Lucien Goldmann made of import contributions to French Marxist theory as well as philosophy inwards the 1960s. Unlike other luminaries sim...
Lucien Goldmann made of import contributions to French Marxist theory as well as philosophy inwards the 1960s. Unlike other luminaries similar Althusser as well as Poulantzas, Goldmann took a cautious opinion on the strongest claims of scientific certainty for the theses of historical materialism as well as Marx’s theory of capitalism. Instead, he placed to a greater extent than emphasis on the dialectical core of Marx’s theories — without assuming that Marxism provides a key to understanding the necessary unfolding of history as well as society. He interprets Marx's thought inwards damage of the ideas of Hegel's dialectics.
Particularly interesting is his 1970 book, Marxisme et sciences humaines. (Here is a digital edition of the book; link.) Key parts of the epistemological as well as metaphysical ideas inwards Goldmann's philosophy of Marxism are also expressed inwards his essay "Is There a Marxist Sociology?" (link). This slice appeared firstly inwards 1957 inwards French as well as inwards an English linguistic communication translation inwards International Socialism inwards 1968. In this slice Goldmann considers the debates of the early on twentieth century betwixt orthodox Marxists as well as "ethical" reformist socialists -- betwixt those who believed that socialism was a scientific necessity as well as those who believed socialism would come upward most because the masses would come upward to run into that it was the most just social order. Here is Goldmann's summary of his assessment of these debates:
To total up, what characterises these 3 primal positions (despite their differences, nosotros are classing together Kautsky as well as Plekhanov) is that they all handgrip that Marxism implies an objective scientific discipline distinct as well as separable from whatsoever value judgment, what mightiness live called, to run Poincaré’s terminology, a ‘science inwards the indicative mood.’ On this point, the dissimilar trends of Marxist philosophy simply follow the scientism which characterised academic thought at the goal of the nineteenth as well as the showtime of the twentieth century, past times that rattling fact diverging from the dialectical tradition of the classical German linguistic communication thought of Kant, Hegel as well as Marx. The differences betwixt these 3 positions consist inwards the fact that Vorländer, as well as alongside him a large number of thinkers who are partisans of explicit reformism, affirm correctly alongside Poincaré, that from a scientific discipline inwards the indicative mood 1 tin never derive whatsoever decision inwards top imperative mood, as well as thus at that spot could live no ‘scientific socialism,’ since whatsoever taking upward of a socialist position necessarily has an ethical basis. This position rattling chop-chop became the ideology of a certainly explicit reformist tendency consisting primarily of roughly bourgeois democrats brought to socialism past times taking seriously the need for private liberty for all men.
Goldmann's ain position favors the dialectical style of thinking oftentimes attributed to Marx's thought, as well as he rejects the scientistic interpretation associated alongside orthodox Marxism. In this aspect he affiliates his thinking alongside that of Georg Lukács. Here is the intellectual swerve that Goldmann most appreciates in Lukács's theories inwards History as well as Class Consciousness: Studies inwards Marxist Dialectics:
Lukács showed that if 1 accepted the thought of an objective scientific discipline inwards the indicative mood, activity could no longer live conceived except inwards damage of ethics or social technology; inversely, if 1 began alongside a innovation of historical activity every bit private action, 1 could conceive it only inwards ethical or technical terms, as well as sooner or later, if 1 developed one’s thought consistently, 1 would larn inwards at the thought of an objective scientific discipline of society. But it is exactly all these complementary concepts – sociology, objective scientific discipline of social life, technical or ethical activity – which seemed to him questionable as well as inwards a higher house all undialectical.
For him, what characterises historical action, is exactly the fact that it is non carried out past times isolated individuals, but past times groups who simultaneously know as well as constitute history. Therefore neither the grouping nor the private who is business office of it tin consider social as well as historical life from the outside, inwards an objective fashion. The noesis of historical as well as social life is non scientific discipline but consciousness although it must evidently strive towards the attainment of a rigour as well as precision comparable to those achieved inwards an objective fashion past times the natural sciences. Any separation of judgments of fact as well as judgments of value, and, similarly, whatsoever separation of theory as well as practise is impossible inwards the procedure of understanding history; the rattling affirmation of such a separation volition own got an ideological as well as distorting effect. Historical noesis is non a contemplative science; historical activity is neither social technique (Machiavelli) nor ethical activity (Kant); the 2 constitute an indivisible whole which is a progressive awareness as well as the march of humanity towards freedom.
In my ain handling of Marx's ideas inwards The Scientific Marx (1986) I argued that Marx did non brand run of a dialectical method when it came to his social theories.
Here is my summary of my thinking most dialectics inwards Marx:
It is no uncertainty truthful that Marx's mature industrial plant incorporate a certainly amount of admittedly Hegelian linguistic communication as well as concepts. Marx writes inwards Capital, "I openly avowed myself the student of that mighty thinker [Hegel], as well as even, hither as well as at that spot inwards the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted alongside the mode of aspect peculiar to him" (Capital II, pp. 102-3). And inwards the same passage he speaks alongside blessing of the dialectical method: "The mystification which the dialectic suffers inwards Hegel's hands past times no agency prevents him from beingness the firstly to introduce its full general forms of motility inwards a comprehensive as well as witting manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must live inverted, inwards monastic tell to regain the rational marrow inside the mystical shell." There is thus roughly fuel for the declaration that Capital is non an empirical piece of job but rather a piece of job of materialist philosophy inwards the Hegelian mode. If these dialectical ideas ran deeply the accuse would live compelling. In the following, however, I volition struggle that Marx is irreconcilably opposed to the run of dialectical logic every bit a method of enquiry inwards history or social science. At most the dialectical method represents a highly abstract empirical hypothesis most the nature of social change. I promise thus to larn out the way clear for an interpretation of Marx's scientific method that is inwards basic understanding alongside orthodox empirical social science. When Marx goes to piece of job on his detailed handling of the empirical information of capitalism, he leaves his Hegelian baggage behind. (TSM 113)
Moreover, I banking company annotation that Marx is sharply critical of Proudhon, inwards large business office because of the appeal that Proudhon makes to the logic of the dialectical method:
Consider lastly Marx's critique of Proudhon's political economic scheme inwards The Poverty of Philosophy. This word is especially of import inwards the introduce context because Proudhon does endeavor to base of operations political economic scheme on a dialectical method of enquiry as well as explanation, as well as Marx sharply rejects the possibility of such a science. "What Hegel has done for religion, law, etc., M. Proudhon seeks to do for political economy" (PP, p. 107). Marx describes Proudhon's method inwards these terms: "If 1 finds inwards logical categories the substance of all things, 1 imagines 1 has constitute inwards the logical formula of motion the absolute method, which non only explains all things, but also implies the motion of things" (PP, p. 107). Thus Proudhon's projection is defined every bit an endeavor to assimilate the categories of political economic scheme to an abstract logical organisation derived from Hegel's Logic, as well as and so to derive the economical laws that tin live deduced from this system. Marx's commentary on this approach makes it patch that he thinks it only spurious every bit a technique of scientific inquiry. Here in 1 lawsuit to a greater extent than Marx's critique of dialectics every bit a speculative, a priori analytic tool is sudden as well as unforgiving. "The 2d nosotros cease to pursue the historical motion of production relations, of which the categories are but the theoretical expression, the 2d nosotros desire to run into inwards these categories no to a greater extent than than ideas, spontaneous thoughts, independent of existent relations, nosotros are forced to attribute the root of these thoughts to the motion of pure reason. . . . Or, to verbalize Greek—we own got thesis, antithesis as well as synthesis" (PP, p. 105). "Apply this method to the categories of political economy, as well as you lot own got the logic as well as metaphysics of political economy" (PP, p. 108). (TSM 117-118)
So I struggle that Marx does non encompass a philosophical method of noesis discovery, but is instead highly attentive to the constraints of empirical as well as historical investigation. We involve to regain how the social dry ground is rather than how philosophy predicts it should be. And inwards fact, these commitments let us to sympathise Marx's famous comment most "standing Hegel's method on its head":
We are immediately able to interpret Marx's celebrated remark that alongside Hegel the dialectic is "standing on its head. It must live inverted, inwards monastic tell to regain the rational marrow inside the mystical shell" (Capital II, p. 103). What is the rational kernel, as well as what is the mystical shell, of the dialectic? And inwards what feel does Marx "invert" Hegel's method? It is Marx's endorsement of Hegel's catch of the historicity of social institutions as well as their internal dynamics of alter that leads him to verbalize alongside favor of the dialectical method. "In its rational shape . . . [the dialectical method] regards every historically developed shape every bit beingness inwards a fluid state, inwards motion, as well as thus grasps its transient aspect every bit well" (Capital II, p. 103). On my catch of Marx's meaning, the rational marrow of Hegel's method is the empirical hypothesis that historical as well as social processes develop according to an internal dynamic, as well as that it is possible to furnish a rigorous analysis as well as explanation of historical alter based on noesis of that dynamic. Moreover, Marx plainly accepts Hegel's catch that alter inwards history proceeds through noun contradictions. These theses characterize history every bit a law-governed process, as well as 1 whose changes develop every bit the termination of internal contradictions. Thus the marrow of Hegel's dialectic, on Marx's view, is non methodological at all, but rather a revealing insight into the graphic symbol of social reality. These theses are empirical hypotheses (albeit formulated at an extremely high-level).
The mystical trounce of Hegel's method, past times contrast, is methodological—and perniciously so. It is Hegel's belief that pure a priori analysis tin let him to regain the key to this internal dynamic. This supposition is the "logical mysticism" identified past times Marx inwards the Critique of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right," as well as he emphatically rejects this philosophical method. Finally, the inversion Marx proposes requires that instead of showtime alongside ideas as well as attempting to reproduce the cloth dry ground inwards thought, nosotros must start alongside the cloth dry ground as well as endeavor to larn inwards at ideas that adequately depict its existent characteristics. "With me the opposite is true: The ideal is cipher but the cloth dry ground reflected inwards the hear of man, as well as translated into forms of thought" (Capital II, p. 102). Thus Marx's inversion of Hegel's method is materialism; to a greater extent than exactly, it is a shape of empiricism because it stipulates that noesis of the cloth dry ground may live acquired only through detailed, rigorous investigation of concrete empirical as well as historical circumstances. And what are the methods appropriate to this variety of investigation? They are the methods of empirical science. (119-120)
In 1986, then, I was of the persuasion that the thing was opened upward as well as shut: Marx was non a dialectical thinker. But I immediately run into that at that spot is roughly other way of looking at these issues. If nosotros select the ideas of change, contingency, historical conjunction, as well as dynamic social processes to live crucial for understanding the social dry ground -- every bit I do -- as well as so peradventure at that spot is a version of "dialectical thinking" that does non convey along the apriorism that Marx clearly rejects, patch at the same fourth dimension capturing something of import most history as well as social process. The determinism of "historical laws of motion" sounds suspiciously positivistic; whereas the thought of a prepare of social processes that interact conjuncturally as well as hit alter inwards oftentimes unpredictable ways is to a greater extent than convincing every bit a description of existent history.
So I'll goal alongside an interesting passage from Marxisme et sciences humaines that seems to touching on this question. This is a passage inwards which Goldmann refers to his ain innovation of "genetic structuralism", an thought which inwards plow seems to capture his ain catch of dialectics:
Du indicate de vue historique, le structuralisme génétique est apparu, me semble-t-il, pour la premiere fois comm idée fondamentale dans la philosophie, avec Hegel et Marx bien que ni l'un ni l'autre n'aient employé explicitement ce terms. Il n'en reste pas moins que les pensées hégélienne et marxiste sont, pour la premiere fois dans l'histoire de la philosophie, des positions rigoureusement monistes, structuralistes et génétiques. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 un niveau immédiat ce phénomene peut etre lié en partie au fait qu'avec Hegel et surtout avec Marx la philosophie moderne se detache progressivement des sciences mathématiques et physiques pour s'orienter en tout premier lieu vers la reflexion sur les fait historiques; il me parait of import de constater que, loin d'etre une découverte tardive en sciences historiques et sociales, le structuralisme génétique est au contraire une des premieres positions elaborees par les penseurs qui se sont orientes sérieusement vers un essai de compréhension positive de ces faits. (21-22)
Or, inwards my pathetic translation:
Genetic structuralism is 1 of the firstly positions created for thinkers who are oriented towards an effort at a positive comprehension of these facts.
This seems to prevarication at the core of Goldmann's catch of how to resolve the debate betwixt orthodox as well as reform interpretations of Marx: neither positivist scientific discipline nor ethical pieties, but rather a catch of history that envelopes individuals as well as groups creating their ain histories, inwards circumstances non of their ain choosing. And that procedure seems to live what Goldmann wants to position every bit "genetic structuralism" as well as the outcome of dialectical historical concretization.
COMMENTS