Re: Re: Re: Re: structuralism

["ann li" <annzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

With all due respect to the dispute over structuralism, are we still in
agreement about "uneven development" in this context? It seems that post-war
French structuralism (with its hegelian roots) is not in disagreement.

Ann


----- Original Message -----
From: "ALI KADRI" <akadri_00@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 5:47 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:9325] Re: Re: Re: structuralism


> A structural question: what role in history does a
> citizen of the developed formations who is supposedly
> progressive but pays taxes to the defence department
> and other government agencies to clobber the poor at
> home and abroad plays? Furthermore where to draw the
> line between reformist and revolutionary politics if
> the country to which the citizen belongs (the
> structure) fully determines the indidual's role?
>
> The gravest theoretical tenet to come out of
> structuralism is the determinacy of structure. This
> puts an end to the role of individual in history (an
> Altrhusserian idea) or as others (modern and
> postmodern sociologist) like to call it "the death of
> agency." The immutability of capitalist relations and
> their extension to all parts of the globe further
> strengthens the premises supporting structuralism;
> i.e. emphasis is laid on meaning in structure and on
> social relations and not things per se. It is
> worthwhile to note that Marx critique of Feurbach's
> notion of man in the abstract independent of social
> relations and to which he rebutted by defining man as
> the reflection of concrete social relations tends to
> meet fully the structuralist emphasis on the priority
> of social relations. For that matter Marx system of
> thought stresses the determinacy of social relations,
> as does structuralism. Furthermore, I recall vaguely
> Engels describing the path of history as a resultant
> vector from a multitude of vectors of power in which
> the political approaches the economic by the extent of
> the crisis. So here is a system or structure that is
> determinant. Thus structuralism is a very helpful
> system of thought. Compared to the eclecticism of
> today, one can say well at least it is a theory well
> woven together. And like all theories it is
> conditioned by the development of thought and the
> prevalent social conditions. Its rise corresponds
> historically to the rise of logical positivism, hence
> the emphasis on the theoretical superiority and the
> need to win the war of ideas in Althusser for
> instance.  Of course, the shortcomings of
> structuralism is in its rigidity and in many cases its
> ahistorical approach to social science. But that does
> not undermine the fact that there is a determinacy in
> the global structure of capitalism: a centre and a
> periphery.  This has tremendous bearing on praxis and
> the implementation of social change. It matters
> because it guides the relationship between reform and
> revolution.
> Thus in addressing the structuralism question, one
> asks is the reform policy of social democracy capable
> of bridging the interests of the national and
> international working classes by emphasising the
> interest of the national working classes.
>
> --- Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >I don't see why we have to pay attention to
> > _either_ the Incan conquest of
> > other tribes
> > >_or_ the Spanish conquest of the Incas. Why not
> > both? both are examples of
> > class society.
> > >-- Jim Devine
> >
> > Because Incan class society was relatively benign,
> > while Spanish colonial
> > class society was genocidal.
> >
> > Louis Proyect
> > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>