Search results

In classical social theory, the idea of civilization is seen as emerging as a response to problems of the dominant image of society. This idea of civilization, related to the Durkheimian tradition, is more easily integrated into the traditional image of society than are the ideas of Claude Levi-Strauss or Karl Marx; but it does have its limitations. This tenuous relationship between the concept of civilization & that of society is fundamental to Norbert Elias's theoretical innovations. His work is an attempt to revitalize the field of historical sociology, which has been virtually ignored in the twentieth century. He supports the theory of a society that is opposed to the popular paradigm of institutionalized norms. By basing his idea of sociology on the concept of power, Elias is able to develop a new perspective concerning traditional problems of civilizational analysis. R. Logsdon

Implications for the theory of culture of Cornelius Castoriadis's notion of imaginary significations (see The Imaginary Institution of Society, Cambridge, 1987) are explored, & it is shown that a more "culturological" perspective would throw new light on the notion. Imaginary significations are defined as representing a surplus of meaning that transcends all determinants, foundations, & presuppositions. For Castoriadis they are a radical challenge to the inherited way of thinking, but it is suggested that they can also be seen as a critical continuation & a selective convergence of different traditions in social theory. Their relevance to interpreting culture is that they transform the problematic of meaning & could help to concretize the underdeveloped idea of culture as an articulation of the world, thereby posing an alternative to the cognitivist interpretation of culture. J. White

Western attempts to comprehend the nature of Japanese modernization are hampered not only by cultural & linguistic barriers but also by Western images of Japan. Recent theories of modernization have undergone three major shifts: from abstract to concrete; from unidimensional to multidimensional; & from closed images of modernity as a coherent project to open images that include structural tensions & alternative lines of development. In this context, the views of modernity advanced by Talcott Parsons & by Jurgen Habermas are examined, & their relevance to Japan is considered. The history of Japan in the Tokugawa & Meiji periods is traced, with emphasis on the imperial tradition as a basis for Japan's unique early experience of modernization with minimal democratization. An understanding of Japan's economic development since WWII still requires attention to Japanese cultural resources. W. H. Stoddard

(For Part 1, see SA 36:4/88T7138.) Japanese history is argued to have two counterprojects beyond Jurgen Habermas's closed project of modernity: the ultranationalist & the developmental capitalist. New proposals for open images of modernity are described, & their applicability to certain aspects of the case of Japanese history is explored. The roots of ultranationalism are located in premodern traditions that are used to transform the state into an ultimate authority. Attention to the Japanese use of tradition could be a corrective for theories that overlook the enduring power of traditions. A. Waters

In the Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York, 1972) Theodor W. Adorno & Max Horkheimer developed a radical critique of civilization; while it is not always clear whether their main concern is with structural constraints & deformations, or with a culturally codified logic of domination, on both readings, the autonomy & efficacy of social relations seem severely reduced. Behind this manifest reductionism, there is an implicit line of reasoning that has some interesting points of contact with recent debates in social theory, especially with the critique of functionalism. It is suggested that Adorno & Horkheimer simultaneously radicalized & relativized the functionalist approach. The radicalization consists of a shift to the anthropological level; the functional circle of self-preservation, anchored in the fundamental relationship between man & nature, encompasses the totality of human life & determines the structures of its specific spheres. However, it also draws on irreducibly transfunctional aspects of the human condition. Two essential components of subjectivity, mimesis & thinking, participate in the universe of self-preservation without being fully absorbed by it. Every structured expression of mimesis & thinking is inextricably bound up with the logic of domination & the acceptance of power as the "principle of all relations." Although the notion of power as a principle of system-building is only outlined in the Dialectic of Enlightenment, the implications are clear enough to cast further doubt on Jurgen Habermas's critique of Adorno & Horkheimer, ie, that they lacked a system-theoretical perspective. Their argument is not a final affirmation of the functional principle: the idea of a process of system formation through the necessarily incomplete & contested subsumption of the human condition under structures of power differs from the mainstream functionalist emphasis on adaptation & self-reproduction. Also, the transfunctional aspect is reintroduced through the cultural -- ie, imaginary -- dimension of the configurations of power. Modified AA

The various paths that societies can follow after revolutions of the Soviet type are compared. The unique position of the USSR in relation to the West -- as an importer of Western ideas that did not develop democratic institutions -- is seen as crucial for postrevolutionary development in the USSR. The resulting model has since been imposed on a variety of other societies at widely differing levels of development, & has interacted in various ways with their internal dynamics. Three phases in its expansion are contrasted: its imposition on Eastern Europe, the Asian revolutions, & the series of Third World revolutions that began in Cuba. A variety of obstacles face any attempt to attain "real socialism" through revolutions of this type -- notably, internal traditions & the international context. Development of further possibilities will require elucidation of similarities & differences between postrevolutionary societies of this type & class societies. W. H. Stoddard

Agnes Heller's Theory of History (see IRPS 16/83c00207) can be seen as an alternative to those neo-Marxist or post-Marxist theorists that insist on a strict distinction between theoretical & historical knowledge (Jurgen Habermas) or question the very notion of theory on the basis of a radicalized concept of history (C. Castoriadis). Her analysis is grounded in a pluralistic anthropology & a multidimensional image of modernity. The theory of history remains committed to the fundamental idea of freedom -- in Heller's view, the consensual value-idea of modernity -- but it rejects the idea of a unidimensional & unequivocal logic of progress, inherent in "History with a capital H," & manifested in an equally unambiguous telos of modernity. The combination of three developmental logics in the modern world -- those of industrialization, capitalism, & democracy -- relativizes both the interpretations of the past & the visions of the future. A critique of Heller's argument, starting from the observation that the distinction between philosophies & theories of history is in many respects unclear, is presented. Underestimation of the interpretive element in historical reality & historical knowledge is reflected in Heller's account of the stages of historical consciousness & the strategies of historiography as episteme. More importantly, the paradigm of objectivation is invoked to support a strong version of the idea of progress -- if not as a universal pattern or a quasinatural law, then at least as an unambiguous principle, derived from a privileged aspect of the historical process: the logic of democracy. The isolation of this logic entails a similar interpretation of the other dimensions. In light of the historical evidence, however, modernity should be seen as a field of tensions, interconnections, & overdeterminations, rather than a juxtaposition of self-enclosed developmental patterns. Modified AA.

The dominant strategy of "Marxology" during the 1960s & early 1970s was the "return to Marx," ie, the rediscovery or reevaluation of neglected or misunderstood aspects of his thought. This is now giving way to a more critical approach that acknowledges the existence of different layers & divergent tendencies within Marx's work; in particular, explicit theories are distinguished from the underlying conceptual field & the ideological potential from an incomplete project of emancipation. This shift is clearly related to crucial historical experiences; as it becomes increasingly clear that Marx's theoretical legacy can neither be wholly absolved of responsibility for the Soviet catastrophe & its sequels, nor immunized against the transformations of capitalism, its internal tensions & ambivalences also stand out in relief. Two different versions of this new strategy have been developed by Jurgen Habermas, who defines his project as a "reconstruction of historical materialism," & Anthony Giddens, who uses the concept of "deconstruction" to describe his "contemporary critique of historical materialism." Here, the positions of Habermas & Giddens are compared & contrasted. In both cases, the ultimate target of criticism is the paradigm of production. For Habermas, it is predicated on a one-dimensional model of rationality; for Giddens, it represents a restrictive concept of praxis. Although the paradigm of production is central to Marx's work, a more careful reading suggests that it is neither as closed nor as stable as Habermas & Giddens assume. Finally, it is argued that Habermas's & Giddens's interpretations of the enigma of "real socialism," fragmentary & inconclusive as they are, are vitiated by the same preconceptions that affect their reading of Marx; most importantly, their models cannot account for the very specific interrelations between economic, political, & cultural structures that have developed in postrevolutionary societies. Modified AA.