No abstract
agents' practices without falling into any of the reductionist traps mentioned above? Of course it is beyond the present task to answer this complex question. One thing is clear, however. The problem of reductionism cannot be solved by merely porclaiming the "specificity" or "relative autonomy" of the non-economic sphere. For, if the idea of "relative autonomy" is going to be something more than an empty phrase, one has to construct conceptual tools which can actually lead to the relatively autonomous study of political and cultural phenomena. For the moment such tools do not exist in Marxist theory. Whether one looks at the way in which Marxists analyze the non-economic spheres (political parties, religious organizations, kinship or educational institutions, etc.) they do so in terms of concepts derived from the economy, i.e., in terms of class or the reproductive requirements of modes of production. Of course, there is nothing wrong in examining the intricate interrelations between economic and non-economic spheres or more precisely, the contributions of the latter to the reproduction of the former. But to argue, as many Marxists do, that political or cultural institutions are "nothing but" the conditions of existence of the economy or the dominant mode of production, tells us less about such institutions and more about the conceptual inadequacy of present day Marxist theory.The point is thus for the moment, despite ritualistic statements about the relative autonomy or specificity of the "political" or the "ideological," Marxism does not provide concepts which can help the student to take seriously into account the specific dynamic and "history" of non-economic spheres. Or, to put it in another way, there are no "regional" theories of politics and culture which are both Marxist and non-reductionist. Therefore, the choice is either reductionism or an ad hoc, empiricist treatment of such areas of study as law, education, the family, etc.Exactly the same argument applies if one tries to overcome the type of reductionism which portrays actors and their practices as mere "effects" of structural determinations (whether on the economic, political or cultural level). It is not enough to proclaim in a highly abstract manner that it is misleading to conceptualize agents or classes as the "bearers of structures." One has to construct specific concepts which can provide systematic guidance as to how structural-systemic constraints articulate with collective agents' strategies and struggles, or how a "logico-deductive" structuralist approach can be integrated with a "historical-genetic" class analysis.The present crisis of Marxism is to a great extent linked with its failure to provide adequate theoretical tools to the two areas mentioned above. It remains to be seen to what extent theorists within the Marxist tradition will be able to fill these two "gaps" in theory and to overcome the previously discussed varieties of reductionism without diluting the specificity of the Marxian paradigm.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.