Re: BHA: FWD: Society, Santa

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the reply. I've no idea why the message should be rejected if
you send it to colin.wight@xxxxxxxxxx

If this doesn't work try: cow@xxxxxxxxxx

Still that's technology.


I was puzzled by your reply, certainly in respect of the claim that I might
be close to articulating a methodological individualist position. My
position is not at all that if individuals, through acting in a none
knowing way, could make a social structure non-existent.
In fact, I had thought i had argued stronly for the reverse of that. The
only way i can see that you could have arrived at that interpretation is
through extrapolating from my argument vis-a-vis santa to that of society
(structures). Now, in terms of Santa, since I do indeed argue that he does
not exist, (and if I wanted to be a killjoy and impose my non-belief in his
existence on my son and shattered his illusions) and stopped playing the
Xmas game etc., then, santa will have no causal power over me and those
close to me (assuming of course that I can enact a dictatorial control over
them - which i can't). If I decide to stop playing the santa game, then no
presents, no sherry, no wine, no december 25th for me and my family. Social
structures don't work in the same way. If I stop believing in the state can
I stop paying my taxes? can I hell - unfortunately - so no methodological
individualist position here.

But, if I stop playing the santa game can I stop giving presents? Sure.
This seems to me to be good evidence of a real ontological distinction
between the two.

So, as an individual, I can halt the flow of discourses and practices on
Santa - at least as they relate to my practices. I do not have the same
measure of control over social structures and it is because I see Santa and
social structures as ontologically distinct that I reject any attempt to
take my arguments about santa (which may well be underpinned by
methodological individualism, because whether or not i play the santa game
is up to me) and relate them to my arguments about social structures.
Obvioulsy, of course, this is an argument about the status of discourses of
Santa as they are now, and does not rule out the possibility of state
intervention to compel me to give presents. Note, however, that it is
society that might play this potential causal role and not santa. Santa, as
far as we can tell does not exist and cannot compel me to do anything.

The state. Obviously, since the state is integral to my discipline
(although if you look at the literature you wouldn't know this) this is
something I have thought about a lot. I too think your answer a plausible
one, but as you say what do we mean by everybody. How many people have to
stop believing in the state to put it out of business. More to the point
what is the state? My discipline tends to treat the state as an individual
with fears, beliefs, wants and needs; in effect a person. I tend to prefer
to view the state as a structure, and as such it is dependent on the
concepts people have of it. The point seems to be that "everybody" really
does have to get pretty close to everybody in order for this structure to
go, the same is not the case with santa.

You raise the issue of santa and God in relation to this, but as I have
pointed out I find the analogy a spurious one because Santa, God and
society are not analogous; they have a different ontological status. You
also raise the Inca's, and Aztecs, again I find this a spurious example,
because although these did exist once they do not now. Santa (as a
white-bearded man, etc.) has never existed in the same manner. Let me throw
an exampple back at you. Is there an ontological distinction between Incas
and the people of Atlantis (at least as far as we can tell)?

Still, interesting issues.

Thanks,



=============================================


Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Wales
SY23 3DA
Tel: (01970) 621769


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---