By Doug Lorimer
Iain Aitken (GLW #150) accuses Lisa Macdonald of dogmatism for arguing that in seeking to understand and combat capitalist domination socialists should rely exclusively on the scientific approach of Marxism.
While acknowledging that Marxism "is, or can be, scientific" (why the qualification?), Aitken argues that it is insufficient by itself to provide socialists with a "comprehensive understanding that will make possible radical change". He makes three arguments in support of this contention:
1. The scientific method "has moved on since Marx".
It is certainly true that scientific knowledge has advanced since Marx, but there is no truth to Aitken's assertion that the scientific method (the formulation of a theory based on observed facts, and the testing of that theory by means of further observations and/or experiments) has changed since Marx's time.
2. "Notions such as chaos theory and complexity provide ways of understanding both cognitive and economic structures of domination. A dialectic between 'strictly scientific' Marxism and these other 'sciences' is more progressive than sticking our heads in the sand and/or confining ourselves to one approach or another."
"Complexity" is not a science, but a notion (concept). In and of itself it does not provide any "ways of understanding" structures of social domination.
Chaos theory is a relatively new branch of science that is based on the work of US meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1963, arising from the study of convection in the atmosphere. According to the theory, chaos is a state of disorder and irregularity whose evolution over time, though governed by simple laws, is highly sensitive to starting conditions: a small variation in these conditions will produce wildly different results. It is present in most real physical systems, such as weather patterns and the motion of the planets around the sun.
The modern scientific theory of chaos has provided concrete examples of something that has long been affirmed in general terms by Marxist philosophy, ie, that order and disorder are relative features of all material objects and systems. The most random form of motion has sources of order within it, behind it, and ahead of it. The most crystallised form of order contains elementary traces of irregularity which can in time accumulate, upsetting and overturning its symmetry and stability.
Marxists are, and have always been, in favour of an active interaction with other branches of science. However, the thrust of Aitken's argument is not for a dialectic between Marxism and other sciences but against Marxists "confining ourselves" to a scientific approach to the study of reality. It is precisely our refusal to accept non-scientific approaches that he criticises. Does he also think that a refusal by natural scientists to use non-scientific approaches in their fields of study — of biologists to use "creationism" in studying the origins of species, for example — is dogmatic, is sticking their "heads in the sand"?
3. "Science' like 'postmodernism', is just one facet of understanding; the sort of faith in science on which her [ie, Macdonald's] article is premised lapses easily into a one-sided view of the world. To understand and attack oppression and domination requires anything but such a dogmatic view."
It's true that science is only one of the ways in which humans "understand" the world. However, unlike other ways, religion for example, the scientific approach is the only one that gives us correct, ie, truthful, knowledge about the world. That is why Marxists seek to rely exclusively on a scientific analysis of the world in determining their methods of political action. An anti-capitalist strategy that is not based exclusively upon true knowledge of objective reality derived from a strictly scientific approach, but which relies either wholly or in part upon unscientific methods, will prove to be unrealistic and ineffective.
Aitken, however, argues that the "scientific force" and "explanatory power" of Marxism can be strengthened by combining its scientific approach with other approaches, in particular with "postmodernist approaches". Can a synthesis of the two be viable? One difficulty in trying to answer this question is the very character of "postmodernism", its "polymorphous nature" as Aitken himself describes it in his article in GLW #144 ("The use-value of postmodernism").
The term "postmodern" came into popular usage in the 1950s in architecture to describe a style or concept that superseded 20th century modernism, in particular the International Style associated with names such as Robert Venturi and James Sterling. In opposition to the uniformity, functionalism and austerity prized by the latter, "postmodern" architects argued in favour of a heterogeneity of styles drawing especially from the past and from mass culture. As Llewellyn Negrin notes in Arena No. 95 (1991):
"Whereas post modernist architecture, guided by the imperative of functional efficiency has sought to impose a universal and uniform style shorn of all the 'irrational' accretions of history such as decoration and ornamentation, postmodern architects argued for a more eclectic style which contained multiple cultural references, thereby acknowledging the pluralistic nature of contemporary metropolitan culture..."
This trend toward an eclectic range of styles in architecture was later to find counterparts in other artistic fields, with all them together being labelled "postmodern" art.
However, beginning with Jean-Francois Lyotard's 1979 book The Postmodern Condition, a series of writers have appropriated the term "postmodernism" to describe their own views on philosophy, history, and contemporary social life in general — views that were influenced by the French poststructuralist school of irrationalist philosophy represented by George Deleuze, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Thus "postmodernist approaches" to social life are based on the philosophical outlook of poststructuralism.
Marxism, as noted above, bases itself on a strictly scientific approach to understanding reality. The scientific approach is premised upon the view that: there is a reality which exists outside of and independently of our consciousness; that reality is governed by determinative regularities; and that it is possible for us to disclose these regularities and formulate them into laws than can help us to transform the world around us to meet our needs.
Poststructuralism, on the other hand, asserts that social reality is too heterogeneous, fragmented and plural in character to be reflected in "grand narratives" (theories posited upon the recognition that reality is an integrated totality). They deny the ability of human thought to arrive at an objective account of social life, of its laws of motion. Poststructuralism thus has an approach to understanding reality that is fundamentally at odds with science.
Llewellyn Negrin points out that the distinguishing feature of "postmodernism" in the architecture and the arts in general is that it "refuses to privilege any particular world view over another, endorsing a democratic pluralism as the only possible value". While such an approach might have a progressive dynamic in the sphere of artistic expression, the same cannot be said when it is carried over areas of social activity such as historiography, sociology, economic and political science, ie, into fields of study that are directed toward ascertaining a correct understanding of social life, of its laws of motion. In all these areas of social thought there are conflicting views reflecting, in the final analysis, the struggle between the interests of antagonistic classes, between the capitalist ruling class and the working class.
Three main tendencies of thinking are set into motion and sustained by the major social forces of contemporary capitalist society. Monopoly capitalism, with its drive toward reaction, militarism and repression, patronises and promotes the most backward prejudices and obsolete ideas — from racism to religion — while it tries to screen its predatory purposes behind the slogans of "freedom" and "democracy".
The second tendency, Marxism, is the theoretical outlook of the revolutionary workers. It upholds scientific knowledge and inquiry against all forms of obscurantist thinking because the working class cannot liberate itself from capitalist domination without truthful knowledge of the laws of social development.
The third tendency expresses the interests of those Â鶹´«Ã½ of society pressed between the two polar classes. The middle classes seek to avoid choosing between the sharp alternatives of capitalist reaction or proletarian revolution. They resort to some form of social theory that justifies conciliation, vacillation, opposition to extremes, half-measures, equivocations and ambiguity. In politics, this is expressed in liberalism, which seeks to remove the worst excesses of capitalism while opposing any measures that threaten the foundations of the capitalist system.
"Postmodernist" social theory, with its espousal of a hypocritical "democratic pluralism" that "refuses to privilege any particular world view over another" is simply the latest expression of such middle-class liberalism. It provides a legitimation for a purely literary radicalism smugly installed in the cosy world of bourgeois academia.What is 'postmodernism'?
Science vs 'postmodernism'