Dugger Sherman (1997)

7/27/2019 Dugger Sherman (1997)

1/20

J 8 I JOURNAL OE ECONOMIC ISSUESVol. XXXI No. 4 December 1997

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution

W illiam M . DuggerandHoward J. Sherman

What are the forces of change in society? What are the forces of resistance?How are they interrelated? These are central questions that must be answered byany theory of social evolution. Two such theories^Marxism and institutionalismand their answers interest us here. Both are complex and diverse, so that our repre-sentation of them will have to involve considerable selection and simplification.William M. Dugger [1995a; 1995b] provides a broader taxonomy of views withininstitutionalism. A broader taxonomy of views within Marxism is provided inHoward J. Sherman [1995, chaps. 3-4].Institutionalism and Marxism both provide concepts for describing and explain-ing how societies evolve, but branches of each also can become reductionistic andteleological when isolated from the ideas of the other tradition. Institutionalism is apowerful school of thought, but a branch of it has tended to degenerate into "pro-gressivism"the belief that technological change inherently leads to progress andthat resistance to such change is inherently regressive and futile. Marxism is also apowerful school of thought, but a branch of it has tended to degenerate into "econo-mism"the belief that technological change and maximum economic gain comprisethe sole driving forces of social change. The potential for degenerate economismcan be reduced by a dose of institutionahsm with its emphasis on cultural sequence.The potential for degenerate progressivism can be reduced by a dose of Marxism


2/20

992 William M. Dugger and Howard J. Sherman

sis. Of course, we are fully aware of many remaining differences between the twotraditions and have discussed them elsewhere [Dugger and Sherman 1994],

InstitutionalismInstitutionalists, particularly Thorstein Veblen and his followers, work in the tra-

dition of cumulative causation that emphasizes cultural sequence. The works ofThorstein Veblen and Clarence Ayres have been highly influential and have as acommon element the idea that human behavior is cultural, where cultures evolve asbehavior changes and as cause of that change [Mayhew 1987, 590]. Veblen, in hisdescription of this interactive process, emphasized the self-serving influences ofsportsmanship, predatory exploit, and invidious distinction (inculcated through whathe called imbecile institutions) versus the social-serving influences of workmanship,idle curiosity, and parental bent. These self-serving versus social-serving influenceswork themselves out in social evolution. In his preface to a collection of essays hewrote for the Dial, Veblen explained a specific and modern form of social evolutionas business versus industry:

The aim of these papers is to show how and, as far as may be, why a dis-crepancy has arisen in the course of time between those accepted principlesof law and custom that underhe business enterprise and the businesslike man-agement of industry, on the one hand, and the material conditions whichhave now been engendered by that new order of industry that took its rise inthe late 18th century, on the other hand; together with some speculations onthe civil and political difficulties set afoot by this discrepancy between busi-ness and industry [Veblen 1964, v].Although business versus industry was a central feature of Veblen's thought, it

is not adequate to explain his treatment of social evolution entirely in terms of busi-ness institutions versus machine technology. Veblen, in focussing on the intellectualissues of his day, framed his analysis of social change in terms of self-regardingversus other-regarding "instincts" of individuals. However, he also based his analy-sis on the force of habituation to different technological exigencies and possibihtiesand to different institutionalized regimes. He also stated his cultural sequence interms of conflict among classes. In The Instinct of Workmanship, he referred tothree classes: the predatory or dynastic class, the owning or business class, and theengineering or industrial class. Veblen stated.


3/20

Institutionalist and Ma rxist Theories of Evolution 993

has by workmanship. It is a gradation of (a)predation, (b)business, (c)indus-try; the former being disserviceable and gainful, the second gainful, and thethird serviceable [Veblen 1964 184; parentheses in original].The owning or business class owns the material equipment of the community

and (niis)directs the competitive system's pecuniary traffic so that it will flowthrough gainful channels. By gainful channels, Veblen meant business channels thatyield a pecuniary gain. Veblen referred to this class's vested interest as "the usu-fruct of the state of the industrial arts" [Veblen 1964, 220]. This business systemand its class usufructuaries had come into the cultural landscape at a later date thanthe predatory system and its usufructuaries. The members of the owning class arerelatively peaceful, compared to the more ancient ruling class. Their ownership issafe only after the violence of the ruling class has been chained down by constitu-tions, separation of powers, and other limitations placed on its arbitrary exercise bydynastic ruling classes. The owning or business class is both a class formation and acultural sequence whose more peaceful nature has allowed for a slightly freer playof the instinct of workmanship in the underlying population.

Th e class that greatly interested V eb len was the professional class of "efficiencyengineers." Its relation to the other classes and cultural sequences is understood byVeblen to begin with the fact that "the modem businessman is necessarily out of ef-fectual touch with the affairs of technology as such and incompetent to exercise aneffectual surveillance of the processes of industry . . . " [Veblen 1964, 22 2]. Ve blenbeheved that businessmen recognized their own shortcomings. "So, a professionalclass of 'efficiency engineers' is coming into action, whose duty it is to take invoiceof the preventable wastes and inefficiencies due to the business management of in-dustry and to present the case in such concrete and obvious terms of price and per-centage as the businessmen in charge will be able to comprehend" [Veblen 1964,222]. Someone must be competent in industrial ways of knowing and so the mem-bers of this class emerge to keep the machines running. In his system, the "effi-ciency engineers" are both a class formation and a cultural sequence.

Ayres: Technology versus CeremonialismThough he drew heavily on Veblen's work, Ayres articulated his process of cu-

mulative causation so that it more closely resembled some of the cultural lag theo-ries then curre nt in the social sciences. "Two forces seem to be present in all


4/20

994 W illiam M . Dugger and Howard 7. Sherman

The history of the human race is that of a perpetual opposition of theseforces, the dynamic force of technology continually making for change, andthe static force of cerem ony status, m ore s, and legendary beliefop posingchange [Ayres 1978, 176].While ceremony has to do with elite acquisition of money, status, power, and

authority for the work that is done, technology has to do with people doing thework. The great liberating and forward-looking force is technology, defined broadlyas all skills and tools that help human beings to improve the life process. Technol-ogy, for Ayres, was more than the activities of tinkerers and the accumulation oftheir gadgets. It is an inherent part of culture, an instrumental continuum thatbrought us not only the industrial revolution, but also an industrial way of life.Ayres reinterpreted the consequences of Veblen*s instincts of workmanship and ofthe parental bent.

Technology developed in a cumulative process that began with the use of thesimplest tools and learning of the simplest skills. The process is cumulative becauseeach tool and its corresponding skill can be combined with another tool-skill pairand become a new building block. The number of these building blocks gets largerand larger in an exponential growth curve. The new building blocks are "invented"because the combinations necessary for such "invention" have been handed down tous as a kind of community joint stock. The process accelerates because the numberof building blocks in the join t stock, and therefore the num ber of new combinations,is continually growing [Ayres 1978; 1961].

The elements of conflicting interests important to Veblen in his treatment of pe-cuniary versus industrial interests began to be lost in Ayres. For Ayres, resistanceto change was given mainly by the forces of ignorance, superstition, and legend,which he referred to as "ceremonialism." These forces derive their hold upon usfrom emotional conditioning to the present situation and fi"om past-binding myths.That these forces could be used in a Veblenian manner to sanctify elite income,status, and authority was often acknowledged by Ayres. In his The Divine Right ofCapital [Ayres 1946], he criticized those who were trying to take the United Statesback to the gross inequahty of unregulated capitalism that existed before the NewDeal and did so by using his analysis of ceremonialism in opposition to progressiveforces of technology. As Ayres once put it, in what was probably his earliest formu-lation of "ceremonialism" (he used the term "righteousness").

The temptation is very strong for any one who is making a study of the socialeffects of righteousness to represent it [what he would later come to refer to


5/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution 995

In this formulation of ceremonialism, class conflict as well as cultural sequenceare readily identifiable. However, as Ayres continued to develop his thought, he re-placed the word righteousness with ceremonialism and emphasized that ceremonial-ism was due to ignoran ce, fear of the unkno wn , fancy, in a wo rd confusion. As aresult, the class dimension faded from his analysis. Also, unlike Veblen, Ayres be-came distinctly optimistic and perhaps even a bit teleological:

For truth is great and will prevail. The moral confusion of our day is thecounterpart of our social confusion. As we go forward, both will pass [Ayres1946, 189].Ayres provided a multi-level treatment of ceremonialism. It was defined as (1) a

system of social stratification; (2) a system of conventional conceptions supportingstratification; (3) an ideology that supports the system of stratification and its con-ventions; (4) emotional conditioning involved in enculturation and reinforced by for-mal education, the media, and other agencies of modern society; and (5) all of thesefour are "defended . . . and intensified in mystic rites and ceremonies" [Ayres 1978,xvi].

Unfortunately, in practice, many institutionalists who have continued working inthe Ayresian branch of institutionalism have concentrated almost solely on the fifthlevel, which is easily interpreted simply as the effects of ignorance and superstition,and which is easily cleansed of radical Veblenian imphcations. In this reductionisticprocess, the defense of social stratification and the selfish interest in defending thestatus quo are de-emphasized, and the original Veblenian dimension in Ayres is lost.Although Ayres was not reductionistic himself, there is much material in his workthat lends itself to reductionism. For example, along with other illustrations of thepower of destructive beliefs, he cites the example of early European explorers in theArctic who, thinking that only Eskimos could build igloos, lived and suffered insilken tents rather than build igloos for themselves [Ayres 1978, 159]. Many suchexamples of ignorance, superstition, or legends holding back progress are given inhis work. He emphasizes that many people oppose change merely because they hateit, and they hate it because they love "the old ways" [Ayres 1978, xvii].

What is wrong with conceptualizing the chief factor of resistance as ignorance,confusion, superstition, and legend? Nothing, so far as it goes, but that is not as faras it goes. Where does the mythology come from? Ayres argued in 1961 that my-thology comes from the quest for certainty and security.

No assurance of security could be too great; and man achieved the most vivid


6/20

996 William M. Dugger and Howard J. ShermanAyres was not quite right. It is true that many people accept the dominant mythol-ogy because of a desire for security. Nevertheless, not all students of these mat-ters^not even all institutionalists and certainly not Veblenrecognize thatmythology has precisely the origin and significance that Ayres assigned to it. My-thology is also argued to originate in defense of the status quo and to be significantas a support mechanism for inequahty and injustice [see the essays in Dugger 1996],

Progressivism: The Degeneration of Cultural Sequence TheoryTheory that concentrates on "mystic rites and ceremonies" as the resistant factor

to change has considerable potential for degeneration into what we call "progressiv-ism." (As noted, a classic in this genre is the cultural lag theory in Ogburn [1964].)Veblen was immune to the degeneration, and Ayres himself, particularly in hismore neglected works such as Divine Right of Capital and Holier than Thou, wasfar more resistant to the degeneration than many who became Ayresians and con-flated the work of Ayres with the Ogburn cultural lag tradition. To clarify the point,progressivism involves the argument that technological change is always a form ofprogress and that resistance to it is always a form of regress. Progress becomes vir-tually a certainty and resistance to new technology becomes virtually a hopeless andirrational act of ignorance, fear, and superstition. Some of the formulations of tworecent institutionalists are illustrative of progressivism.

Progressivism in John R, M unkirsAs a referee pointed out to us, the idea that our major problem is overcoming

superstition and myth comes from an over-simphfied reading of John Dewey. Weagree and emphasize that the over-simplified reading of his 772^ Quest for Certaintycan be particularly harmful. It results in too much emphasis on resistance to changeas coming from the desire to propitiate a higher power (god?) and far too Uttle em-phas is on resista nce to chan ge as comin g from the desire to justify a system of insti-tutionalized human power. To explain the Veblenian dichotomy, for example,Munkirs quotes Dewey as saying

Man who lives in a world of hazards is compelled to seek for security. Hehas sought to attain it in two ways. One of them began with an attempt topropitiate the powers which environ him and determine his destiny. It ex-


7/20

Institutionalist and Ma rxist Theories of Evolution 997

The first way of deahng with an uncertain world is "ceremonial"; the second is"instrumental," or "technological." When the ceremonial is interpreted as propitia-tion of (super)natural powers and not as legitimization of human j>owers, progres-sivism is the logical result. Furthermore, when the instrumental/technological isviewed exclusively as channehng the powers of nature to benefit humanity and notas channehng the powers of humanity to benefit particular humans, progressivism isreinforced. To stand for channeUng the powers of nature to benefit humanity is tostand with the angels, and no one would argue against that. Although Munkirs ex-plains and qualifies the nuances of his position at length and in a very sophisticatedmanner, his formulation of ceremonial resistance remains equivalent to superstition,and his formulation of instrumental/technological knowing/acting remain the equiva-lent of benefits to humanity [Munkirs 1988; Dewey 1929].

Progressivism in Thom as R. DeG regoriIn an extended exchange of views involving F. Gregory Hayden, Han Yu Lee,

Peter F. M. McLoughlin, and Thomas R. DeGregori, considerable controversy wasgenerated and even a little hght was directed at the instrumental/technological di-mension of cultural lag analysis in institutionalism [DeGregori 1978, 1980, 1985;Hayden 1980; Han Yu Lee and Hayden 1986; McLoughhn 1986]. Thomas DeGre-gori set off the exchange in a 1978 article in the Journal of Economic Issues by ad-vocating technological policies for Less Developed Countries, with his positionlying somewhere between the go-it-alone pohcies of radical dependency theoristsand the market-worshiping pohcies of the Chicago school. Peter McLoughhn, thefriendly critic of De Gregori*s subsequent book that expanded on his article, ex-plains De Gregori's basic stance as follows: "Professor DeGregori's natural buoy-ancy and optimism overflow virtually every page of his book" [McLoughlin 1986,789]. In other words, DeGregori is a technological optimist who basically under-stands the problem of underdevelopment as a failure to adopt industrial technol-ogywhich will benefit all humanityas quickly as possible. F. Gregory Haydenand Han Yu Lee criticized DeGregori for failing to put technology into its properinstitutional context, a context in which specific technologies are implemented inspecific ways to the advantage/disadvantage of specific interests.

When does institutionaUsm's theory of cultural sequence degenerate into pro-gressivism? The answer, we believe, is straightforward: when it omits the role of


8/20

998 W illiam M . Dugger and Howard J, Sherman

lag between them is not very doubtful. Instead, it is almost predetermined or predes-tined so it seems that progress will surely triumph.

Progress will surely triumph because ignorance, fear, superstition, and emo-tional conditioning can all be reduced through universal education and enlighten-ment. However, progress will not necessarily triumph when class conflict andeconomic interest are brought into the cultural sequenceinto the cumulative causa-tionbecause class conflict and economic interest could be intensified rather thanreduced through a reduction in ignorance, fear, superstition, and emotional condi-tioning. Economic interest involves the pursuit of material gain. Class interest in-volves the recognition of shared economic interest. Class conflict involves actingtogether and taking collective action in pursuit of shared economic interest in oppo-sition to other, contending interests. The reduction of ignorance and fear does notnecessarily reduce the pursuit of material gain. The well-informed and the brave canbe jus t as greedy as the ignorant and the fearful. Fu rthe rm ore , the reduction of igno-rance, fear, superstition, and emotional conditioning could all very readily increasethe recognition of shared economic interest and increase the ability to take collectiveaction in the pursuit thereof. The business pursuit of self interest may become evenmore intense, more coordinated, and more effective with a reduction in fear (of hellfor usurers) and ignorance (of new ways to get something for nothing, as Veblenwould say). With economic interest and class conflict included in the analysis, Ve-blenian blind drift becomes just as possible as DeGregorian technological progress.The inclusion forces it to deal more with history and less with teleology.

However, in deahng with history, institutional theorists use the concept of powermore than that of class interest [Sherman 1995, 108]. Veblen believed that eventhough class interest was important, the members of the underlying population nor-ma lly enco unte red grea t difficulty in determ ining a class interest ^which is why hefrequently referred to an underlying population rather than a class. With regard tothe importance of class interest, Veblen began his Absentee Ownership wifli "the ef-fectual division of interest and sentiment is beginning visibly to run on class lines,betw een the absentee ow ners and the unde rlying population" [Veblen 1964, 6].However, when he proceeded to analyze the American case of absentee ownership,he pessimistically discussed class interest only as a kind of addendum to the mainrun of his argument. In his addendum, so to speak, he stated.

There is also the more obscure question of what the industrial man-powerand the underlying population will say to it all, if anything. . . . Anythinglike reasoned conduct or articulate behavior on their part will scarcely belooked for in this connection. Yet there remains an uneasy doubt as touches


9/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution 999

Marxism and Class Conflict Theory

Central to class confiict theory is the definition of class itself. A number of con-

each other particularly , wh ich classes exploit and wh ich classes are exploited.Capital, in the last, unfinished chapter, Marx says that in England

his day, there are three great classes: the capitalist class, the landowne r c lass, and

The process of exploitation is defined as the process of producing and appropri-

It is worth noting that institutionalists consider the definition of work or labor to

This difference between institutionahsts and fundamentalist Marxists remains un-


10/20

1000 William M. Dugger and Howard J. Sherman

logically determined like the productivity of a machine, but is socially constructein that sense [see discussion of the hterature in Sherman 1995, chap. 7].

The concept of class is also discussed in numerous other Marxist and institutionalist wo rks [Sherman 1995; Dug ger 1996]. E. P. Tho m pson, for exam ple, has completely opposite emphasis than Wolff and Resnick. Thompson provides a subjec tive a nd historical definition of class, em phas izing that class is not jus t a struture, but is something that happens in conscious relationships between humans:

Class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inheritedor shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between them-selves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usu-ally opposed to) theirs. The class experience is largely determined by theproductive relations into which men are bornor enter involuntarily[Thompson 1966, 9; parentheses in original].

Whereas Wolff and Resnick emphasize the objective factor of the relationship of exploitation, Thompson emphasizes the subjective factor of hostility and conflict between classes in many times and places. There is nothing necessarily contradictorin looking at both objective relationships and individual consciousness of class at thsame time; indeed most contemporary Marxists would insist that both are necessary

Class interest involves protecting, justifying, reproducing, and expanding the appropriation of income (Veblenian usufruct) through one's class positionone's relation to the production of goods and the appropriation of income. A person is usuallbom into a particular class. That is, people generally are not able to choose to movfrom one class to another, particularly if the move involves a move from a subservent to a dominant class. Such upward class movement does occur, but it is difficultthe exception that proves the rule.

A class is a group of people who share similar objective relationships to the production of goods, who appropriate their incomes in similar fashions, and who sometimes have a common consciousness of their position and their interests (busometimes do not). Class conflict involves the clash of interests encountered between class positionsbetween those who share dominant class positions and thoswho share subservient ones. The terms "objective" and "subjective" may be clarfied by exa m ple . Sup pose that 1 am a tena nt; I hav e an objective interest in havinrent control; but I may believe subjectively that rent control is un-American anwrong .

Marx emphasizes that all major social change is caused by the "contradictionbetween the productive forces (technology, etc.) and the class relations of produc


11/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution 1001lag between technology and institutions causes human misery and friction amongclasses. Marx, for example, argues that before the French Revolution the growingcapitalist class was frustrated by the many restrictions that feudalism placed on thelabor supply, on how things should be produced, and on many other economic pa-rameters. Marx also was one of the first to focus attention on how capitalist institu-tions lead to recessions and depressions that hold back production and technology.

Because cultural change involves human friction, contemporary Marxists arguethat human consciousness is part of the equation determining change. Th us, the con-tradiction or cultural sequence must lead to conscious (or partly conscious) classconflict if there is to be a reform or a revolution. In fact, the opening lines of theCommunist Manifesto tell us that the history of all previous societies (in historicaltimes, not prehistoric ones) was the history of class conflict. Class conflict involvesconsciousness. It is caused by the objective condition of cultural changes, but it isclass conflict in all its subjective gloryincluding ideological, political, and eco-nomic strifethat may cause revolution or reform. Cultural change is a necessarycondition for class conflict, but class conflict is a necessary condition for evolution.

In class confbct theory, it is this fundamental clash of interests that drives socialchange under given circumstances. From the perspective of an institutionalist tryingto understand it, this class conflict is the crucible into which technology is groundand through which technology comes to affect society. Within the crucible, it isground by and passes through the class interest of those who will benefit from thenew technology and of those who will be hurt by the new technology. When itcomes out of the crucible, technology does not necessarily benefit all humanity. It isapplied by a subset (a class) of hum anity to benefit that subset.

Class interest is shared economic interest. Class conflict involves struggle be-tween different class interests. The shape of class structure (the capitalist class, forexample) has to do with the rights of property owners vis-a-vis others. The contentof class conflict (between the capitalists and the workers, for example) has to dowith the capitalists appropriating income in various forms, particularly profits andinterest, and with laborers receiving just enough to pay for the customary standardof living by working for the capitalists. In the Marxian view, technological changeenters the cultural sequence of cumulative causation through this crucible of classstructure and class conflict and always involves the social question of whose in-comes and whose jo bs will be affected by the new technology and how w ill that af-fect be promoted or resisted. Who gains and how? Who loses and how? Whosevoice will be heard? Whose econoniic interests will be made to count through suc-


12/20

1002 William M. Dugger and How ard J. Shermaninstitutions for new technology will be motivated by not only mythology, fear, superstition, and ignorance, but also by the vested interest of certain classes. For example, medical technology tells us that tobacco is bad for health, but corporagreed keeps producing, advertising, and getting government subsidies for tobaccoAnd last, the outcome of the promotion and resistance is problematic in the extreme. The outcome could be considered regressive, or progressive, or a prolonge(indefinite?) stalemate.

Members of a class understand important dimensions of themselves in terms othe economic interests they share with others who work and live in similar circumstances. They also understand important dimensions of themselves in terms of theconomic interests they contend against with others who live and work in differencircumstances. Members of a class are individuals (and are affected by all kinds osocial myths), but sometimes they can and do think and act in commonality, not jusas isolated individuals.

Degeneration of Some Marxists into Economism and ProgressivismIn their popular political propagandaand in some of their theoretical worksthe German Social Democrats of the 1890s made use of an economistic interpretation of Marx, that is, a theory relying on the notion that all the rest of society is tbe explained by economics, and economics is the starting point and cause of everything else. In this view, there are two classes: the working class and the capitalisclass. The capitalist class controls the economy and the polity.The German Social Democrats of the 1890s were also progressivist, whicmeans that progress is inevitable, as believed by many intellectuals in the nineteenthcentury. The economism and progressivism were combined to argue that technologyis always progressing. The improved technology comes up against the barrier ocapitalist institutions, preventing its full use. Eventually, however, the rising technology must destroy the stagnant old capitalist institutions. Then society will choosthe most appropriate institutions for improvement, namely, socialism.This was powerful propaganda, creating the aura of inevitability for the socialiscause. A no table and incisive critique of this econom istic and progressivist type oMarxism was made by Thorstein Veblen [1919]a critique that is fully supporteby many contemporary Marxists, as shown below.For 70 years after 1917, the dominant M arxism was the Soviet type of Marxism


13/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution 1003the stages of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, andcommunism. Since the capitalist class was destroyed in the Soviet Union, the gov-ernment has been run by the working classand is, therefore, the most democraticthat has ever existed (even with only one party because that party must represent theworking class). This crude propaganda constituted the official dogma called "Marx-ism" by the Communist parties.

Ever since the Communist monolith began to weaken and splinter in the 1950smarked by Khrushchev's "secret" speech of 1956 at the Twentieth Congress of theSoviet Communist Partythere has been a vehement debate on economism and pro-gressivism in Marxian literature. Even outside of the Communist-ruled countries,there were many sophisticated, eloquent and elegant defenders of economistic andprogressivist Marxism. As late as 1978, there was a bumper year for such defensesof the old interpretation of Marxism, including G. A. Cohen [1978], W. H. Shaw[1978], and J. McMurtry [1978].The economism of scholars such as these may be summed up in two proposi-

tions:1. The economic base of a society (emphasizing technology but includingland, labor, capital, and class relations) determines its superstructure (in-cluding all political institutions, culture, and ideology).2. The level of technology and other productive forces determines the classrelations of production, so technology is primary and ultimately deter-mines all social relationships and institutions, including class relations,economic relations, and economic institutions.The basic problem with Marxian economism, like any economism, is that it is aone-way street. Technology explains society, but what explains technology? Tech-nology is taken as a given in this theory; to explain technology means to transformthe theory into something totally different.The main propositions of Marxian progressivism (to be found in the above cited

authors and many others), building on the two economistic propositions discussedabove, are

1. A certain level of productive forces is compatible only with a certaintype of productive relations and vice versa. This proposition asserts thatonly certain types of economic institutions can operate with a given tech-


14/20

1004 William M. Dugger and How ard 7. Shermanment of the productive forces. But each society reaches a point wherethe developing forces of production are no longer compatible with theold class relationships.

4. A new class will arise that will have sufficient power and organization tooverthrow the old class relations.5. That new class will actually use its power to overthrow the previouseconomic system, including the old set of class relations. Notice that thenew class, which makes the revolution, not only is assumed to have thepower to overthrow the old system, but also the desire. That desirecomes from the increasing frustration due to the tension between frozenclass relations and rising technological potential. The new consciousness

is assumed, never proven.6. It is assumed that the new economic institutions (or class relations) willallow optimal development of the productive forces at the present levelof development. Thus, progress continues unabated.What is wrong with Marxian progressivism? These six propositions are presented as universal laws of an inevitable, preordained development. But if there ino supernatural deity directing human history, then there are no such universalaws. There are only specific laws of each social formation based on the human relationships in that society and linked through time by cultural sequence and cumulative causation instead of predetermination and predestination.

Holistic MarxismWhile some Marxists have been economistic, explaining everything by techno

ogy, oth ers have joined the neoclassical econom ists to explain everything by individual human psychology. But both such tendencies have been criticizedespecially ithe last three decadesby those who take seriously a holistic or relational view osociety. To name only a few, the Marxian critics of economism and progressivismhave included: Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel [1978], Derek Sayer [1987]Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff [1987], Alex CaUinicos [1988], Ellen Woo[1990], Eric Wright, Andrew Levine, and Elhott Sober [1992], and Howard Sherman [1995].Contemporary, holistic Marxism opposes any theories that reduce explanation ta single, isolated factor. Society is an evolving organism, and research should star


15/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution 1005cal or humanistic concern.) Moreover, one can know all about the technology of1929 without having a clue to causes of the Great Depression. It is only by focusingon economic institutions, that is, class relations, that one can understand recessionsand depressionsa fact on which Wesley Mitchell and Karl Marx were equallyclear.

The holistic or relational view of society, therefore, rules out both economismand individuahsm. Starting with human relationships, as radical institutionabsts andholistic Marxists do, makes it impossible to entertain an individualist methodol-ogybut it is the perfect context for institutional or class analysis. For holisticMarxists, human relationships are the central focus, beginning with class relation-ships but including racial, ethnic, and gender relationships. To understand why anindividual man or woman is depressed, before individual diagnosis, one must firstunderstand the matrix of family, racial, ethnic, and class relationships within whichhe or she exists.

Finally, holistic Marxists reject equilibrium theories for an approach that exam-ines how social relationships evolve over time. Marxian evolutionary theory soundsquite different from institutionalist evolutionary theory, but it does emphasize thereproduction of the social status quo in normal times through its institutions andmyths, while showing that drastic change occurs at other times. How does thatchange occur?As almost everyone knows, Marxism has emphasized two points about change.First, there is, at times, an unbearable tension between the institutions (that is, thehuman, class relations of society) and the productive forces (including technol-ogy)this may be termed a cultural lag, but it might also be called a "contradic-tion" or some other name. Second, all of recorded history is the history of classconflict. Veblen [1919] pointed out that in the economistic interpretation of Marx-ism, these two are quite contradictory and cannot be reconciled. In the economisticview, technology inevitably progresses, and social institutions must inevitably pro-gress as a result. This leaves no room for human actions to play a role in evolution.Class conflict^including all of human suffering and strivingis secondary, deriva-tive, and determined in a teleological manner.

Holistic Marxists, however, reject this economistic interpretation of change. Thestory must begin with the cultural sequence notion emphasized by institutionahsts,though developed by Marxists in the terminology of contradiction (and sometimesdegenerating into economism and progressivism). In other words, a Marxian ver-sion of cultural lag theory focusing on major evolutionary changes would say that


16/20

1006 William M. Dugger and How ard J. Shermanclasses (such as the coahtion of free farmers, northern industrialists, northern work-ers, and slaves that won the American Civil War) fight for progress. The classesthat fight for progress do not do so primarily because of educated enlightenment andless ignorance or myths, but because of an interest in changing the system.

Holistic Marxists, however, emphasize that there is nothing inevitable aboutthese changes. For example, the progressive-looking classes may be weak while theopposing classes and the status quo myths are very strong. These conditionsandmany other kinds of conditionsmay prevent institutional change, so there is stag-nation for hundreds of years or even regression to previous institutional types andlower technological levels. There is no guarantee in technology against unlimitedwar or environmental devastation. One cannot sit back and wait for inevitable pro-gress in institutionsand it is only under certain historically specific circumstancesthat human beings will take action that leads to some kind of progress.The opposite error to economism has also been made by Marxists, the error ofapurely subjective notion of class confiict. This error was recognized by Veblen[1919] as early as 1906 and has often been attacked by contemporary Marxists [seeSherman 1995, chap. 2] because it persists in some theories to the present day. Ifone has a theory of class confiict but no theory of cultural sequence, then the notionof class conflict is purely voluntaristic and offers no theory of evolution. To immu-nize Marxists against a merely subjective, voluntaristic interpretation of class con-fiict, they must have a theory of the objective circumstances of the culturalsequences involving particular technologies and institutions. On the other hand, onlya theory of conscious class conflict can immunize Marxists and institutionalists alikefrom the diseases of economism and progressivism.For example, one might observe that African-Americans were oppressed in1900. One might conclude from a subjectivist class conflict notion that they shouldhave organized a civil rights movement. They were certainly oppressed, but theirclass position was that of sharecroppers spread across the rural South in isolatedfarms. Organization was exceptionally difficult and usually unsuccessful. When theclass position of African-Americans changed in the 1940s and 1950s to that of urbanworkers concentrated in reasonably small areas, African-Americans immediately or-ganized and led the civil rights struggle.

Toward Reconciliation and Synthesis


17/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evolution 1007theories are similar or different is highly controversialso we leave it to the furtherinvestigations of historians of thought.

The second element in a fruitful theory of evolution is the analysis of why somegroups fight for institutional progress while others resist progress. Theories analyz-ing this issue have been called the power of the vested interests or the class conflict.How different or similar theseand other sociological theories of conflicttheoriesmay be is also a highly controversial questionwhich, again, we leave to furtherinvestigations by historians of thought.What is important is that the combination of these two approaches immunizetheir users against both economism and progressivism.A theory of cultural sequence, based exclusively on technological changeandmaking no use of the concept of class or making classes into shadows of historicalinevitability^may lead institutionalists or Marxists astray into economism and pro-gressivism. Everything in this scheme happens automatically and inevitably, and hu-mans act merely as puppets of history and technology.A theory of class confbct, if it is not grounded in (contextualized by) a culturalsequence theory, becomes economistic. For a social scientist to analyze subjectiveclass conflict, it must be put in context in terms of specific institutional circum-

stances and cultural sequences.Full understanding requires a theory of cumulative causation focusing on institu-tional contexts. This is the first basic ingredient of a theory of social evolution. Butsome kind of theory of human conflictclass, racial, gender, vested interests versusthe common personis equally vital to understand why resistance occurs, how re-sistance is overcome, and how change unfolds. Our conclusion is that good institu-tionalist theory and good Marxist theory both provide the two vital components of atheory of social change and evolutionand that their differing formulations and em-phases can be used to enrich each other.

Notes1. The ideas of cultural lag theory as developed by William Ogburn and others in sociology

later became conflated with Veblen's cumulative causation and cultural sequence [see Og-bum 1964].

References


18/20

1008 William M. Dugger and How ard J. Sherman. Toward a Reasonable Society: The Values of Industrial Civilization. Austin: University o

Texas Press, 1961.. Holier Than Thou: The Way of the Righteous. 1929. Reprint. Clifton, N.J.: Augustus MKelley, 1973.. The Theory of Economic Progress. 3d ed. 1944. Reprint. Kalamazoo, Mich.: New IssuePress, 1978.Bowles, Samuel, David M. Gordon, and Thomas E. Weisskopf. After the Waste Land: A Dem ocratiEconomics for the Year 2000. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1990.Callinicos, Alex. Making History. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988.Cohen, G. A. Karl Marx's Theory of History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978.DeGregori, Thomas R. "Technology and Economic Dependency: An Institutional Assessment." Journaof Economic Issues 12 (Jure 1978): 467-76.. "Instrumental Criteria for Assessing Technology: An Affirmation by Way ofa Reply." Journal of Econom ic Issues 14 (March 1980): 219-25.. A Theory of Technology: Continuity and Change in Hum an Development. Ames, Iowa: IowState University Press, 1985.Dewey, John. The Quest for Certainty. 1929. Reprint. New York: Capricorn Books, 1960.Dugger, William M. "Radical Institutionalism: Basic Concepts." /?fwew of Radical Political Economic20 (Spring 1988): 1-20., ed. Radical Institutionalism. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989.. "The Great Retrenchment and the New Industrial State." Review^ of Social Economy 50 (Witer 1992): 453-71.. "Veblenian Institutionalism." Journal of Economic Issues 29 (December 1995a): 1013-27.

^ . "Beyond Technology to Dem ocracy: The Tool Legacy in Institutionalism." In InstitutionEconomics and the Theory of Social Value, edited by Charles Clark, 195-207. Boston: KluweAcademic Publishers, 1995b., ed. Inequality: Radical Institutionalist Views on Race, Gender, Class and Nation. WestportConn.: Greenwood Press, 1996.Dugger, William M., and Howard J. Sherman. "Comparison of Marxism and Institutionalism." Journaof Economic Issues 28 (March 1994): 101-27.Du gger, William M ., and W illiam W aller. "Radical Institutionalism: F rom Technological to DemocraticInstnimentalism." Re\iew of Social Economy 54 (Summer 1996): 169-89.Hayden, F. Gregory. "An Assessment Dependent upon Technology." Journal of Economic Issues 14(March 1980): 211-19.Lee, Han Yu, and F. Gregory Hayden. "DeGregori'syl Theory of Technology: A Review Article." Jounal of Economic Issues 20 (September 1986): 799-804.

Mayhew, Anne. "Ayresian Technology, Technological Reasoning, and Doomsday." Journal of Economic Issues 15 (June 1981): 513-20 .. "Culture: Core Concept Under Attack." Journal of Economic Issues 21 (June 1987): 587603 .

McLoughlin, Peter F. M. "A Theory of TechnologyContinuity and Change in Human Development:Review Article." Journal of E conomic Issues 20 (September 1986): 785-98.McMurtry, John. The Structure of Marx's World View. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press

1978.Munkirs, John R. "The Dichotomy: Views ofa Fifth Generation Institutionalist." Journal of Economic


19/20

Institutionalist and Marxist Theories of Evo lution 1009. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1982-, ed. Analytical Marxism. Cam bridge: Cambridge University P ress, 1986.. Egalitarian Perspectives: Essays in Philosophical Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1994.Sayer, Derek. The Violence of Abstraction. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987.Shaw, William H. Ma rx's Theory of History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978.Sherman, Howard J. Reinventing Marxism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English W orking C lass. New York: Vintage Books, 1966.Tool, Marc R. The D iscretionary Econom y. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear Publishers, 1979.Veblen, Thorstein. "The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and His Followers." The Quarterly Journalof Economics 20 (April and August 1906).. The Place of Science in Modem Gvilization and Other Essays. New York: B. W. Huebsch,

1919.. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. 1914. Reprint. New York:Augustus M. Kelley, 1964.. The Vested Interests and the Common Man. 1919. Reprint. New York: Augustus M. Kelley,1964.. Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times. 1923. Reprint. New York:Augustus M. Kelley, 1964.Wood, Ellen Meiskins. "Explaining Everything or Nothing?" New Left Review no. 184 (November/De-cember 1990): 116-128.Wright, Eric Olin, Andrew Levine, and Elliott Sober. Reconstructing Marxism. New York: Verso,1992.


20/20

Documents

Dugger Sherman (1997)