I have worked for over three decades in a theoretical tradition, born at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and associated with the journal Rethinking Marxism, defined by a revitalization of Marxian class analysis (in relation to the appropriation and distribution of surplus labor) and a critique of essentialism (in both methodology, such as economic determinism and humanism, and epistemology, including rationalism and empiricism). What this means is that we tend to see class processes as neither essentialist determinants of economic and social outcomes nor the phenomenal form of some essential cause but, rather, as the overdetermined cause and effect of history and the myriad—economic, political, and cultural—dimensions of society.
But we have never really looked at the class determinants of essentialist views of the world. As it turns out, Dacher Keltner (whose research I have discussed before, here and here) has (with coauthor Michael W. Kraus) done just that. And the results are fascinating.
What psychologists Keltner and Kraus (behind a paywall) find is that social class is correlated with both essentialist conceptions of class and beliefs in a just world—and that the belief in a just world, in turn, reinforces essentialist conceptions of class. In other words, they found that upper-class individuals (as measured by subjective ranking rather than so-called objective criteria, such as income) were more likely to endorse the idea, first, that social class is an inherent, stable, and biologically determined social category and, second, that society is fair and just relative to their lower-class counterparts. Those on the other end tended to view the world through a different, social constructivist lens, that is, the view that “social class is based on changeable, external social forces.”Occasional Links & Commentary
Class and essentialism
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics University of Notre Dame Notre Dame
The essentialism versus constructivism dichotomy is extremely important logically, ontologically, and epistemologically, with implications for ethics and social and political philosophy as well, hence, philosophy of economics. Understanding this is central to understanding the foundational differences in many fields, including politics, social studies, and economics. So please ask questions if anything is unclear. There is no such thing as a stupid question.
3 comments:
I guess I can understand "essentialism" from those able to insulate themselves from the "lower classes." Their attitude is defensive (not wanting to acknowledge humanity of people you exploit) and simply indifferent. What has perplexed me for a while is how people from similar backgrounds and who then suddenly found themselves with opportunities their parents and grandparents didn't have (as in the years following WWII) can construct such completely different narratives about their lives. Many people who would have never even thought of going to college were able to go and even pursue advanced degrees, all on the government's dime. I could site several examples of people of this era who would insist that they "did it all themselves" and who support stingy budgets and insist that "socialism" is at the root of all our problems and that anybody could do what they did if they "had any gumption." Others seem to understand the historical context a little better even if they buy into the "greatest generation" hype somewhat.
"beliefs in a just world—and that the belief in a just world,"
Paul called this era "the present wicked eon" and "man's day"...
It is manifestly NOT a "just world" imo... WE know this... WE have been given this knowledge...
rsp,
Intellectualization as reflection of experience is essentially rationalization. We interpret experience as being "reality" and construct it in according to biases.
Essentialism is the assumption that there is a natural order of things, i.e., a real structure that underlies one's viewpoint. This becomes a norm for judging other points of view. Those who disagree with one' own or own groups point of view are either stupid, deluded, lying or crazy.
The problem with essentialism is that the same conditions can be explained in a variety of ways. Moreover, when the differences in such constructions are examined, it often turns out that the construction adopted serves the interests of those doing the constructing.
That is to say, the construction is based on cognitive-affective biases such as preference, disposition, cultural and subcultural conventions and customs, and institutional arrangements and rules rather than provable structures that behave in law-like fashion, thereby providing deductive certainty based on premises whose truth is established as immutable or at least very highly regular.
The essentialism v. constructivism dichotomy is similar to structuralism v. functionalism.
In economics this shows up as the dichotomy between naturalism and institutionalism. Naturalism assumes that economic behavior is law-like and explanation is in terms of immutable laws of nature such as "the law of supply and demand" that determines market exchange. Institutionalism assumes that conditions are the result of cultural conventions and customs, and institutional arrangement that are changeable.
I, too, have been amazed at how people I have known that have been up and down many times can adapt their worldview to their current status without perceiving any contradiction. More (anecdotal) evidence of rationalization.
Post a Comment