Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:28:28 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: Rahul's thread - Howie's effects ?


Rahul,

you wanted take 'third world thread' on agenda perhaps few weeks ago. I
wondered whether you are still interested in it? (Unfortunately I don't
have anything to give on that, but) I've thought that instead of
shining-you-know-what that thread hits some really important questions:
globalization, polarisation and the like. There begins to be enough people
on the list now, I believe, so your thread could flourish?

Secondly, Howie wrote:

> The point I would make is twofold: (a) there is more to the objectivity of
> historical events than the mere fact that they took place, namely that they
> constitute generative mechanisms which produce real effects; (b) but at the
> same time Leo is right to assert that even the causality that this implies
> has no 'meaning' outside of some interpretive framework. In other words I
> think we have to try to hold on to two notions at once, one being
> 'causality' and the other being 'meaning'. They interact but neither is
> reducible to the other.

Howie refers to Leo's and Rahul's discussion. Problem Howie articulates is
classic social theoretical question of Verstehen vs. Erklären, to
understand (sense, meaning) or to explain (causality). To put it bluntly:
Rahul thinks that Leo is 'postmodernist' because he insists that there is
always dimension of meaning or sense in causal explanations in social
sciences. Leo denies. Instead he tries to show (I believe) that this
question of meaning (Verstehen) is real problem because we have to accept
some framework in order to make sense of plain facts, events and the like.
Problem is in some way tougher with historians than sociologists because
if you're a historian you can't go past and ask what those people thought
they were doing when they were doing it. Sociologist can do a survey with
living people.

However, back to Leo's argument. After that description of problem Leo
says that there is political or ideological question: Who delivers
framework to carry the work of erklären? Who says what this or that event
means? You have to make sense of events in order to begin to analyze what
causes what, so to speak. That is a problem for every social scientist.
That's the reason for everlasting theoretical fights.

That isn't 'postmodernism.' Problem is as old as social sciences. Perhaps
the most well-known war took place in early 20th century in Germany. Max
Weber, one of the three great classics (others being Emile Durkheim and
Georg Simmel) of sociology, was protagonist of 'understanding sociology.'

That's how I see the background of "Leo vs. Rahul".

Yours, Jukka L



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---