To add to the discussion of Marx and Weber, I would like to point out that Weber's position posits a serious criticism of Marx's historical materialism. On Marx's view, the sole driving force of the progression of history are the material modes of production, not ideologies, religion, or any other non-economic aspects of society. These are mere epiphenomena, which are determined by the base structure of society, that is, the combination of the forces of production and relations of production.
First, by presenting some patterns of behavior encouraged and discouraged by Catholicism that inhibited the rise of Capitalism, Weber shows that these epiphenomena exercise a significant degree of influence over the development of economic structures. A very effective example was the laborer facing higher wages deciding to work less hours for the usual income, rather than capitalizing on the opportunity to raise his income. A given set of economic circumstances seem to have failed in revolutionizing the values/beliefs of this individual.
Moreover, by showing Prostetantism as conducive to the "spirit of capitalism," Weber presents difficulties for Marx's view that ideas do not determine the base structure. The example of certain set of behavioralisms of Protestantism not only facilitating the rise of capitalism but also exercising a causal influence on the development of the base structure weakens Marx's conception of historical materialism as a comprehensive explanation for all movements in history. While Weber's observations certainly do not completely disqualify Marx's view, it questions the universal applicability of Marx's historical materialism.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Huntington Roast continues
I think Marco brings up a good point in that "civilizations", "cultures", "religions" or what-have-you are nowhere near as monolithic and united in purpose as Huntington claims they are. Even if you study specifically Islamic uprisings against secular states along the world, much of the rhetoric is imbued with--and inspired by--local specifics. It's true that a lot of the same themes pop up--secular government is immoral, prevents the proper exercise of religion, etc.--but that doesn't mean all of these movements are related, much less united under one global, civilization-based struggle. Even the most "global" manifestation of Islamic terrorism--Al-Qaeda--arguably does not function as a unit and has experienced a great deal of in-fighting among its leaders.
I could say more, but I think we've bashed Huntington enough...
I could say more, but I think we've bashed Huntington enough...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Clash of Civilizations
I'm glad to read that other people were also horrified by Huntington- while he does bring up some interesting points that in the hands of a less U.S.-centric author might be relatively convincing, I was really put off by his consistant inability to hold the West accountable for anything. For example, when describing the crusades, Huntington makes it sound as though it was somehow legitimate to invade another group's territory and slaughter them in the name of religion, an attitude that, if applied universally, would also justify things like September 11th (violence carried out in the name of religion) .
One of the major problems I had with Huntington's argument is his apparent lack of recognition that a lot of the conflicts between the "West" (for whom Huntington is a shameless apologist) and other civilizations stems from a long history of abuse and subjugation coupled with a continuing economic exploitation. Any group of people who were exploited for years and years, in the way that the colonized countries were, would harbor some resentment toward their oppresors. Economically and militarily speaking, the West still uses their superior power to their advantage, and in my opinion it is THIS (rather than religion or culture) that creates world conflict; Huntington acts as though the fact that the United States has military bases around the world and exercises an extraordinary amount of power over most other countries is irrelevant and that the conflict between the Muslim World and the West is merely one side disapproving of the other's religion. Apart from religious extremists (who exist on both sides) I happen to think that people don't particularly care what religion another civilization has as long as it isn't encroaching on their rights, autonomy, etc.
While Huntington's argument about civilizations defined by culture might make sense in explaining who is on what side, in my opinion this cultural difference in and of itself is not the source of the conflict. Rather, I would argue that it is much more likely that the struggle is over scarce resources (power, money, oil etc.) and that while perhaps people of the same culture fight for these things collectively, there is no evidence to suggest that if there were an unlimited amount of resources, the civilizations would have any cause to clash at all. I think this is a case of Huntington mistaking correlation (people with different cultures tending to fight with each other over resources) with causation (said conflicts occurring because of cultural differences).
One of the major problems I had with Huntington's argument is his apparent lack of recognition that a lot of the conflicts between the "West" (for whom Huntington is a shameless apologist) and other civilizations stems from a long history of abuse and subjugation coupled with a continuing economic exploitation. Any group of people who were exploited for years and years, in the way that the colonized countries were, would harbor some resentment toward their oppresors. Economically and militarily speaking, the West still uses their superior power to their advantage, and in my opinion it is THIS (rather than religion or culture) that creates world conflict; Huntington acts as though the fact that the United States has military bases around the world and exercises an extraordinary amount of power over most other countries is irrelevant and that the conflict between the Muslim World and the West is merely one side disapproving of the other's religion. Apart from religious extremists (who exist on both sides) I happen to think that people don't particularly care what religion another civilization has as long as it isn't encroaching on their rights, autonomy, etc.
While Huntington's argument about civilizations defined by culture might make sense in explaining who is on what side, in my opinion this cultural difference in and of itself is not the source of the conflict. Rather, I would argue that it is much more likely that the struggle is over scarce resources (power, money, oil etc.) and that while perhaps people of the same culture fight for these things collectively, there is no evidence to suggest that if there were an unlimited amount of resources, the civilizations would have any cause to clash at all. I think this is a case of Huntington mistaking correlation (people with different cultures tending to fight with each other over resources) with causation (said conflicts occurring because of cultural differences).
A Critique of Huntington
As has been mentioned in an earlier blog, Samuel Huntington argues that the major source of conflict in the aftermath of the Cold War will be cultural, fought primarily along the fault lines that separate different “civilizations”. I would argue that this “clash of civilizations” theory is as absurd as it is dangerous. For one, not a single “civilization” is as uniform and rigid as Huntington argues. To simply overlook the inner conflicts and the plurality of the “civilizations” is completely ignorant. One can simply highlight the Sunni/ Shia conflict in Iraq, the Kurdish conflict in Turkey, the recent Georgia/ Russia scuffle, and the on-going clash in Sudan, to see that Huntington’s civilizations are not as monolithic as he argues. Having lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I can surely say that the Bosnian Muslims feel closer to and have more in common with their Croatian neighbors than they do with the citizens of Indonesia. Second, Huntington fails to acknowledge the influence of economic interests in today’s political decision making that transcend the lines of his cultural civilizations. For example, the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and the relationship between EU and Serbia go beyond the fault lines of Huntington’s civilizations. Culture certainly plays a part in foreign affairs, but it is certainly not the dominant factor.
The danger present in Huntington’s theory is that it lends itself to oversimplification. The tragic events of the morning of September 11th, 2001, have been used as proof of Huntington’s thesis. Yet, to blame an entire religion and to hail of an impending clash between the West and Islam because of the actions of few derailed militants is plain ludicrous. Huntington’s thesis provides the framework of this blame by obscuring the real power relations between countries and non-state actors by appealing to religious, racial and ethnic conflicts.
The danger present in Huntington’s theory is that it lends itself to oversimplification. The tragic events of the morning of September 11th, 2001, have been used as proof of Huntington’s thesis. Yet, to blame an entire religion and to hail of an impending clash between the West and Islam because of the actions of few derailed militants is plain ludicrous. Huntington’s thesis provides the framework of this blame by obscuring the real power relations between countries and non-state actors by appealing to religious, racial and ethnic conflicts.
Karl Marx and The Relationships of Production
Karl Marx's seemingly favorite buzz word is "production." For Marx, life is at the most basic level dependent upon man's ability to produce materials for survival. Unlike animals, Marx says, we produce our own means of subsistence, and in doing so we indirectly produce material life. Essentially, humans are what they produce and how they produce it.
From this starting point, Marx describes the (somewhat Aristotelian?) evolution of social relationships by means of production. He lays out three different scenarios in which the roles of production are played out by owners and slaves. The most rudimentary of the three is the tribal system, wherein the social structure of the society is essentially an extension of the family system (its hierarchy being chieftains, tribe members, and, at the bottom, slaves). The roles of production are underdeveloped; the main tasks preformed are hunting and growing food. Nevertheless, we still see a distinct social relationship arise between the tribe and its slaves.
The second form of ownership comes in the form of communal or state ownership. For Marx, this is an expansion of the tribal system by the union of several tribes by agreement or conquest. Land is still held in common, but at this point we begin to see the emergence of private property. Nevertheless, the relationship between the citizens of this new group or city hold a communal power over the slaves.
Lastly, Marx presents the feudal form, wherein hierarchical structure of land ownership has arisen to give these owners power over serfs. The relationship differs from that in a communal society because it is established under different conditions than the communal state. This form of ownership also takes place in cities where guilds exploited journeymen and apprentices for production.
Marx argues later that such division of production is bad because it conflicts with the interests of the individual. His activity in production is not voluntary; his hand is forced by a tribal leader, a feudal lord, or even the capitalist world market. In a communist society, man may do whatever he wishes to be accomplished in. He may be a writer or a hunter. There are no longer owners and slaves. Men are able to exchange their products freely and control their social relationships. This seems like a pleasant idea, but I have a hard time believing that a system that allows every man to produce what he wants would succeed. What if, for an extreme example, everyone wanted to be a clown, leaving no one to hunt for food? Would they all go hungry? Odds are that some would defect and hunt for themselves and the rest, but isn't this decision involuntary as well? Is Marx's ideal form of communism practical at all, or is he merely creating his own Platonic Republic?
From this starting point, Marx describes the (somewhat Aristotelian?) evolution of social relationships by means of production. He lays out three different scenarios in which the roles of production are played out by owners and slaves. The most rudimentary of the three is the tribal system, wherein the social structure of the society is essentially an extension of the family system (its hierarchy being chieftains, tribe members, and, at the bottom, slaves). The roles of production are underdeveloped; the main tasks preformed are hunting and growing food. Nevertheless, we still see a distinct social relationship arise between the tribe and its slaves.
The second form of ownership comes in the form of communal or state ownership. For Marx, this is an expansion of the tribal system by the union of several tribes by agreement or conquest. Land is still held in common, but at this point we begin to see the emergence of private property. Nevertheless, the relationship between the citizens of this new group or city hold a communal power over the slaves.
Lastly, Marx presents the feudal form, wherein hierarchical structure of land ownership has arisen to give these owners power over serfs. The relationship differs from that in a communal society because it is established under different conditions than the communal state. This form of ownership also takes place in cities where guilds exploited journeymen and apprentices for production.
Marx argues later that such division of production is bad because it conflicts with the interests of the individual. His activity in production is not voluntary; his hand is forced by a tribal leader, a feudal lord, or even the capitalist world market. In a communist society, man may do whatever he wishes to be accomplished in. He may be a writer or a hunter. There are no longer owners and slaves. Men are able to exchange their products freely and control their social relationships. This seems like a pleasant idea, but I have a hard time believing that a system that allows every man to produce what he wants would succeed. What if, for an extreme example, everyone wanted to be a clown, leaving no one to hunt for food? Would they all go hungry? Odds are that some would defect and hunt for themselves and the rest, but isn't this decision involuntary as well? Is Marx's ideal form of communism practical at all, or is he merely creating his own Platonic Republic?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Huntington Blog
Huntington’s main argument is that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Some of the most prominent critics of Huntington's ideas often extend their criticisms to traditional cultures. These cultures that “dampen” the validity of Huntington’s theory are ones that wish to, or have modernized without adopting the core and central values and attitudes of the west. Critics argue that the existence of the “East Asian Tigers” who have adopted western economics while maintaining traditional or totalitarian social government do not support Huntington’s thesis, thereby producing doubts regarding the theory’s accuracy.
As a result of “buzz” of his argument in 1993, Huntington responded to critics. Huntington wants argue that as with any paradigm, or the change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory, there is much that the civilization paradigm does not account for. He states that critics have no trouble citing events like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that his theory does not explain and would not have predicted. Despite this, he wants to argue that uncharacteristic events do not falsify a paradigm. A paradigm is disproved only by the creation of an alternative model that accounts for more crucial facts in equally simple or simpler terms. I want to argue that although Huntington’s statement is true, and idea of paradigm shift is a valuable one; it should not stop the desire to falsify theories. Moreover, one could argue that we should not hold onto the "Clash of Civilizations" as a model if we can falsify it, even if we lack a better explanatory theory at the current moment
Despite the fact that I personally believe his argument false, Huntington does produce an interesting point in support of his theory. He states that because the civilizational paradigm has generated so much “buzz” around the world it shows that, it strikes home; it either accords with reality as people see it or it comes close enough so that people who do not accept it have to attack it . This point, although doesn’t provide any real weight to the theory’s validity is a very interesting point and is worth consideration.
As a result of “buzz” of his argument in 1993, Huntington responded to critics. Huntington wants argue that as with any paradigm, or the change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory, there is much that the civilization paradigm does not account for. He states that critics have no trouble citing events like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that his theory does not explain and would not have predicted. Despite this, he wants to argue that uncharacteristic events do not falsify a paradigm. A paradigm is disproved only by the creation of an alternative model that accounts for more crucial facts in equally simple or simpler terms. I want to argue that although Huntington’s statement is true, and idea of paradigm shift is a valuable one; it should not stop the desire to falsify theories. Moreover, one could argue that we should not hold onto the "Clash of Civilizations" as a model if we can falsify it, even if we lack a better explanatory theory at the current moment
Despite the fact that I personally believe his argument false, Huntington does produce an interesting point in support of his theory. He states that because the civilizational paradigm has generated so much “buzz” around the world it shows that, it strikes home; it either accords with reality as people see it or it comes close enough so that people who do not accept it have to attack it . This point, although doesn’t provide any real weight to the theory’s validity is a very interesting point and is worth consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)