Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:23:45 +0000 From: ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk Subject: Re: the ontological status of structures Is not the point somehow different from the way Heiiki put it? > >1. Hans' points would certainly be worth of a detailed scrutiny. But let me >here only ask this question: It may well be that Bhaskar says that=A8 >"a structure may survive *without* any human agency, and even despite >any human agency". But what does this sentence mean? In many >senses of the term "agency", it is not -- and cannot be -- true. Only if the >term 'agency' is specified in a particular way, can it be true. 'Saying >hello' or a 'marriage' are often used as examples of institutionalised >practices that go unnoticed most of the time for almost all actors. >But do these practices exist without agency and actions? > They can, of course, survive despite *some particular* agents >because others are reproducing them anyway or are even actively and >consciously defending those practices. This is all the more true for >many religious rituals. It seems to me that Bhaskar's statement, that "a structure may survive *without* any human agency and even despite any human agency" is basically correct. The confusion, I think, stems from the fact that actions of agents have unintended consequences. Thus the actions of certain agents and the conceptualisations they have of what they are doing may in fact sustain structures of which they have no knowledge of and no wish to sustain. The example I gave in a previous posting about the power of the British state to put down insurrection is pertient here. No-one at this particular historical juncture perhaps sees their actions as being structured to this end. But the structure endures nonetheless and has real effects. Bhaskar's example about marrying for love, and in the process reproducing the nuclear family and thus captalist relations of production etc., is also relevant. This is basically the "accordian effect". Of course, we would all accept the 'no people, no society' argument. But what people think they are doing and what the resultant outcomes of what they do are two different things. For example, I always worry about giving to charity (I still do it). Am I, in my wish to help, merely helping to replicate the captialist economic order that relies on such mechanisms and thus sustaining western aid programs that do more harm than good. I don't know! A brief word on the metaphor of mechanisms. Heikki writes: >After all, according to the innovative non-Humean conception of causality >Harré, Secord and Bhaskar have been developing, the socially/ >intersubjectively meaningful (real) reasons are causes for actions, and >there would be no society without these -- in a certain sense *always free*, >independently of whether any emancipatory process has taken place >(and in the latemodern world, many emancipatory processes have taken >place) -- actions. The issue for me is that these reasons would be probably what I would call causal 'mechanisms', but the existence of a reason/mechanism, as we are all probaly aware, do not mechanistically determine what we do, because there may well be other reasons/mechanisms in the equation. But since I accept RBs thesis on 'ubiquity determinism' as opposed to 'regularity determinism' this is unproblematic. There must be some cause, some mechanism to every event, but the existence of such a mechanism does not entail that the event _will_ happen. Or that that mechanism and that mechanism alone is either necessary or sufficient for the event to happen. > >I suppose we all understand what epistemological relativism means and >can admit that there is no, nor can be, any definite, final argument pro or >con of this metaphor of 'mechanism'. But it is precisely this relativism that >also makes this kind of dialogical, peaceful and mostly non-fallacious >discussion possible.... > Oh yes, i accept this, often in discussions like this the issue appears to be one of winning or losing the argument. I tend to think of it in terms of seeing your/mine own trees through someone else's wood. Best wishes, Colin -------------------------------------------------------- Colin Wight Department of International Politics University of Wales, Aberystwyth Aberystwyth SY23 3DA -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005