Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:10:08 -0600
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: RE: Institutions as Mechanisms?




Howard Engelskirchen wrote:
> 
> Following Bhaskar in the second chapter of Possibility of Naturalism (or the
> equivalent chapter (ch.5) in Reclaiming Reality) the generative mechanisms
> of social life would be social relations, wouldn't they? This would be true
> of international social life as much as any other. So any analysis of
> institutions would have to be built up as a phenomenal consequence of such
> underlying generative structures. Institutions can still be causally
> efficacious, certainly, but that potency must be located within a generative
> context. So, for example, the WTO would have to be situated within the
> context of underlying structures of oppressed/oppressor nations, no?

This gets at my point quite well. As Daniel points out below, the IMF on
occasion rules against U.S. policy. But consider 1863. There were strong
impulses among the British ruling class and government to interfere in
the Civil War on the side of the insurrectionary slavedrivers. A whole
complex of relations must be traced to explain why this did not happen.
One could say, even, that some invisible super-national institution
ruled against Britain's desired policy. Such complex international
relations among states of varying power and interests have, in the last
century, taken increasingly 'visible' forms, but has there been the sort
of qualitative change that Hardt & Negri, for example, argue for in that
now almost-forgotten piece of fluff, _Empire_. No power (including the
U.S. or its ruling class) is omnipotent, and the strongest powers lose
some games some of the time. Because that loss is labelled IMF rather
than The Treaty of X does that give independent power to the IMF? Would
the EU take a position that the ruling classes and governments of France
& Germany agreed to oppose? Would it fail to adopt a policy that those
two states saw as vital to their shared interests?

Got to catch a train. I'll see Friday evening how this discussion
proceeds from this point.

Carrol
-----
Daniel Pinéu wrote:
> 
> Carrol,
> 
You´re right, dynamics of their own _is_ quite vague. But nonetheless i
used it to convey the sense that the actions of non-state actors in
world politics have causal powers of their own - e.g. the IMF has
cautinoned the US about their current economic policy, and this has
had/will have fairly direct effects on stock markets and probably on
policy formulation, by the US, other states, and other economic agents
(such as TNC´s). Despite the fact that the IMF is often described as
"dominated" by the US (a view to which, i confess, i adhere), here they
can be seen as effecting "governance" over US (and international)
economic policy in a fairly independent manner, albeit in a "soft way".

Which brings me to the second point, that you sem to equate "governance"
with "state power", and in turn both with "government". Then you define
state-power as "military power" and/or "police power". Fair enough, the
State is a constraining mechanism, and maybe you prefer to look at it in
a Weberian way, as a territorial monopoly of legitimate violence. But
what about non-coercive phenomena in politics? Does governing
_necessarily_ involve coercion or the threat thereof? Is managing not a
part of governance, and if so does all managing require police-power?

What about other more subtle forms of power, such as the production of
meaning and consent? Do States have the monopoly on those too? What
about influence, does it rest primarily on military power? Even your
assertion that "state power (qua miliary/police power) still resides in
nation states" is increasingly coming under fire, with the privatization
of security...

I think it would be deceptive to call the UN or the WTO _sovereign_
bodies, or to say that they are governing bodies in the sense of
(state-power based) government, but i also think it very plausible and
fairly accurate as describing them as bodies of (global/regional)
governance.

If not, how on Earth do you explain what the European Commision does in
the EU? They are not a state, they are not sovereign, they do not tax
directly, they do not yield any military power of their own. And yet, it
is taking European states to court, in order to constrain them to keep
to the budgetary policies agreed upon (or imposed on them, whatever way
you prefer). There is a direct and causal effect between the initiatives
(or ruling) of the Commision and policy outcomes at a national, regional
- and, arguably - global level as well. If you do not call this
governance, what _do_ you call it? And if power rests soley or primarily
with states, and consists mostly of coercive means, how do you explain
the examples above?

I think you are reducing governing (both government & governance) to
power, and, even then, to coercive/physical/material forms of power. And
I think that for the picture to be more accurate, you would also need to
look at the questions os authority and legitimacy.

I have no beef at all with your position that the "major issue of our
time" is to deal with the current pre-eminent role of the US within the
international system/society, and its effects for the structure of world
order - in fact that is pretty much the focus of my postgrad studies &
research. But i would not go so far as subsuming everything under it,
or, for that matter, overstating the dimension of "(imperial)
state-power" vis-avis other forms of power and authority.

Cheers,

Daniel



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