Gods and Monsters: The Scientific Method Applied to the Human Condition - Book II Page 15

  Chapter 11:

  Structural reality historical, the universes structural, and the various social systems

  Radcliffe - Brown, analysing the concept of structure, stated that this term indicates a “orderly arrangement of parts or of components”. Had stated, therefore, that the term of structure can serve to define the social continuity, namely, the evenness of what we call the structural universe, since he conceptualized the “structure” as a unified weft, suitable to adjust the behavior. Deepening the analysis, it is highlighted the fact as Radcliffe-Brown identifies structures with the arrangements or social stratifications, while had defined as “institutions” the regulations that govern these arrangements. He had used the scientific concept of function, as well as it is defined by the physiological science: ratio between structure and process, where the second term indicates the practical functioning, in time, of a reality as the structural reality in relation to the level of manifestation of the being, achieved, by the generality, of the population. Radcliffe-Brown had sketched a parallelism between the analysis of social structures and the biological science. He had identified, then: problems of morphology (or configuration of the various structures), physiology (or operation of the various structures), development (presumed origin of new structures or structural elements) and evolution (mutation of structures). He noted how, in contrast with biological organisms, social structures mutate the their “type” (1), without that is cut off the their continuity. He stated that the structures historical do not produce conflicts “that cannot be resolved or regulated”, but did not excluded that a type not adjustable of conflict can arise (he had predicted, then, the possible existence of an antagonism not structural or against structural). He spoke of good governance and of the misgovernment, to indicate the order and social disorder, in analogy with the “classics” Greeks. Had reported as Durkheim had considered the misgovernment (which he called anomie) and has defined the same, as an alteration of a given: “structural type”. He believed that this misgovernment should continue up to the replacement of the specific: “type” structural; or fought until the return of the good governance. He noted, moreover, as in the cases of “disintegration of social structures” (2) (as occurs when certain societies, which are in structural universes pre-statual are in contact with one or more society of the universe structural statual), occur some efforts to return to the previous social governance, maybe through the emergence of new religious forms. He had noted, also, as a single social costume (or term social) can to have functions different in societies apparently very different and, therefore, a comparison between societies or social moments different, must be done both on the forms of the costumes that of their functions. He had distinguished between structure (structural moment directly observable and, therefore, that can be defined as: social system) and structural form overall (and therefore, what we define: structural universe). Spoke of continuity of structures, beyond the revolutions and, then, involving multiple social systems or more types of government. Had identified, therefore, the existence of structural universes, that they comprising various social systems. He had proposed to himself of define exactly the various societies, and to this purpose proposed to classify the various structural systems. Recognized as, between language and social structure, there is a ratio very indirect, and the two facts should be studied in an autonomous manner, although the formation of the various languages is connected with the social structures and their evolution.

  Marcel Mauss, in clarifying the structural conception of Durkeim, he theorised about the “fact social total”, that we could identify with what we call the social systems. Claude Levi-Strauss used the concept of structure in the sense of methodology, namely as a model or mental scheme, while denying that there are social structures, intended as reality extra-human (3) thus denying, also, that there are types of societies that adopting (consciously or not), precisely, these “schemes”.

  From the phenomenological sociology you can deduce the definition of the structural reality historical, as “historical phenomenon essential or immanent, which subtends, as depth level, the concrete historical manifestations of structural reality: namely, the various historical structural universes, the statual phases, the social systems, the various types of government and the real powers. The sociology, in general, declares as its own object of analysis: the “social organization” or “social interaction structured”.

  Some sociologists, as the sociologist of law Henry Sumner Maine, distinguished the societies based on the “status”, from those based on the “contract” (4) where, with the firsts, indicate the feudal phases and the societies pre-statual and, with the second, the phases mercantile. They state, then, that, in addition to this distinction of the “social organization”, there is, between the two types of society, a difference in “system of government”: corporatist or relative to the communities, from one side; individualistic and rational from the other. They say there is, in addition, the following cultural differentiation: sacred or features at the communities, against ideas secular or associative (5). Ferdinand Tonnies stated that the aforementioned definition of the two types has a universal application, namely “global”.

  The contemporary sociology analyzes, essentially, the capitalist systems, although it does with conceptual schemes their own of the systems pre-capitalists, such as the concept of status. The sociologists analyze the condition of the workers in a distorted way: initially, for reaction to the new industrial reality and capitalist. Some sociologists recognize, however, such as the condition of the workers in the XIX century and in the second half of the XVIII was clearly better than that of the workers in the two preceding centuries (6). At the rising of the sociological research, the sociologists “conservatives” or “radical”, as Robert Soutey and William Cobbett, which have expressed what were the trends of the ideology characteristic and specific of the bourgeois system (7), they denigrated the condition of workers, with the purposes and methods of reaction, in favor of the bourgeois system in place, but already in the process of being exceeded (8). They wanted to see, indeed, the return to corporatism bourgeois and to its distinction of social status which it is a semi-feudal feature (9). Various precursors of the sociologists, as Robert Southey, which he wrote in 1807, they have enunciated some theories, which were proposed again, subsequently, by Marx, about the naturalness of the feudal society with respect to the artificiality of the current “commercial era” (10). They described the capitalist reality as if it were a work relationship of slave type (11), providing arguments to the analysis mystifying og Karl Marx, as had recognized Robert Nisbet Bain (12). The contemporary anthropology tends to reject the theories of the historical evolution, proposed by L. H. Morgan, affirming that these theories are derived from the biological evolutionism of XIX century. These anthropologists, however, do not refuse the theory of biological evolutionism. It must be said also that the theories evoluzionist of Morgan have influenced, undoubtedly, the ideological theories of Marx - Engels. The ideological theories Marxist, however, still have a strong ascending on the “intellectuals” contemporaries, also as a result of the failures and of the tragedies that these ideologies have produced in the XX century (13). The logical coherence does not seem to be the overriding concern among most of the “intellectuals” of today.

  The essential difference between the “radical” and the “conservatives” of the XVII and XVIII century, consists in the fact of to put themselves in opposition, each group, for the two different political regimes or types of government, specific of the bourgeois system: the monarchy absolutist for the “conservatives” and tyranny absolutist for the “radical”. The essential difference between the “conservatives” and the “socialist” (in particular the “Marxists”), in the nineteenth century, consists in the fact that, while the first had considered negative the transition to capitalist system competitive, the seconds had thought that the advent of the capitalist system is necessary, albeit negative, in order to realize a new f
eudal society, which they considered corresponding to their idea of ideal society (14). While the “conservatives” and the “radical” have assumed a position anti-historical, the “Marxists” have accepted the the idea of historical evolution, aware of the now inevitable generalization of the capitalist system. The Marxists have believed necessary of pander the historical evolution, also in order to be able to define themselves as: “progressives”. The “conservatives”, the “radicals” and the “Marxists” hoped in the overcoming of private property, but in the direction of its strengthening ontolological, because they all hoped: in the return to the feudal possession, far more exclusivist and oppressive of the private property (15).

  Marx, fearing an alliance between the nobility and the workers, for the purposes of conservation of survivals of the bourgeois system, he defined this trend “conservative”, or better, regressive, describing it as: “Feudal socialism” (16). This demonstrates how Marx had recognized the possibility of an overlap or identification between the “socialism” and the “feudalism” and, therefore, he was concerned that the his theory could be ridiculed because of that identification and had, therefore, the ideological intent of ward off this overlap. He had, also, the concern of to foster the emergence a type of feudal phase centralized , unlike of the decentralized feudal phase, that he had considered deleterious, and that occurred, in the Western Europe, in the “Middle Ages”.