From: "Amit" <amitr-AT-polisci.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: Dialectizing
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:36:45 -0600


Hans,

The disagreement between us is only on wording and not substantial.  I think
that the term social structures may be useful in some cases but in many
other cases, like the hole in the ozone, can misleading.


> There is a social cause that created
> the hole (again as I understand it), but itself is not social, at least
> a social structure as defined in critical realism.  Which I take to be
> the emergent social powers manifest from systems of human relations
> among social positions, and highly rule-governed possessing normative
> force.

Again, social power can be a useful term, but can also be misleading.  Is
the power of a solider standing in front of a person social or not social,
would it be different if the solider have/ doesn't have a gun in his or her
hand?  I do not deny that there are emergent power from social interactions,
but the term social power can make it look like they have no material
dimension.

> The entire section i refer concerns TMSA and structures, so when bhaskar
> states "For a structure may survive in one or more following modes: ..."
> (DPF:158), I take him to be refering strictly to social structures.
> Moreover, it is not in the least interesting to state natural structures
> can exist "*without* any human agency" this is already established with
> the distinction between intransitive and tranitive dimensions of
> science.

I don't think that the distinction between itnransitive and transitive
object is exactly the same as natural and social things, exactly because of
natural things which are the results of human activity, as the hole in the
ozone.  After humanity disappeard the hole in the ozone will be a
intransitive object and a structure which is a result of social activity.
This is not so important.  The important thing is that it is structured, a
while humanity still exist.  We can take even more simple example, the road
that leads to my home.  I walk on this road and not on the grass everyday,
because it is structured in such a way that make it more comfortable to walk
on it.  It is not a social structure, it exists without human agency, and it
might take an effort to destroy it.

The point is, again, that the distinction between natural and social
structure makes us overlook these important things, such as roads.

>
> And I wouldn't want to say "societies have a tendency to act in a sexist
> way in virtue of their structure".  But something more like 'human
> beings have a tendency to behave in particular (sexist etc.) ways, by
> virtue of the existence (or absence) of social structures and mechanisms
> they tend to reproduce in their action'

I agree that mine is incorrect.  But, as I understnad Bhaskar, tendencies
are related to structures.  So, things that are structured in certain ways
have tendency to act in such and such ways.  So, the tendency of human
beings to act in a certain ways is because society is structured in such and
such ways.  This, however, I cannot see in your phrase.

> I am not sure what you might mean by your statement: "More generally,
> one condition for a structure to exist without human agency is that some
> of its inner relations are material."  could you offer an example?

It is simple.  The structure of teacher-student cannot exist without human
agency, but roads can.  Again, there is no new insight here, just semantics.

I hope this makes sense,

Amit




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