On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:01:13 -0500 bitch at pulpculture.org writes:
> At 10:24 AM 12/2/2007, John Adams wrote:
> >On Dec 2, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It's deployed as a weapon against people on the left who want
> to
> > >> improve the lot of humanity and only "end up hurting those whom
> they
> > >> aim to help."
> > >
> > > So?
> >
> >I'd go further than Doug and say it's a bedrock piece of faith on
> the
> >libertarian right that, due to the "law" of unintended
> consequences,
> >you cannot do anything to help people without hurting them more.
> It's
> >the flip side of faith in the invisible hand, and one of the most
> >pernicious ideas I've ever had to argue against.
> >
> > John A
>
> I'd say that the difference is not the law of unintended
> consequences
> because this same concept is marshalled in left analysis such as
> marx's
> claim that the unintended consequence of the pursuit of wealth by
> capital
> is that class society creates its own demise.
>
>
It seems that it was the sociologist Robert Merton who introduced the concept of a law of unintended consequences into modern social analysis in his article, "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action," American Sociological Review, Volume 1, Issue 6, Dec. 1936, 894-904. www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Merton%20Unintended.htm
He briefly outlines the history of the concept, referring to such writers as: Machiavelli, Vico, Adam Smith, Marx, Engels, Wundt, Pareto, Max Weber, Graham Wallas, Cooley, Sorokin, Gini, Chapin, and von Schelting, Curiously enough he leaves out Mandeville, who introduced the notion into 18th century discussion, and where presumably the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment picked it up from (although presumably they would have been reading Vico too).
Presumably, it was from Merton that people like the elder Kristol picked up this notion from, although I don't think that Merton was any sort of reactionary.