(A) historical theory
Today in Josh’s class we discussed Michael Piore’s “Review of The Handbook of Economic Sociology“, in which he called for economic sociologists to transcend their pluralist ways and develop a more or less ahistorical theory around which to orient their discipline. The basis for his call was that the theories of the great canon of economic sociologists (Weber, Marx, Parsons, Durkheim, Schumpeter, and Polanyi) has crashed upon the rocks of contemporary economic developments and were thus no longer seaworthy. What I took from the discussion is that there are two ways of being ahistorical. One is the more or less economics approach of universal laws that hold regardless of historical period. The second is the pragmatic approach of zeroing in on the present to build theory out of existing ways of organizing the economy. For me, choosing between them or some combination is not clear. Since theory has the power to shape our lives by shaping the decisions we make–whether or not it is based in empirical evidence–assumptions and normative outcomes built into an external theory will work to embody those ideas into the shape of society. In the case of neoclassical economics, I do not think this is entirely a good thing. On the other hand, building theory out of existing practices only serves to reproduce and reinforce extant practices (good and bad) without adding normative content. Thus, pragmatism (as oversimplified as I’ve presented it) does nothing practical to remedy inequality or other problems inherent in the current way of doing things. So how do we develop theory that reflects what is going on on the ground and yet establishes normative directions to shape the future, to make the cities we want, as Susan would say? Perhaps we need historical theory that addresses current problems and conceptualizes a better future.
No comments yet.