On 2012-03-15, at 12:36 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> [WS:] ...Hartz's argument is idealist, mine is institutional.
> It is based on the notion of institutional isomorphim or transfer of
> institutional forms rather than just ideologies (it is based on
> Giddens aned Di Maggio & Powell arguments how institutional forms are
> reproduced as well as notion of path dependence
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence and also Brenner's work
> on the origins of capitalism.) Similar outcome, different mechanism,
> if you will. But it makes a lot of sense.
> Marxism missed the mark
> quite a bit by focusing on economics and disregarding institutional
> and cultural factors (or rather reducing them to economic ones.) I
> understand it was a healthy reaction to idealism of that time, but we
> should not let the kulturkampf of one era blind our sociological
> analyses.
>
> PS. I do not think that institutional analysis disproves the
> centrality of the notion of socio-economic class in historical
> analysis - it just adds another layer of complexity to it.
Yes, there's clearly an affinity between "institutionalism" and Marxism in that both make the social and economic context central to understanding historical development. Veblen, Commons, Galbraith, Mills, and Barrington Moore were all important influences in drawing me to the left as a student. But I've always thought the suggestion, made by some in this loosely-defined tradition, that Marxism was a form of vulgar materialism which ignored human "agency" and cultural factors was bogus, and a means of distancing themselves from political Marxism without disowning Marx who commanded respect and whose theory powerfully shaped their own. Most were close to social democracy, and some like Adolph Berle were real Cold Warriors. On the other hand, you had those like Mills who were very progressive, appreciated that Marx wasn't a mechanical materialist, and even sought to appropriate him as an "institutionalist". I've only read reviews and critiques of "neo-institutionalists" like Giddens, Bourdieu, Hodgson, and Skocpol, the last for whom you've expressed great admiration. Briefly, and in plain English, in what way does "path dependence" theory, which I find very abstruse and jargon-ridden like much contemporary economic and sociological theory, contribute to your understanding?