20010921054134.56388.qmail@web11505.mail.yahoo.com">
Richard Hutchinson wrote:(my comments follow each of his points) <If you're studying world system
transformations over thousands of years, obviously morality and praxis have no immediate
relevance.>The Classical Greek and Roman historians
would have agreed with you on your point about morality/praxis having immediate
relevance in the shorter term of history. Notice, however, it goes back to Classical
times . . . centuries before Marx and it’s traced to others besides those in the Marxian tradition.The Greco-Roman historians would also argue that analytical history in the longer
term – universal history as opposed to original history – is a misplaced idea. You can’t have
“history” except in the shorter term ... and that history must be normative.What then for larger-scale histories
in the analytical sense?... If you’re granting that normative
concerns govern history in the shorter term, how can you posit a true history in the larger sense
and possibly say its analytical and/or historico-theoretical? ...<But if you're responding to
global events happening in real time, then A) it's too soon to come to any definitive understanding
of how it fits into the larger scheme of things, and B) you might actually affect the outcome.So given that, if you think you're NOT engaging in praxis,you're mistaken -- "if you're not
part of the solution, you're part of
the problem.">Yes, but please let us define “real
time” here.If it means just this
instant, then anything immediately preceding it isn’t
really “real time” and doesn’t really exist. If real time means anything up to a few days ago (or
better yet) anything up to within the living experience of either
the historian involved and his/her contemporaries (historians and non-historians
alike) then “real time”
as a means of judging whether history should be analytical or normative is
rendered meaningless still.By virtue of what we know
from Chaos Theory ALL minor changes in human experience (via the historian
or the drunk down the street)(and in
the natural world) affect the outcome of events. The
historian in his/her work can’t help
but influence the outcome of events in the world around her/him.
The individual – no matter who he or
she is – can’t help but affect the outcome of events
in the world around him- or her- self.The historian cannot help but engage
in praxis, even in the midst of a more largely framed analytical study.The same thing goes vice versa.The historian even as he/she might try in the shorter term to avoid
the larger issues and deal soley with
the normative dimension cannot help but to at least touch on these larger
issues and engage up to a point in
larger scale “analysis.” <My main interest in understanding
how the world works is to better be able to change it (Marx's 11th thesis on Fuerbach).I have developed a taste for
theory in the abstract through my graduate school training, but that is ultimately
secondary.>We all want to change the world
for the better ... but notice here something interesting.Notice the practical issues at hand, the empirical matters,
and the concrete historical content doesn’t really change as one moves
from so-called “real time” into larger scale histories. The edifice of content
remains largely the same. Thus, to
some degree, a level of broader “analysis” on the level of world-(systems
and subsystems) should still be possible.
A purely normative, ideological study isn’t the only way to deal with recent
events.<Perhaps you are unaware that
the entire dependency/world system school of theory was a neo-marxist, not neo-weberian, response to imperialism
in Latin America, Vietnam, and elsewhere (never mind the earlier
phase of Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, Bukharin, Luxembourg, etc) and was formulated
to assist the praxis of liberation
movements?If
you've embraced WST as a form of positivism via U.S. sociology, in other
words, you are probably in a minority
on this list.>I am well aware of the Neo-Marxian
roots of dependency theory and world systems analysis. I also understand
its roots are not in neo-weberian
thought, but in Marxist thought. This distinction poses a problem though.
It pushes all Marxian thought necessarily
into a normative, ideological paradigm.It a nice, neat analytical
package to be sure – “is” (Weber)/”ought” (Marx) and so on. But, I’m not
so sure it’s entirely correct.The
problem is that there’s both what
can be called an “is” element to Marx’s thought and the “ought” element as
well.
I even expect that were we to more closely scrutinize every modern and early
modern thinker (from Descartes, to
Voltaire, to Hegel, to Marx, to Nietzche and so on)(and beyond to the entire
spectrum of philosophers in world history)
we would find elements of both “is” and “ought” in their work.Weber may have supplied the designation but thinkers well
before him understood the concept and theorized, even in a more concrete
practical way, about it in their work. It’s another question of chicken
& the egg ...which came first? ... Marxian theory or Marxian praxis ...It
sounds as if you’re saying praxis came
first and that it also logically precedes Marxian “analysis.” If that be
the case, why – after the manner of
Lenin and Chairman Mao in the 20th century – didn’t Marx and his cohort immediately
organize activist, revolutionary parties
all throughout Europe and proceed in haste in revolutionary struggle against
the capitalists and the old order monarchies
and landed establishments? I think the answer is ‘that’s not (entirely) what
they were about.’ [It may have been what the Russian Narodniks were about, but we aren’t
talking about them or their tradition in this instance; we’re talking about
Marx and his tradition – not Lenin,
not the Russian populists, but Marx.] This is not to say they were entirely
theoretical or analytical in their work; they were
most certainly ideological and most certainly political and normative as
well.From what I understand, there
was this ‘blend’ in their work from the very beginning. But that
blend, frankly, does not presuppose the predominance of a Marxian, activist
tradition.It certainly holds
ideological and activist implications; but those logically follow from a
Marxian analytical-theoretical tradition and not the other way around.
[The crisis of capitalism and the “revolution” by the proletariat were
supposed to be organic developments; not jumpstarted elements in the tradition
of Lenin, Mao, and the Narodniks
in Russia] [If I’m wrong then please tell me, but from what I can tell a
fine balance of theory and practice, normative
ideology and activism, was already in place in Marx’s work right from the
very beginning ...] This leads me to my next point.The work of the “analyst” and the work of the normative activist
trying to change the world (to
make it a better) is contemporaneous
in the true scholarship of the historian and social scientist. Whether we’re
speaking about recent events or history
thousands of years ago up until the
end of the Middle Ages, the fact remains
à The historian is both “analyst”
and normative thinker/activist; both a charter
of large-scale patterns in great expanses
of historical time and also of what occurs in periods in a
person’s more immediate memory.That
two-edged function of the historian
in his/her work applies both to the “here-and-now” and to the world 5,000
years ago ... and I'd even go further
by saying that this is the case in
both an “analytical” sense and even in a normative sense. [Radical statement,
I agree; if you want I’ll go into more
in an upcoming post.]To sum up: "analysis" is just
as legitmate to the study of world systems as praxis is. They're two ends
of a coin - one no better than the other. But tell me, what's best about
the normative dimension, i.e., the praxis of world systems theory? If it's
to make the world a better place and to change the world, then specifically,
change the world to what? ... I look forward to hearing from you.Luke R.
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information in
Yahoo! News
.