Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:25:10 +0100
Subject: Re: BHA: Dialectizing


My hunch is that 

1. *present (or ongoing)* is here understood, ie the meaning is *without
any present human agency*, and 

2. that he has in mind phenomena like dustbowls and holes in the ozone
layer (examples of social structures given by Margaret Archer); these
could persist without any present human agency whereas economic crises
could not. Whether they properly count as social structures is another
matter...

Likewise trying, Mervyn

HDespain-AT-aol.com writes
>When Bhaskar dialectizes TMSA in 2.9 of DPF, he says (on page 158) that 
>(social) structure may survive "(i) *without* any human agency, and even (i') 
>despite any human agency" ... then goes on to mention three more modes of 
>negative existence of social structure, all of which make sense to me. (i') 
>also seems to make sense to me, socio-economic crises being the perfect 
>exemplar.  However, i am not sure how to make sense of (i).  It seems to me 
>that this is a type of reification.
>
>How is it that reification is avoided?  
>
>On page 159 he says "We cannot do everything at once or be aware of all the 
>consequences of any one of our actions".  So is it that he is refering merely 
>to unintended consequences and unacknowledged conditions of actions?  That we 
>are bounded by unconscious motivations on one hand, and tacit sub-conscious 
>on the other?  But in this case it is *not* "without human agency", but 
>rather acknowledging the special characteristic form of human agency.
>
>trying to understand,
>
>Hans D.
>
>Is it that Bhaskar is refering to
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---