|
Notes on:
Laclau, E. (1975) 'The
specificity of the political: the
Poulantzas - Miliband debate', in Economy
and Society, 4, 1: 87 - 111.
Dave Harris
[This article summarises the debate, and
suggest that the real issue between them
is a methodological one. Laclau goes on to
specify what he means by an adequate
methodology, and rebukes both Miliband and
Poulantzas for not developing one].
Poulantzas is right to say that Miliband's
whole argument relies on bourgeois notions
of facts and reality. What is needed is a
theoretical confrontation with Social
Democrat views of the state, and a
clarification of Miliband's own
theoretical perspective. As a result,
Miliband is unable to grasp the operation
of the state in marxist terms. Miliband is
also right to criticise Poulantzas in
reply, although he fails to focus on the
main issue itself. He suggests that
Poulantzas's theoretical commitments lead
to structuralism which fails to establish
knowledge of concrete states and the ways
in which particular states are able to
develop a certain relative autonomy
-- 'structural super-determinism'.
In the second
contribution, this critique turns
into a charge of 'structuralist
abstractionism... a theoretical approach
in which an abstractly defined instance
seeks its explanatory principles in
another, equally abstractly defined
instance... the circular procedural game
of mirrors in which, finally, nothing has
a precise meaning' (92). Circularity leads
to the reintroduction of errors such as
economism to add actual content: in
particular, the power of the state in
Poulantzas has to be reduced after all to
the power of a definite class.
Miliband did not justify the theoretical
basis of his own stance. His argument that
he is contrasting social reformist views
with empirical findings leads to the
question of how he actually defines
'empirical'. The conventional empiricist
view is that objects exist outside thought
altogether, and can be used somehow to
test theories. However, facts are produced
by theories or problematics in the first
place, which suggests that 'the
problems of logical consistency and
empirical validity are not substantially
different' (93) [the start of
Laclau's own drift to idealism?]. If
Miliband is attempting to show that
the 'facts' of reformist social
theory are in contradiction with its own
propositions, then his critique is
acceptable. However, it looks as if he is
also suggesting that some sort of appeal
to real objects can also be used -- and
this would involve a substantial
theoretical difference with Poulantzas and
a problem.
Laclau wants to suggest with Althusser
that 'theoretical practice takes
place wholly on the plane of thought',
that theory begins by working on
'concepts, pieces of information and
ideas' provided by other kinds of
practice. Theory then transforms these raw
materials into objects of knowledge. This
is quite unlike empiricism, which assumes
that knowledge of real objects can be
generalised into theory. Techniques and
methods of verification are also part of
the same theoretical system, thus 'a
theory is only false to the extent that it
is internally inconsistent' (94). It
follows that theoretical problems cannot
be falsified by reference to real objects,
but they can be superseded. Problems are
either finally resolved within the general
assumptions of a theory or they lead to a
genuine contradiction in a theory. In the
second case, the only way forward is to
develop a new theoretical system
[sounds exactly like the difference
between normal and revolutionary science
in Kuhn]. However, strictly speaking, a
new theoretical system cannot solve the
problems of a former one, but supersedes
them [after some unspecified theoretical
and political struggle?].
An adequate theoretical critique would
begin (a) by pointing out the conflict
between the empirical and the theoretical
system It would then proceed to (b)
identify the precise nature of the
theoretical problem indicated by the
conflict; (c) to demonstrate
internal theoretical contradictions which
a system cannot resolve; (d) to
propose an alternative theoretical system
which can 'overcome' [supersede?]
the contradictions (95).
Miliband remains at step (a), and
Poulantzas wants him to proceed to the
other stages. Until he does, he cannot
thoroughly challenge social democratic
theory. Indeed, he must reproduce some of
it, especially the view that the
motivations of social actors are important
aspects of social change. Poulantzas also
makes mistakes, however, and also fails to
challenge in detail the theoretical
contradictions of his rivals (economism,
historicism and the like), although he
does describe some of the differences with
his own problematic. Again, it is not
enough to show that there are different
views: the point is to show how one can
supersede the other: Poulantzas operates
only at (d).
In this sense, Miliband is right to
criticise Poulantzas's concepts. It is not
actually the case that Poulantzas cannot
explain the relative autonomy of the state
-- relative autonomy could be 'the
result of a particular articulation
between the instances corresponding to the
mode of production under consideration'
(98) [more or less exactly what he
does argue in his final
reply]. It is Miliband's underlying
concept of autonomy that Poulantzas cannot
use, because Miliband's concept is still
rooted in some notion of the
subject: '[for Miliband]... the
adjective "relative"
constitutes a simple restriction to an
autonomy conceived in terms of freedom.
For Poulantzas... the
"relative" character of an autonomy
indicates that it belongs to a world of
structural determinations... as a
particular moment of it' (98). What
Miliband takes to be a central problem --
how the people occupying apparently
separate institutions in fact share a
common social origin -- is a minor
problem for Poulantzas, who is much more
concerned with the general theory of the
state in a capitalist mode of production,
not a specific case.
Miliband is right to criticise the way
Poulantzas thinks about the ideological
state apparatuses. Poulantzas does tend to
see everything in terms of contributing to
the cohesion of the social formation. If
all ideological apparatuses must do this,
so must everything else -- trade unions,
political leaders, socialist parties and
even 'the mind of every individual'
(100). Althusser argues, slightly
differently, that the state itself defines
the boundary between private and state
apparatuses, but the underlying
functionalism is still apparent. Given
this general role, it is hard to think of
the state 'as an instance... [and
it]... must simply be a quality which
pervades all the levels of a social
formation' (101).
Poulantzas does head towards 'formalism,
as a result of which the theoretical
substance dissolves into a system of
verbal antinomies' (101). Form
predominates over content. As content
diminishes, 'the symbolic functions
of that concept within the discourse tends
to increase' (102) [all scholastic
marxism heads this way, even Laclau?].
Connections between concepts come to
dominate an argument -- either the logical
relations between concepts, or more
metaphorical notions of 'proximity
between different concepts' (102). In the
latter case, a concept can evoke a
theoretical system, or become a symbol of
it. This is what describes formalism,
which often stresses conceptual
taxonomies.
Poulantzas resorts to taxonomy in the face
of complexity. His concepts are so
abstract that they will lose their content
and become symbolic. Perhaps this is
because the whole theoretical approach
began with the intention to be
descriptive. Poulantzas does try to
reintroduce historical reality, 'but
this result has been achieved despite, not
because of his method' (103). Miliband's
criticism of the argument about pertinent
effects is an illustration. On the one
hand, a class becomes distinct and
autonomous if it can demonstrate pertinent
effects in a social formation, defined as
some new element appearing in the typical
framework. However, these pertinent
effects must also be politically
ineffectual, that is lacking a particular
impact.
Formalism extends to some of the most
central theoretical concepts, such as
the 'mode of production'. Poulantzas
develops the idea along with Althusser and
Balibar [at this stage, see the
rather poorly reproduced diagram my
colleagues and I have used to illustrate
this model of the mode of production].
The 'economic' is both an instance or
level, and a mechanism in assigning the
dominant role of particular levels in
particular cases. Poulantzas wants to say
that the mode of production determines all
social life, but not strictly economic
factors alone. The model is a typically
taxonomic one. Why are there only three
levels? [because there are only
three in Marx's Grundrisse? I have put
Marx's names for the levels in as well].
How exactly are they linked? None of these
questions are answered, leaving the model
as primarily a descriptive one. The
relations between the levels are purely
formal, at best symbolising theoretical
concepts. Notions such as structures of
dominance are metaphorical 'which
only makes sense by analogy with other
metaphors' (104). It is impossible to use
the model 'to establish logical
relations between the concepts' (104).
It would be better to reformulate the
argument more explicitly, which is what
Balibar claims to be doing with Marx's
original texts, which are still
contaminated by it older ideological
problematics. However, the concepts
developed in the model are inadequate.
Returning to Marx's text [Capital Vol
III in this case] suggests a distinction
between 'the economic' and a
'notion of "extra-economic
coercion"' (106). In pre-capitalist
economies, this extra economic coercion
takes distinctively political or
ideological forms in order to regulate
production. In capitalism, however, labour
has been turned into a commodity, and thus
economic forms -- markets, commodities --
can regulate production or on their own.
We need to keep this distinction -- the
outer determining 'economic' refers
to the general theory of historical
materialism, which takes a specific form
in capitalism. Marx's achievement was to
demonstrate this theoretical unity, but
there is no need 'to use the same
expression to designate both' (106).
Poulantzas does not clearly distinguish
these two notions, and thus can only
operate descriptively and symbolically,
and use misleading terms such as
'structural causality'. The ambiguity and
neologisms address 'an artificial
problem created by the metaphysical of
instances' (107). For Laclau it is much
simpler: 'the economy' in the
general sense of the production of
material existence is simply never
determinant even in the last instance,
while 'the economy' in the sense of
production of commodities is determinant
when it 'becomes identified with the basic
productive relations of that society'
(107). Similar clarification is required
for the names of the other two levels. In
particular, the separation between the
economic and the political in Marx is
characteristic only of capitalism, and can
only really be used to indicate the
differences between capitalist and
pre-capitalist social formations: it is
not a full theory of other modes of
production.
Similarly, the problem of relative
autonomy is a specifically capitalist one,
and cannot be discussed purely abstractly.
Abstract discussion leads to a logical
difficulty about articulation, turning on
how separate the levels are in the first
place. If they are completely separate, is
only really the model which unites them
-- 'verbal unity' (108). If, on the
other hand, they have some elements in
common to permit specific kinds of
articulation, this needs to be theorised,
not just glossed by 'a symbolic
concept -- "determination in the last
instance" -- which lacks a precise
theoretical content' (109).
Poulantzas needs to winnow out descriptive
categories and identify theoretical
concepts which can be linked to produce
specific modes of production. Thus
Miliband is right to criticise
'structuralist abstractionism'.
Nevertheless, Poulantzas offers much more
of a way forward in grasping the
specificity of the capitalist state.
on to Poulantzas's
final contribution
back to Marxist
controversies
|
