Professor Bergesen tells us that the mistake of social science has been, so
to speak, to universalize what was and is, in a world historical terms, an
exception -- European (peninsular) society. This may be true but his
conclusion are problematic because he, in effect, throws out the "baby with
the bath water."
The "bath water" is a eurocentric view of the world. I don't think that it
is a big revelation to say that Europe was not always the navel of the
world. This is evident to anyone with common sense. (Unfortunately, the
most uncommon thing among academic specialists is common sense because
specialization has very high costs - blinders) Hence, I, for one, was
quite surprised when, in the last few years, there was a rediscovery of the
ancient and non-European worlds (which I attributed to the need of
specialists to develop more specialties).
The "baby" on the other hand, are the theoretical categories developed out
of the European experience (a la Marx, Weber, Durkheim, etc) which enable
us to make sense of the material historical world. To say that Europe was
not
always the center of the world does not invalidate these categories. If
one understands the meaning of Weber's rationalization (which, I am
afraid few do, even `experts' such as Ritzer), it is clear that the
rationalization of all spheres of life is a master trend of in
the Occident and the Orient. When rationalization is combined (albeit
inadvertently) with the pursuit of profit (capitalism, for Weber, is not
simply the pursuit of profit but the _rational_ pursuit of profit) both are
reinforced to the Nth degree and both become extremely powerful forces.
Similarly, the category of classes, as defined by ownership and
non-ownership of the means of production, remains a valuable and
extremely powerful analytical tool and the phenomena of class relations,
as relations between groups of people by virtue of their relations to
things,
articulates all societies (unless we wish to slip into the fetishism of
commodities). (Obviously , there is more to be said here).
If I understand Professor Bergesen correctly, these concepts are as
corrupted
as a eurocentric vision of the world. If so, what concepts are we to use
to understand the chaotic flux of the world - ying and yang, dharma chakra,
the Eight Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path, the Sri Yantra, the Shiva
linga, the songs of Milarepa ..... Obviously, none of these would work -
none would provide knowledge which would fulfill the criteria of knowledge,
originally derived from the peninsular experience, but now generally
accepted as
universal.
My point - while a eurocentric vision of the world may be wrong, this does
not invalidate the analytical categories which have arisen from the
peninsular experience. These categories remain valid. Why - because
European society was the first society to develop towards what we now
understand
as `modernity' (whatever that may be) - it was prototypical - and other
societies
are now moving in the same `direction' (why is another question) albeit
with their own
cultural and social peculiarities and specificities. Hence, the
categories which provide insight into European society can, if used with
sensitivity towards specificities and peculiarities, provide insight into
non-European societies _organized around capitalism_.
Marx's captures this, albeit with a tone of 19th positivism, in the
section on
"The Method of the Political Economy" in the Intro to the _Grundrisse_ in
the
pages after the passage that begins with "The anatomoy of man provides
the key to the anatomy of the ape..."
Carl Dassbach
-----------------------------------
Carl H.A. Dassbach DASSBACH@MTU.EDU
Dept. of Social Sciences (906)487-2115 - Phone
Michigan Technological University (906)487-2468 - Fax
Houghton, MI 49931 USA (906)482-8405 - Home
...