From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Aug 23 2006 - 13:59:49 EDT
I agree with your very helpful clarifications from the perspective of scientific realism, Howard. >Hi Rakesh, > >In my original post I wondered about the use of the word 'ideal'. >I'm still not clear on this, although I agree with your description >of the way experimental design controls what goes on in the >laboratory. Scientists purify in the way you describe to ensure >that the causal structures that are the target of the investigation >will be able to operate without other distracting natural forces >confusing the inquiry. > >I also agree that abstraction works in an analogous way. I think >the thing we want to avoid here is platonizing Marx. Abstraction >allows us to ignore distracting features of the social phenomena we >study in order, step by step, to focus on more and more decisive >causal determinants. It's like starting with the manifestation of a >disease -- say a disorder appearing on the surface of the skin -- >and finding that ultimately it can be traced to a missing or wrongly >placed sequence in the genetic code. My understanding here would be >that what happens in the laboratory does not become ideal because we >investigate phenomena one by one under conditions of experimental >control. We continue to study real phenomena. But by experimental >methods we are able to isolate the decisive ones. > >So when we use mental abstractions to refer to real natural and >social phenomena, the question always is whether our concepts pick >out something in the world. If they lose the tether reference >requires and instead float off by themselves, then abstraction gets >misused. So if your meaning is that Marx has stiched together >abstract concepts into a theoretical whole that enables us to refer >to real social phenomena in a way that identifies their actual >interconnections, then I agree. > >In other words I have no problem with conceptually purifying the >real if it means I ignore what is distracting in order to focus on >existing phenomena that are more decisive in how they affect the >target of my interest. This is how I understand laboratory control >operates and how I understand the Method of Political Economy. But >I think I would want to distinguish this from purifying in the sense >of substituting an imagined model because it enabled me to see >relations or processes that I could then try to work out in the >world as it really was. > >Here's an example from Marx of the use of the word 'ideal' that >corresponds to my understanding -- we give an expression in >thought that refers to only the most decisive features of the real >movement of things, and hence we call the mental categories by which >we refer to that real movement 'ideal'. Do you understand it >differently? I need to think abou this. > >Grundrisse, v. 28, p. 236, Nicolaus, 310: "We are present at the >process of its becoming. [not the becoming of the real movement but >of our reconstruction of it -- note by me] This dialectical process >of becoming is only the ideal expression of the real movement >through which capital comes into being. The later relations are to >be considered as a development coming out of this germ. But it is >necessary to fix the specific form in which capital exists at a >certain point. Otherwise confusion results." > >By the way -- on the point of comparisons of translations -- on a >very specific point v.28 clearly overshadows Nicolaus, and that is >in the translation of the absolutely crucial word, Bestimmung. The >phrase translated above as "specific form" in German is >"Formbestimmung" or form determination. Nicolaus offers the same >translation, 'specific form',. but elsewhere he translates the word >as "aspect" or "character" or "feature" which completely misses the >generative or so to speak consequential push that attaches to Marx's >German. > >Are the simple determinations of the Method of Political Economy >'ideal' and, if so, in what sense? Or I'd be interested in other >textual references you might have to Marx's use of the word. > >Thanks, > > >Howard > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>Rakesh Bhandari >To: <mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:45 PM >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Grundrisse.Help > >>Hi Rakesh, >> >>Unfortunately I expect to be out of email touch for a week, so I doubt I >>will be able to follow in my inbox. Perhaps I will be able to pick up at >>the website. >> >>I wonder if you really need to think in terms of "idealized" and of a mental >>experiment regarding pure capitalism. >> >>True enough, water is rarely just H2O. >> > > >Yes this is an important Bachelardian point. As Mary Tiles puts it: >"Bachlard insisted that the object of laboratory study are not >natural givens. The laboratory is a carefully controlled environment >in which the object of study is carefully prepared and shielded from >interference or contamination, in an effort to analyze by isolating >the particular aspect to be studied....Thus in response to >Descartes' discussion of a piece of wax, Bachelard says: "The >physicist doesn't take wax straight from the hive, but wax which is >as pure as possible, chemically well defined, isolated as the result >of a long series of methodical manipulations. The wax chosen is thus >in a way a precise moment of the method of objectivation. It retains >none of the odor of the flowers from which it was gathered, but it >ears proof of the care with which it was purified. In other words, >it is realized in its experimental manfacture. Without this >experimental manufacture, such a wax--in the pure form which is not >its natural form--would not have come into existence." > >Of course Marx realized that "In the analysis of economic forms, >moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The >force of abstraction must replace both." > >In other words, he could only create a purified capitalism through >idealization. Which is exactly what he did as he then gave us a >complete theory thereof. He did not leave us with a torso of a work. > >That Marx created a purified capitalism through the force of >abstraction does not make his theory any less realistic than >laboratory work on the purified chemicals that are themselves not >natural givens. > >Jurriaan does not seem to realize that Marx's object is not >unrealistic simply because its object is an >idealization. So he continues to heap insult on me: > >>f people do not >> >know how to study a real object, real history, or real facts then that is > >because they haven't reflected sufficiently and critically about how these > >things have been studied before. But obviously endless disputes about > >"method" without actually using the method for the purpose for which it was > >intended are useless. > > >But scientists don't study natural givens. They create the objects >of their study. This Marx did too. >And self consciously. Meaning that he understood the activist nature >of scientific work long >before Bachelard. Which is another sign of his world historical brilliance. > >Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT