Re: M.Harris:population, protein, infanticide

[Justin Schwartz <jschwart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In my view there are two big methodological problems with Marvin Harris' work:

1. He inevitably cuts out the social level of explanation and tries to
account for social phenomena in directly physical terms, such as protien
deprivation. No doubt the physical level does some explanatory work, but
this way of proceeding leaves out too much that is explanatorily relevant.

2. His physical explanations are naive functional explnations, subject to
Elster's critique of this pattern of explanation. Harris argues from X is
functional for Y (cannibalism is functional for protein acquisition) to Y
explains X. This is a fallacy. Just because something has a certain
effect, even a beneficial one, doesn't mean that that effect is what
explains its existence or persistance.

To underwrite that explanatory claim, you need what analytical Marxists
call microfoundations, an account of the mechanism by which the beneficial
effect producces a feedback mechanism that sustains its cause. (This is
what AMs mean by microfoundations.) Harris never provides microfoundations.

To speak in his favor, Harris writes exceedingly clearly and lucidly.

--Justin




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------