Subject: Re: BHA: Dialectizing
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:49:37 -0600


Is the hole in the Ozone itself a social structure?  I think that this is an
important question.  However, Bhaskar, to the best of my knowledge, does not
use the term social structures, even in the part that Hans cites (and
please, let me know if I am wrong) .   He does define structure of things
(DPF 404 for example.)  In chapter two of PON he asks about properties of
societies that might make them possible objects of knowledge (p. 31), and in
DPF p. 157 he talks about social forms.

If I am correct in my understanding of Bhaskar, this is intentional.
Societies have a tendency to act in a sexist way in virtue of their
structure.  The structure itself is of course social in the sense that it
would not exist without human beings, but to understand why it tends to act
in a sexist way one have to look at relations between individuals and
relations between individuals and nature, matter, etc.  Thus, in this sense,
the terms social structures is misleading.  Societies are structured in a
way that consists of both social and material relations.

The hole in the ozone is indeed causally efficacious, and hence a structure.
Whoever felt the last heat wave has no doubt about it.  To ask whether it is
a social structure seems to me misleading.  More generally, one condition
for a structure to exist without human agency is that some of its inner
relations are material.  Thus, it seems to me that it would not make sense
to speak about commander-solider in this sense, but it would make sense to
speak about the effects of war.

Hope it helps, unless Bhaskar does have a definition of social structure.

Amit Ron



----- Original Message -----
From: <HDespain-AT-aol.com>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: Dialectizing


> Hi Mervyn,
>
> when you suggest "present", do you have in mind something similar to
Archer
> argument about the presence of specifically 'these people' (King critiques
> Archer along these lines).  i have forgot how she puts this exactly, but
if
> social structure could be reduced to the people currently reproducing some
> social structure, the social structure in fact would not exist, say for
> example sexism would not exist in some geographic area, because the people
> there are 'enlighted' and believe in equality etc., but nonetheless
somehow
> sexism persists inspite of these particular agents because somehow social
> structures endure from the past and exist beyond any particular (set of)
of
> individual(s) who(m) is(are) currently present (not dead).
>
> it is in this sense that i understand her examples of the enduring effects
> such as dustbowls, ozone holes, etc. of course these effects are not
social
> structures themselves, but are rather metaphors to how social structures
tend
> to endure past the presence of those people and their actions that brought
> them into existence, again for example racism and sexism.  In other words
> racism, sexism somehow metahorically have similar enduring conquences,
they
> exist in the same sense, but we experience such effects differently.
>
> but Bhaskar says "*without* any human agency", the above could maybe be
> termed  '*without* particular human agents"?  if he indeed as something
like
> the above in mind, which btw would be supported when he says "We cannot do
> everything at once or be aware of all the consequences of any one of our
> actions", nonetheless "*without* any human agency" is very misleding?
>
>
> Hans D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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