Re: Inevitability Theses

In response to Dassbach's point that inequality of outcomes is a result of
inequality of the distribution of resources and means, Reid writes, "If an
individual has a crooked nose, his face has the 'characteristic' of a
crooked nose, its 'most visible material form.' Or, the 'most visible
material form' of his face is the crookedness of his nose, a
'characteristic' of his face." Followed by, "I admit I am more interested in
the reality than the theory of social classes."

A crooked nose is an empirical feature of the man's face. We might leave it
at that, as Reid wishes to do. But to say that the man's nose is crooked
because he has a crooked nose does not explain why his nose is crooked.
Perhaps his nose is crooked because somebody punched him in the face. This
is a theory. We might confirm this. This explanation might lead us to the
ask whether we might stop individuals from punching other individuals in the
face. Maybe we will not completely stop the violence, yet we try because we
agree that punching people in the face is a bad thing. Sometimes we even
agree that coercion must be applied to stop people from hurting other
people. 

To explain the world, we have to move beyond empirical descriptions of it to
the level of theory. Objects fall when we drop them (this is good enough for
Reid). This observation does not explain why they fall. For this, we need
theory. Gravity seems to work well in explaning why objects fall. If one
does not want to explain the existence of social class, then they don't have
to. But then what is the point of contributing to a discussion of social
class? Reid cannot reasonably claim that social class is inevitable based on
his observation that social classes exist. He can otherwise claim this, but
it is a completely worthless statement. I would say that it is a meaningless
statement, except that it is ideologically functional. Well, then, maybe it
is worth something to somebody.

Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI