DOCSLIB.ORG

The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology SO37CH08-Manza ARI 1 June 2011 11:32 The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology Jeff Manza and Michael A. McCarthy Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY 10012; email: [email protected], [email protected] Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011. 37:155–83 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on capitalism, class, political economy, state, work May 6, 2011 by New York University - Bobst Library on 08/08/12. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:155-183. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract soc.annualreviews.org A significant group of sociologists entering graduate school in the late This article’s doi: 1960s and 1970s embraced Marxism as the foundation for a critical 10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150145 challenge to reigning orthodoxies in the discipline. In this review, we Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. ask what impact this cohort of scholars and their students had on the All rights reserved mainstream of American sociology. More generally, how and in what 0360-0572/11/0811-0155$20.00 ways did the resurgence of neo-Marxist thought within the discipline lead to new theoretical and empirical research and findings? Using two models of Marxism as science as our guide, we examine the impact of sociological Marxism on research on the state, inequality, the labor process, and global political economy. We conclude with some thoughts about the future of sociological Marxism. 155 SO37CH08-Manza ARI 1 June 2011 11:32 INTRODUCTION (Burawoy & Wright 2002), not Marxist theory or politics outside the academy. By sociologi- A significant slice of the “disobedient gener- cal Marxism, we refer to sociological work that ation” (Sica & Turner 2006) of sociologists tests, applies, or seeks to develop the core in- entering graduate school in the late 1960s and sights of Marxist theory. Our interests subsume 1970s embraced Marxism as the foundation questions about the sociology of knowledge, the for a critical challenge to reigning orthodoxies recent history of the discipline, and the sub- in the discipline. In the early to mid-1970s, stantive contributions of Marxists to several key Marxist journals, conferences, and a plethora of subfields in sociology, although we devote the study groups sprang up in and around graduate bulk of our effort here to the latter. sociology programs across the country. A co- We should be clear at the outset about the hort of talented Marxist sociologists completed parameters (and limits) of our discussion. The ambitious dissertations and took academic range of any exploration of the relationship be- appointments in increasing numbers across the tween Marxism and sociology is potentially vast country from the early 1970s onward, and pro- (cf. Bottomore 1984). To focus our discussion, ceeded to develop and apply Marxist theories we center it specifically on American sociology, and concepts in a large number of subfields (for although we consider work by non-American early surveys of this work, see Burawoy 1982, authors that have been integral to debates in Flacks 1982). In some ways, the impact of this the United States. We also restrict our survey intellectual movement within the discipline was to empirical sociology rather than social theory immediately apparent. Almost overnight, Karl (while recognizing that in many cases the di- Marx became one of the founding fathers of viding line is unclear). It is worth noting, how- the discipline, in both introductory textbooks ever, that many key figures in the neo-Marxist (Hamilton 2003) and undergraduate and grad- movement in American sociology explicitly uate social theory courses. Marxist-oriented embraced the task of offering an empirical chal- research began regularly appearing in top jour- lenge to non-Marxist sociology as the appropri- nals in the field; the American Journal of Sociology ate test of Marxist theory (e.g., Burawoy 1982, even devoted an entire special issue to “Marxist Wright 1985). The proof of the pudding, as Inquiries” in 1982 (Burawoy & Skocpol 1982a). Marx famously said, is in the eating. What impact did this cohort of scholars— Assessing the legacies of an intellectual and their students—have on the mainstream of movement as diverse as Marxism is a daunting American sociology? More generally, how and task. Even defining what counts as Marxist soci- in what ways did the resurgence of neo-Marxist1 ology (or who is a Marxist) is far from straight- thought within the discipline lead to new the- forward.2 And just as there is no one true oretical and empirical research and findings? If by New York University - Bobst Library on 08/08/12. For personal use only. Marxism, so too is there no one standard for Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:155-183. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Marxism commands a significantly smaller alle- assessing sociological Marxism. However, two giance of sociologists than in the early 1980s, as conceptions of Marxism as a social science any systematic reckoning would conclude, why have been advanced by influential sociological is that so? Marxists that, we believe, taken together In this review, we explore answers to these provide a useful starting point. Wright (1989a) questions. Our focus is on sociological Marxism 1We use the phrase neo-Marxism to refer to Marxist scholar- 2A good example of these complexities can be seen in the ship from the 1970s onward, reserving “Marxist” or “classical work of Pierre Bourdieu. Although Bourdieu had an early Marxism” for earlier work in the Marxist tradition, from that engagement with Marxism, and class reproduction was one of Marx and Engels through World War II. We also use of the abiding themes of his work, we make the somewhat the phrase “sociological Marxism” to distinguish our spe- arbitrary decision not to include him (or his American fol- cific target—neo-Marxist sociology—from other disciplines lowers) as Marxists, however much his work has contributed as well as the broader literatures and movements associated to the understanding of class and class dynamics that lie at with Marxism. the heart of sociological Marxism. 156 Manza · McCarthy SO37CH08-Manza ARI 1 June 2011 11:32 suggests what he calls a realist model of knowl- opposition to Marxism (e.g., Bottomore 1984). edge in which Marxist theories can and should But the origins of the discipline in the United be adjudicated with non-Marxist theories to States, by contrast, are largely found elsewhere, assess which provides a sounder basis for the in the worlds of theology and the progressive explanation of key social phenomena. Burawoy reform impulse in the aftermath of the social (1990) suggests, by contrast, a post-Kuhnian Darwinism of Spencer and his followers (cf. model of Marxism as social science, building Calhoun 2007b, Breslau 2007). principally on the writings of Lakatos (1978). In some respects, it is hard to imagine a Here, Marxism’s status as a scientific body of place less likely to have experienced a major thought depends on whether it can effectively Marxist revival than the United States. At no respond to the challenges, or puzzles, thrown point prior to the 1960s was there a significant up by history or theoretical competitors. Taken Marxist presence in American sociology or together, we believe that these two contrasting major engagement (even if critical) with Marx- models provide a fair standpoint for assessing ist ideas. The combination of the Cold War, a neo-Marxism’s legacy. nearly complete lack of a socialist tradition, and Our discussion is organized as follows. In robust non-Marxist radical currents (in soci- Part One, we present a brief overview of the ology, for example, in the work of social critics historical context and development of Marx- such as C. Wright Mills and his followers) made ist sociology in the United States, situating the it unlikely that a significant group of American resurgence of interest in Marxism within the sociologists would turn toward Marxism as a discipline in the broader turmoil of the 1960s source of radical renewal. Yet large numbers and 1970s. Part Two provides a detailed analysis of the 1960s generation of social scientists did of the impact of Marxist scholarship in four key embrace Marxism, at least for a time, and made subfields in the discipline [following Burawoy’s serious commitments to developing its insights. (1982) original specification in the early 1980s]: Sociology was but one of many academic dis- the political sociology of the state, inequality ciplines challenged by this neo-Marxist revival and class analysis, work and the labor process, (on the spread of Marxism in the American and global political economy. In Part Three, we academy, see Ollman & Vernoff 1982). turn to a consideration of some reasons why so- The surge of interest in Marxism in Amer- ciological Marxism declined significantly in the ican sociology beginning in the late 1960s 1990s. Here, we explicitly consider the larger is less surprising in retrospect than it would political environment and the analytical short- appear. Disciplinary fragmentation—long the comings of neo-Marxist models. Part Four of- bane of conservative critics of sociology (e.g., fers some brief speculations about the possi- Horowitz 1993)—made infiltration of alterna- by New York University - Bobst Library on 08/08/12. For personal use only. ble futures of sociological Marxism, considering tive paradigms possible. Further, the size of the Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:155-183. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org some of the pathways that leading Marxists of American higher education sector is unique on a the 1970s generation have charted, and where global scale, and careers can thus draw on alter- and in what ways younger Marxists seem poised native theoretical movements and intellectual to continue to make robust contributions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marxist Crisis Theory and the Severity of the Current Economic Crisis
    Marxist Crisis Theory and the Severity of the Current Economic Crisis By David M. Kotz Department of Economics Thompson Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA 01003, U.S.A. December, 2009 Email Address: [email protected] This paper was presented on a panel on "Heterodox Analyses of the Current Economic Crisis" sponsored by the Union for Radical Political Economics at the Allied Social Science Associations annual convention, Atlanta, January 4, 2010. Research Assistance was provided by Ann Werboff. It is a revised version of a paper "The Final Crisis: What Can Cause a System-Threatening Crisis of Capitalism," Science & Society 74(3), July 2010. Marxist Crisis Theory and the Current Crisis, December, 2009 1 The theory of economic crisis has long occupied an important place in Marxist theory. One reason is the belief that a severe economic crisis can play a key role in the supersession of capitalism and the transition to socialism. Some early Marxist writers sought to develop a breakdown theory of economic crisis, in which an absolute barrier is identified to the reproduction of capitalism.1 However, one need not follow such a mechanistic approach to regard economic crisis as central to the problem of transition to socialism. It seems highly plausible that a severe and long-lasting crisis of accumulation would create conditions that are potentially favorable for a transition, although such a crisis is no guarantee of that outcome.2 Marxist analysts generally agree that capitalism produces two qualitatively different kinds of economic crisis. One is the periodic business cycle recession, which is resolved after a relatively short period by the normal mechanisms of a capitalist economy, although since World War II government monetary and fiscal policy have often been employed to speed the end of the recession.
    [Show full text]
  • Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: a Survey of Critial Theories and Debates Since 1917'
    H-Russia Reichman on Linden, 'Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critial Theories and Debates since 1917' Review published on Monday, November 10, 2008 Marcel van der Linden. Western Marxism and the Soviet Union: A Survey of Critial Theories and Debates since 1917. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ix + 380 pp. $139.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-90-04-15875-7. Reviewed by Henry Reichman Published on H-Russia (November, 2008) Commissioned by Nellie H. Ohr A Fading Tradition This is a revised, corrected, updated, and expanded version of a work that began as a PhD dissertation and was originally published in Dutch in 1989 and again in German in 1992. Marcel van der Linden, a labor historian at Amsterdam University and executive editor of theInternational Review of Social History, summarizes an extraordinarily broad range of Western Marxist thinkers in an effort to understand how Marxists who were politically independent of the Soviet Union "theoretically interpreted developments in the Soviet Union" (p. 4). Noting that "in the history of ideas Marxist theories have not received the attention they deserve" (p. 2) and that "the 'Russian Question' was an absolutely central problem for Marxism in the twentieth century" (p. 1), van der Linden seeks simultaneously to shed light on both the Soviet experience and "the historical development of Marxist thought" (p. 1), succeeding perhaps more in the latter goal than the former. The book opens with a brief introduction, which postulates that the development of Western Marxist thinking about the Soviet Union was shaped by three "contextual clusters:" 1) "The general theory of the forms of society (modes of production) and their succession" adopted by differing Marxist thinkers; 2) the changing "perception of stability and dynamism of Western capitalism"; and 3) the various ways "in which the stability and dynamism of Soviet society was perceived" (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Marxist Paradigm // and Academic Freedom * by DMITRI N
    Marxist Paradigm // and Academic Freedom * BY DMITRI N. SHALIN /' THERussian October Revolution dealt a devastating blow to Marxism from which Marxist sociology did not begin to recover until recently. Stalin's "contributions" to Marxist theory and practice had a particularly adverse effect on the fate of Marxism in the West. Whatever hopes were generated by the de-Stalinization campaign in the Soviet Union proved short-lived. By the time Soviet tanks entered Prague and Soviet authorities resumed show trials, few intellectuals in the capitalist West could speak of Soviet Marxism without acute resentment or at least tacit embarrassment. In Mills's words, ". marxism-leninism has become an offi- cial rhetoric with which the authority of a one-party state has been defended, its expedient brutalities obscured, its achievements proclaimed."' Any attempt to revive the Marxist creed under these circumstances must have entailed a denun- ciation of what has come to pass for Marxism in the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, the Marxist renaissance in the West was marked by the virtually unanimous rejection of Soviet Marxism. The neo-Marxist movement in the West is no monolith. It is supported by social scientists of various denominations who may refer to themselves as radical, humanist, or critical sociologists. What draws them together is: (I) a Marxist-activist image of sociology as a practical enterprise and an explicit commitment to rational remodeling of society and human C. W. Mills, The Marxists (New York: Dell, 1962). p. 22. 362 SOCIAL RESEARCH emancipation; (2) readiness to move beyond Marx and to dispense with those of his propositions that failed the histori- cal test; and (3) a critical attitude toward "official Marxism" as practiced by Soviet-style communists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Radical Infatuation with Western Marxism Or La Belle Dame Sans Merci?
    Canadian Journal of Social and Political Theory/Revue canadienne de theorie politique et sociale , Vol. 6, No. 3 (Fall/Automne, 1982) . THE RADICAL INFATUATION WITH WESTERN MARXISM OR LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI? Rosaire Langlois Russell Jacoby, Dialectic of Defeat: Contours of Western Marxism, Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. X+202 One of the more striking characteristics of the re-orientation of social and political theory during the past fifteen years or so, has been the resurgence of interest in various types of Marxist theory.' Old theorists were rehabilitated- among them Lukacs and Gramsci-and new thinkers were embraced-notably, Althusser and Habermas . The old faith took on new trappings . This second coming of Marxism bore little resemblance to the old-fashioned version. The very foundations of classical Marxism-for example, the stress on the role of the economy and technology on the organization of social life-were cast aside with a corresponding exaltation of the role of the autonomous human subject . Innocent bystanders could be forgiven for wondering whether the uniqueness and perhaps even the coherence of Marxism had not been compromised altogether . The latest work of Russell Jacoby, while not intended as an encyclopaedic survey of all the theorists and issues within the "Western Marxist" tradition, attempts a partial stocktaking and affords an opportunity for a tentative assessment of the approach .z Jacoby writes as both scholar and passionate partisan. Not all, however, will share his continued enthusiasm. The Dialectic ofDefeat is, at one level, a work of intellectual history. As such, it is a quite interesting and significant effort .
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for the Training Provision for Brazilian Office Workers
    TECHNOLOGY, SKILLS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WORK: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TRAINING PROVISION FOR BRAZILIAN . OFFICE WORKERS Ana Maria Lakomy Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Education at the Institute of Education University of London Department of Policy Studies Institute of Education University of London 1995 BIEL LOREN. UNA/. Abstract This thesis is concerned with the process of office automation in Brazil and its skills and training outcomes. The thesis combines a theoretical analysis with an empirical study undertaken in Brazil. Following an introductory chapter, Chapter 2 discusses and analyses two existing theoretical perspectives which address the relationship between technology, work organisation and skills. These are: the labour process approach with reference to the 'deskilling thesis' developed by Harry Braverman (1974) and the 'flexible specialisation thesis' based on Michael Piore and Charles Sabel (1984). They focus on technological changes on the shopfloor, in advanced industrialised countries. Chapter 3 applies the main arguments put forward by these two • approaches to the office environment in advanced industrialised countries. Based on the discussion of a number of empirical studies concerned with the skill outcomes of new technology in the office, the chapter also develops two models of office automation: the 'technology-driven' and the 'informational' models. These models are used as a framework for the discussion of the empirical research undertaken in Brazilian offices. Chapter 4 discusses the recent economic developments in Brazil in order to provide a context for understanding the empirical findings. The chapter describes the country's process of industrialisation, the current economic context and its implications for the adoption of new technology in the Brazilian office environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvey's Limits of Capital: Twenty Years After
    On the Limits of Limits to Capital Bob Jessop Professor, Department of Sociology Lancaster University Copyright This online paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also download it for your own personal use. This paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author's explicit permission. But please note that • if you copy this paper you must include this copyright note • this paper must not be used for commercial purposes or gain in any way, • you should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form: Bob Jessop, ‘On the Limits of Limits of Capital’, published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University at: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc129rj.htm Harvey's magisterial text is a sustained attempt to develop the basic method, extend the substantive arguments, and overcome some of the theoretical limits of Marx's classic critique of political economy. Yet Limits to Capital has its own limits and these are often rooted in the limits of Capital itself. Let us recall that the latter is an unfinished text. In the 1857 outline of his future magnum opus, Marx stated his intention to write six 'books' (Marx 1973; cf. Harvey 1982: xiv). These would deal in turn with capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, foreign trade, and the world market and crises. The chosen order of presentation corresponded to his method of analysis, which moved from abstract-simple objects to the reproduction of the totality as a concrete-in-thought.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a New Political Dawn: the Cuban Revolution in the 1960S
    Notes 1 A New Political Dawn: The Cuban Revolution in the 1960s 1. For an outline of the events surrounding the Padilla Affair, see chapter two. 2. Kenner and Petras limited themselves to mentioning the enormous importance of a Cuban Revolution with which a great number of the North American New Left identified. They also dedicated their book to the Cuban and Vietnamese people for “giving North Americans the possibility of making a revolution” (1972: 5). 3. For an explanation of the term gauchiste and of its relevance to the New Left, see chapter six. 4. However, this consideration has been rather critical in the case of Minogue (1970). 5. The general consensus seems to be that, as the Revolution entered a period of rapid Sovietization following the failure of the ten million ton sugar harvest of 1970, Western intellectuals, who until then had showed support, sought to distance themselves from the Revolution. The single incident that seemingly sparked this reaction, in particular from some French intellectuals, was the Padilla Affair. 6. Here a clear distinction must be made mainly between the Communist Party of the pre-Revolutionary period, the Partido Socialista Popular (Popular Socialist Party) and the 26 July Movement (MR26). The former had a legacy of Popular Frontism, collaboration with Batista in the post- War period and a general distrust of “middle class adventurers” as it referred to the leadership of MR26 until 1958 (Karol, 1971: 150). The latter, led by Castro, had a radical though incoherently articulated ideo- logical basis. The process of unification of revolutionary organizations carried out between 1961 and 1965 did not completely obliterate the individuality of these competing discourses and it was in their struggle for supremacy that the New Left’s contribution was made.
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers' Movement
    chapter 8 Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers’ Movement* What was so great about Harry Braverman? The question, obviously rhetorical, elicits a predictable response in academic circles, where the author of Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974) is deservedly praised for a text that christened the emerging field of labour process studies.1 Braverman’s book was rigorous in its conceptualisations, sufficiently abstract to present an argument that reached beyond particularities into generalised, universal experience and historical and empirical enough to sustain an analysis meant to be received across disciplin- ary boundaries. Moreover, it bridged the academic and activist worlds of left scholarship and practice, a breeze of fresh interpretive air that reinvigorated intellectual sensibilities and revived the study of the work process in fields such as history, sociology, economics, political science and human geography. One of the 50 or so most important studies produced in the third quarter of the 20th century, Labor and Monopoly Capital earned its author a remarkable reputation that, sadly, he never lived to enjoy.2 Authors of great books, having scored the music which rings in the collective ear of generations of readers, inevitably face a cacophony of criticism, some very good, some quite indifferent and some irritatingly bad. Braverman soon faced an avalanche of revisionist study, much of which was written to displace his analysis by showing that somewhere, somehow, some group’s historical engagement with the work process stepped outside the general boundaries developed in Labor and Monopoly Capital. In the end, such studies remain, for the most part, mere footnotes to the edifice of labour process studies, the foundation of which has been, for almost a quarter-century, Braverman’s book.
    [Show full text]
  • Marxist Sociology Michael A
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Social and Cultural Sciences Faculty Research and Social and Cultural Sciences, Department of Publications 1-1-2011 Marxist Sociology Michael A. McCarthy Marquette University, [email protected] Jeff aM nza New York University Published version. "Marxist Sociology," in Oxford Bibliographies Online: Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. DOI. © 2011 Oxford University Press. Used with permission. Michael McCarthy was affiliated with the New York University at the time of publication. Marxist Sociology By: Michael McCarthy and Jeff Manza Introduction Karl Marx (b. 1818–d. 1883) and his lifelong collaborator Friedrich Engels (b. 1820–d. 1895) developed a body of thought that would inspire major social movements, initiate revolutionary social change across the globe, and provide the foundation for many socialist or communist governments. More recently, Marxism’s political influence has waned, with most of the formerly communist regimes undergoing significant change. It is important, however, to separate out Marxism as a system of ideas in the social sciences from Marxism as a political ideology and the foundation for revolutionary social movements and as a governing philosophy. Marxist ideas have influenced many fields of thought and indeed have played a particularly important role in the development of the discipline of sociology. Classical sociological theorists such as Émile Durkheim (b. 1858–d. 1917) and Max Weber (b. 1864–d. 1920), for example, developed their theories of society in conversation with the works of Karl Marx. However, as it evolved in the United States and western Europe in the middle parts of the 20th century, sociology’s dialogue with Marxian propositions declined.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did Braverman Go Wrong? a Marxist Response to the Politicist Critiques
    Where did Braverman go wrong? A Marxist response to the politicist critiques Onde está errado Braverman? A resposta marxista às críticas politicistas Eduardo Sartelli1 Marina Kabat2 Abstract Braverman is considered an unquestionable reference of Marxist labour process. The objective of this paper is to show that despite Braverman’s undeniable achievements he forsakes the classical Marxist notions related to work organization, i. e. simple cooperation, manufacture and large-scale industry and replaces them with the notion of Taylorism. We also intend to show that because of this abandonment, Braverman cannot explain properly how the deskilling tendency operates in different historical periods, and in distinct industry branches. Finally, we try to demonstrate that those Marxist concepts neglected by Braverman are especially useful to understand labor unrest related to job organization. Braverman overvalues the incidence of labor fragmentation and direct forms of control and disregards the impact of mechanization achieved with the emergence of Large-scale industry and the new forms of control associated with it. Whereas Braverman’s allegedly Marxist orthodoxy is considered responsible for this, in fact, exactly the opposite can be asserted: the weaknesses of the otherwise noteworthy work of Harry Braverman are grounded in his relinquishment of some crucial Marxist concepts. We state that labor processes conventionally considered Taylorist or Fordist can be reconceptualized in Marxist classic terms allowing a better understanding of the dynamic of conflicts regarding labor process. Keywords: Labor process. Politics. Marxism. Regulationism. Workers’ Struggles. Resumo Braverman é considerado uma referência inquestionável do processo de trabalho marxista. O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar que, apesar das contribuições inegáveis de Braverman ele abandona as noções marxistas clássicas relacionadas à organização do trabalho, a saber, cooperação simples, manufatura e grande-indústria e substituí-las com a noção do taylorismo.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Intersectionality, Simmel and the Dialectical Critique of Society'
    From interacting systems to a system of divisions ANGOR UNIVERSITY Stoetzler, Marcel European Journal of Social Theory DOI: 10.1177/1368431016647970 PRIFYSGOL BANGOR / B Published: 01/11/2017 Peer reviewed version Cyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA): Stoetzler, M. (2017). From interacting systems to a system of divisions: The concept of society and the ‘mutual constitution’ of intersecting social divisions. European Journal of Social Theory, 20(4), 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431016647970 Hawliau Cyffredinol / General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. 30. Sep. 2021 From interacting systems to a system of divisions: the concept of society and the ‘mutual constitution’ of intersecting social divisions Abstract: This article examines a fundamental theoretical aspect of the discourse on ‘intersectionality’ in feminist and anti-racist social theory, namely the question whether intersecting social divisions including those of sex, gender, race, class and sexuality are interacting but independent entities with autonomous ontological bases or whether they are different dimensions of the same social system that lack separate social ontologies and constitute each other.
    [Show full text]