[PEN-L:11622] Re: RE: Re: wojtek

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem with Wojtek's proposal below is that it is anti-dialectical: he reverses the priority of the whole over the part. One MUST start with the largest "unit", the whole system. You must, despite the difficulty of it, start with " the world system". This error taken to its typical bourgeois level places the "unit" at the level of the individual, and then it derives the characteristics of the group or the "social" from the individual. Thus, capitalism is explained by the "rational man(sic)" who is an individual, Robinson Crusoe.

This is an error of Cartesianism.

Charles Brown


>>> Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxx> 09/23/99 04:13PM >>>
At 11:51 AM 9/23/99 -0400, Max Sawicky wrote:


Max, imho the problem is how you construct your unit of analysis - the
bigger the unit (e.g. nation-state), the fewer cases you get while the
picture becomes more complicated and difficult to analyze.  My suggestion
would be constructing a unit of analysis at a relatively low leve of
aggregation, e.g. a firm/organization instead of the nation-state or,
goddess forbid, 'the world system.' This way you can:

- effectively address the problem of human agency versus environmental
influences
- get enough emprical material (cases) to run meaninful comparisons, both
within and between nation-states;
- get enough cases to meet the 'ceteris paribus' and provide counterfactual
- whi8ch is necessary to analytically separate and demonstrate the claimed
effects of individual variables.

For example to adress the question of 'what made capitalism work and
reproduce itself' - it would be more fruitful to analyze the basic unit of
production under capitalism and, say, fedualism and see what they share in
common and how they differ - rather than addressing issue at the
nation-state level and trying to guess th efactors that brough about a
capitalist 'system.'  To my knowledge, Russian historical economist A.V.
Chayanov used that approach quite effectively.

To summarize, i'd say keep your cases (units of analysis) simple, multiple
- to ascertain comparisons and analytical separation of effects, and
empirically verifiable (is there a counterfactual to your case?), do not
loose human agency from sight, and stay clear of nation-states and world
systems.

wojtek