model of wealth distribution, and what human behavior produced or didn't
>produce is not posited at all. What if the wealth distribution or any
>distribution of "goods" and "rights" and "privileges" is not a result of any
>specific behavior but a result of the way certain complex systems find
>equilibrium? None of this is necessarily conscious, of course (and I am not
>saying that you are saying that it is conscious), but in the case of it not
>being a conscious element of the societies we "create", we would have to
>find the boundaries of the system in order to change the distribution within
>the system.....
This is what sociologists call 'structural functionalism' where societies are like organisms: they sweat or pant to cool off in order to reach some state of equilibrium. social scientists have used other metaphors to illuminate their s-f theories as well. one of the problems with functionalism as a form of explanation is detailed in Hempel's book on the philophy of the social sciences. I quote it, but it's in storage. In the archives, justin and Jim farmelant and I have detailed the crits from a discussion of about 7 or 8 years ago I belive. When cybernetics systems theory and the like were "hot" in the 60s, they used those metaphors to explain how systems reached equilibrium. on this view, for example, social unrest was like steam being let off to cool an overheated kettle of bouillabaise. It was, for these theorists, inevitable that such mechanisms would fall in to place.
What I'm not clear on is why you're cycling on station about market societies. they're all class societies, right? isn't that the more important issue?
in that I agree with wojtek that their failure is that they don't _explain_ what causes this unequal distribution is the problem. that is, they observe some correlations and patterns and "make news" by saying, "Oh wow, look ma! no marx, just thermodynamic physics!" but that isn't what is going on and they know it. but by claiming that it's "like" a model in thermodynamic physics, they are simply restating the same question all researchers on the topic ask: why is it this way? By using this metaphor, with its bias toward structural functionalist equilibrium models, it seems to me that they are bound to limit the areas where people look for that answer.
who's the fella who did all the work on how metaphors shape the way we think? Carrol? It seems like you've mentioned him several times -- and I know he was a big theorists that my mentor read. Anyway...
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)