Structure and Agency in Marxism

[NickBorg]

As implied by the title, I'm interested in the view of Marx (and any important Marxists you can think of) on agency. Does an economic determinist approach explain everything? Or is there room for the individual to act as an autonomous agent? If so, how much? Basically what has Marx, Engels and all who have followed got to say on the extent to which individual agency is restricted or conditioned by wider social conditions?

I considered sliding this question into the liberty vs authority thread, but after reading how responses were framed I decided this was sufficiently different to warrant being it's own discussion. That said, I'm expecting some similar things to come up on occasion.

Thanks in advance.

[PhoenixAsh]

It depends on who you ask within the Marxist tendencies. Marx made this highly relevant quote:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.”

Marx never actuallyplaced a consistent importance on one of these two throughout his development. Though Engels later said they used over emphasize on structuralism because of the opposition to those who denied all and any economic determination in history.

Those who put emphasize on the early period of Marx will stress human agency and those who follow the later period of Marx will have a more structuralist approach.

Marx never addresses it directly though. Personally I think Marx meant that the mode of production will enable or restrict certain ways of human agency.

[NickBorg]

Thanks Pheonix

I was aware of that quote, I get the sense from it that Marx's view was very similar to Giddens Structuration, in that structure and agency are mutually dependent. So structure is both restrictive and enabling like rules in sport. The rules/structure necessary imposes certain restrictions, but it requires individuals to "play the game" to reproduce the structure. Meanwhile all the creative decisions made by individual agents can only exist in relation to the wider structure.

Is this something you'd agree with? Or is the relationship, at least in Marx's conception, more one sided, with structure acting primarily as a restriction on agency?

[Zhi]

Phoenix has made a good point. But in order for me to elaborate Marx says that Economic determinism arises from the economy as being the base or superstructure, however it does grant us autonomy as moral agents and material actors within society I.e tomorrow I can get on a train and purchase an apple. The economic deterministic view of history is viewing it through the lens of class,Crüe society and the collective not the indvivual or the moral agent stroke actor.

[The Intransigent Faction]

It depends on who you ask within the Marxist tendencies. Marx made this highly relevant quote:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.”

Marx never actuallyplaced a consistent importance on one of these two throughout his development. Though Engels later said they used over emphasize on structuralism because of the opposition to those who denied all and any economic determination in history.

Those who put emphasize on the early period of Marx will stress human agency and those who follow the later period of Marx will have a more structuralist approach.

Marx never addresses it directly though. Personally I think Marx meant that the mode of production will enable or restrict certain ways of human agency.

To me this suggests that both might be seen not as contradictory or mutually exclusive forces, but as interconnected through a "feedback loop". Structure influences human actions which reflect back on and influence the structure, which influences humans in changing ways, and so on and so forth. Human actions are of course not isolated from the structure and imposed upon it, but rather form an integral part of the "feedback loop" structure.

[NickBorg]

Though Engels later said they used over emphasize on structuralism because of the opposition to those who denied all and any economic determination in history.


Any chance of a source on this, I'd be very interested in having a read.

[ckaihatsu]

[I] think Marx meant that the mode of production will enable or restrict certain ways of human agency.


While I'm inclined to agree with this, a second thought reminds me that 'certain ways of human agency' really has more to do with a society's *superstructure* than with its *base*.

In other words, it's about what kind of 'civil society' prevails -- as for people's civil rights, by socioeconomic status -- for any given historical era, in any given geographical spot.

Any particular mode of production -- slavery / serfdom, wage labor, etc. -- tells us about a society's *productive capacities*, but technology and wealth is separate from the question of what social norms prevail, or how people relate to each other by social position. (Since all class-divided societies have social stratification, certain social minorities in any class society will face oppression, regardless.)

Perhaps the connection we *can* validly posit is that the greater the general development and wealth a society has, the less *able* it may be to be 'anti-democratic', since people are generally more-empowered, as with the means of communication / organizing, mobility, self-defense, mass resistance, and so on.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)

[NickBorg]

Perhaps the connection we *can* validly posit is that the greater the general development and wealth a society has, the less *able* it may be to be 'anti-democratic'


Is this an over simplification though? I agree that the state's/elite's ability to get away with direct, coercive oppression has no doubt been challenged as society has developed. But what about the more covert, ideological mechanisms of social control? We could imo just as validly posit that this form of control has proliferated as society has developed.

I think there's a really important question in regards to the extent to which personal decisions are truly agentic (the definition of which is a philosophical conundrum in itself), and the extent to which they are the result of some sort of "false consciousness" conditioned by ideological forces.

I've also been reading a commentary on Althusser (I will get to the original text in due time) in which it claims that to Althusser our very identities are constructed by seeing ourselves mirrored in ideology, that in a sense ideology is inescapable. I have some questions regarding this:



Firstly, as I haven't gotten to reading much of Althusser yet, is this a fair representation of his views?
Secondly, does this view have any precedent in the work of Marx himself?
Thirdly, does anyone here agree with this?

[ckaihatsu]

Is this an over simplification though? I agree that the state's/elite's ability to get away with direct, coercive oppression has no doubt been challenged as society has developed. But what about the more covert, ideological mechanisms of social control? We could imo just as validly posit that this form of control has proliferated as society has developed.


Sure, I hear ya, and it's a valid point: The mechanisms of social control have arguably gotten more sophisticated and insidious -- as with the mass media and 'friending' -- but the flipside, I would say, is that technology has also gotten (potentially) more *empowering* and has devolved control to a more individualistic / mass scale, as with Internet-based communications (many-to-many instead of one-to-many).

You may want to specify how 'ideology' has *adapted* to contemporary conditions, since you're contending that the state has essentially managed to retain its 'monolithic' status by staying one step ahead of social (mass) evolution. This position borders on *idealism*, as though the state is timeless, when in fact mass political consciousness, boosted by access to technological communications resources, can realistically cut against its hegemony.





I think there's a really important question in regards to the extent to which personal decisions are truly agentic (the definition of which is a philosophical conundrum in itself), and the extent to which they are the result of some sort of "false consciousness" conditioned by ideological forces.


Sure, 'false consciousness' exists, but that also necessarily implies that 'true' consciousness exists as well -- anywhere that the proletariat is consciously aware of the real material conditions that exploit it.





I've also been reading a commentary on Althusser (I will get to the original text in due time) in which it claims that to Althusser our very identities are constructed by seeing ourselves mirrored in ideology, that in a sense ideology is inescapable. I have some questions regarding this:



Firstly, as I haven't gotten to reading much of Althusser yet, is this a fair representation of his views?
Secondly, does this view have any precedent in the work of Marx himself?
Thirdly, does anyone here agree with this?



I'll pass.