This anti-psychologism baffles me. I'd expect it, sort of, from ultra-empiricist historians who think ever thing is what is is and not even a TYPE of another thing, or pomists who reject any "grand narratives" or pattern or even probablistic generalizations in history; I'd expect it from Donald Davidson, who argues that "psychology is philosophy," a purely post-hoc a priori way of imposing decision theoretic rational choice models on behavior we choose to regard as actions, see also Daniel Dennett with his concept of an "intentional stance" (very similar). But from Marxists or historical materialists the view is a total abandonment of the only real systematic attempt at a theory of history we have -- historical materialism -- and makes total wreckage pout of not only Marx's project but any project of explaining or understanding society.
All you have is individuals moving randomly and not even statistically predictably. Talk of class is totally meaningless in these circumstances, because nothing links the constraints supposedly imposed by these classes -- apparently some sort of abstractly entities unrelated to real people -- to actual human behavior. No wonder Carrol is so gloomy -- it is not because he thinks history is moving against us, it is because he think there is no history. There is only one damn thing after another. There cannot be any reason for optimism (pessimism either) on this view; we are just blind men stumbling in the dark.
Contrast this with a sensible view about the limits of psychology: Class and other structural constraints impose broad statistic limits on the the behavior of group of people in positions defined by certain dynamic social relations. These operate through the highly mediated influence of class interest on individual psychology, which produces individual behavior -- behavior that is also social because it occurs in a social context in response to endogenously generated beliefs and desires and which is also strategic, tsking into account the behavior of others, and norm-guided -- where norms are creations of group incentives and ideals. Individual behavior is not highly predictable, but group behavior is highly predictable. Moreover it is an error to conflate explanation with prediction. Lots of highly explanatory science (evolutionary biology) is even less predictive than any social science. Looked at in this perspective historical materialism is a testable and potentially useful scientific theory that might guide action.
Looked at Carrol's way there is no such thing as historical materialism, no social knowledge, no hope, only blindness and unreasonable optimism or nihilistic despair. It's clear now why Carrol has chosen the latter. It's obvious too that he is a Nietzschean, not a Marxist, or has the kind of psychology Nietzsche identifies as a nihilist.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> > Imagine psychologists develop a machine that can
> accurately map any
> > person's psychological characteristics (thoughts,
> interests, opinions,
> > desires, fears). Would this knowledge allow us to
> understand and
> > analyze the social structure of a particular
> society? Absolutely not!
> > Sure, the machine may tell us "George over here is
> one greedy son of a
> > bitch". However, that knowledge cannot explain
> social structural
> > characteristics such as economic inequality in our
> society, because a
> > greedy person cannot transform that psychological
> impulse into
> > economic
> > advantage unless there is a social structure that
> enables vast
> > economic
> > disparities. In our capitalist society, a greedy
> person can become
> > rich
> > because there are social conditions that enable
> economic
> > inequality. In
> > constrast, a greedy person in a hunting and
> gathering society cannot
> > become rich, because the social conditions of that
> society do not
> > enable
> > or allow vast economic disparities.
>
> Yeah, but we have a society that not only rewards,
> but positively
> encourages greed. And the means of a generalized
> greed - money. As
> Marx said in the Grundrisse (p. 222):
>
> "Money is therefore not only an object, but is the
> object of greed.
> It is essentially auri sacra fames. Greed as such,
> as a particular
> form of the drive, i.e. as distinct from the craving
> for a particular
> kind of wealth, e.g. for clothes, weapons, jewels,
> women, wine etc.,
> is possible only when general wealth, wealth as
> such, has become
> individualized in a particular thing, i.e. as soon
> as money is
> posited in its third quality. Money is therefore not
> ony the object
> but also the fountainhead of greed.... Hedonism in
> the abstract
> presupposes an object which possesses all pleasures
> in potentiality."
>
> Try to find evidence of that as our ancestors sat
> around and skinned
> bison. Or evidence of commodity fetishism, either.
> And these features
> of our capitalized psyches have to retard and twist
> any attempt to
> build a better society. That, and the inhibitions
> against rebellion
> that help the system reproduce itself. Hegemony is a
> psychological
> phenomenon. How can you do radical politics without
> dealing with all
> that?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469