From: lriffo-AT-liverpool.ac.uk Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:20:46 -0000 Subject: Re: BHA: RE: Help on structuralism Marshall I agree that the work of Jessop is a good example of a certain flexible structuralism, particularly because of his "strategical-relational" approach. In my opinion this approach consider the posibilities of social strategies in competition and so a dynamic structuralism. However, your comments precisely establish a strong difference between what I called (not quite elegant of course) the "old structuralism" Thanks very much for your comments Luis Riffo Department of Territorial Statistics National Statistics Institute Santiago, Chile > Luis, > > Here's my shot at a brief reply. > > 1. Although the "old marxist structuralism" has been characterized as > "static and rigid" (notably by Thompson), I think it's a bit of a bum rap. > Some of the most dynamic theoretical and empirical work over the past two > decades has its roots in Althusserian structuralism. See, for example: > > Lipietz, Alain. 1993. From Althusserianism to "Regulation Theory". In The > Althusserian Legacy, edited by M. Sprinker. London: Verso. > > Regulation theory, as you may know, can hardly be said to present a "static > and rigid view" of capitalist economies. Regulation theory itself has a > close connection to CR. See: > > Jessop, Bob. 2001. Capitalism, the Regulation Approach, and Critical > Realism [Web Page]. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, 10 May > 2001. Available from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc071rj.html. > > 2. Nonetheless, CR differs from the older structuralism in many ways. One is > realism itself. Althusser emphasized "theoretical practice" and is one of > those most responsible for the "interpretive turn," social science's turning > inward from a world outside narratives to the narratives themselves, and > ultimately postmodernism. CR, in contrast, insists on a reality outside our > narratives, making the important distinction between transitive and > intransitive scientific objects. Second, Althusser just asserted his > ontology, often justifying it with scholastic references to Marx. He argued > for three structures: political, economic, ideological. CR only argues for a > depth ontology, delimiting the real, actual, and empirical, and it does so > by transcendental argument building from actually existing scientific > practice. CR is much more open to recognizing other structures, such as > gender relations. Third, and perhaps most important, CR allows for these > structures to be dynamic in multiple senses. They can have their own > internal dynamics, arising from their structures and causal powers, so that > they change and "mutate" of their own accord. Since they exist in open > systems, they are always subject to modification caused by other structures. > Moreover, since humans are embedded in social structures, conscious human > action can transform them. Although Bhaskar and Archer criticize Giddens for > ignoring time and for failing to distinguish structure and agency > adequately, Giddens ideas of double hermeneutics and the active reproduction > (and change) of structure (structuration) nonetheless survive (or can > survive in principle) in CR. Fourth, CR respects Marx but doesn't fawn at > his every word and assume that something is so simply because the great man > said it. Fifth, whereas Althusserian structuralism saw the structures as > having inevitable effects, CR sees them merely as having causal tendencies > that can be triggered, countered, or modified by other structures in open > systems. Sixth, whereas Althusser's brand of structuralism was rather > holistic, treating everything as internally related (see: Ollman, Bertell. > 1976. Alienation : Marx's conception of man in capitalist society. 2d ed. > Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press), CR is much more agnostic > on the issue of holism and atomism. In other words, CR argues there are real > structures, but it sees them as possibly discrete and separate rather than > each being the condition of existence of the other. > > I'll be interested in what others say. > > Marsh Feldman > The University of Rhode Island > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of > > lriffo-AT-liverpool.ac.uk > > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:32 PM > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > Subject: BHA: Help on structuralism > > > > > > Hi all > > > > Its clear to me that the focus of critical realism is on structures, > > mechanisms, causal powers and so on. > > > > Can anyone tell me what is the difference between this conception and > > the old marxist structuralism like Althusser? Because as far as I > > understand, that kind of structuralism lead to a static and rigid view > > of society. > > > > Thanks > > > > Luis Riffo P. > > Department of Territorial Statistics > > National Statistics Institute > > Santiago, Chile > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005