Marxist Methodology - Essay Example

MARXIST METHODOLOGY Introduction Marx involved himself with scientific as well as dialectical doctrines and hence referring his approach as scientific and dialectic approach. This means that Marx believed that dialectic reasoning could have great significance in scientific methods. By demystifying various misconceptions regarding the work of Marx and evaluating the manner of bringing scientific approaches to support his entire sociological idea, his acquisitive historical perception and in his biased economy, this writing aims at analyzing the methodological doctrines of Marx’s views. Marx’s methods Generally, Marx successfully overcomes the conventional dualism separating the empirical approach and the speculative approach. There is good evidence that he managed to support all the arguments he presented by as much evidence as possible. His major contributions came after many years of studies and establishment of factual statements. However, contrary to empiricism, Marx idea does not begin with swine facts (Abdel-Malek 1963). In addition, his idea does no remain contented with plain inductive generalisations drawn from them. Marx initial stand is a philosophical view and a good critical examination of the original pertinent knowledge. The preliminary substantiation is just an important element of the backdrop from which he comes up with the entire network of the abstract scientific impression, gifted with a remarkable power of explanation. This embellishment of a new theoretical gadget constitutes the most significant and ingenious part of the scientific work of Marx (Lakatos 1970). According to Marx’s view, science must not only base on the description and explanation of specific occurrence, but should also incorporate an analysis of the entire structures of the social conditions considered in their entirety. This provides an explanation of the reason that makes Marx’s methodology to lack a clear distinction into twigs as well as disciplines (Edgar & Sedgwick 2007). Therefore, capital does not just belong to the field of economics but also belongs to the other fields like political science, history, sociology, philosophy and law. Despite the fact that the concept of totality bears a significant role in Marx’s methodology, his idea is not truly synthetic. However, Marx understood well that any effort to grab totality unswervingly, without critical mediation, would automatically, result to a myth or ideology. Hence, an important stage of his methodology is the critical breakdown of the original, straight, grasped generalisations into the various elements that in the last stage of the inquiry have to come back to the various associations with the other components. The final stage involves the process of conceiving them within a complicated structure (Harding 2002). The variants of the modern humanism of Marx that are mostly concerned in the diachronic features of the social arrangements as well as the structuralism that only deals with the synchronic features, degenerate and a single sided establishments of particular important instants of the methodology of Marx. According to the methodology of Marx, the moments are completely, inseparable (Silver 1990). The doctrine of totality is not capable of providing any meaning without considering the position it occupies in the history. A given system is only meaningful as a crystallisation of the previous forms that humans practiced according to the features that are possible when put in the historical context. Contrary to that, it is impossible to grasp what is possible when put in the historical context without a consideration of the determining characteristics of the structures of the entire situation (Brenner & Glick 1991). Marx therefore discovered forces that tend to destroy each other inside the structure of the system of capitalism. However, without the establishment of the law of reducing standard rate of the profit and the other laws about the capitalistic system of economy, he would not be capable of bringing out the chronological possibility that the society of capitalism will become extinct. However, his deep consideration of history enabled him to gauge capitalism in the same manner as Smith and the other scholars in the field of economics. It also enabled him to examine and discover all the structural aspects that determine the relative permanence as well as the optimal transformation of the entire system (Hartmann 1979). The real logic of history involves a critical approach, towards the society examined as well as towards the rival conjectures. The dialectic idea of Marx is an important method of both critique as well as revolutionary practices (Giddens, Ociepka & Zujewicz 1973). Marx expressed this fundamental attribute of his methodology by stating that dialectics contributed the anger and the dismay of the bourgeoisie (Jameson 1974). This is because it enabled a good understanding of the obtainable states, the cancellation of the bourgeoisie as well as the essential destruction. This is also because it envisages each obtainable appearance in its change and hence as a thing in a transition. Again, it does not allow the imposition of anything on it and is primarily critical and radical. The idea also found in most of the original theses on Feuerbach that is the basic shortcoming of the conventional marerialism was to interpret truth as an object only but not as praxis. The praxis is both critical and radical in that a person is both the product of the social environment as well as the factors that can change these social conditions. Though he was living in a world filled with numerous contradictions, he was capable of resolving and removing them practically (Edgar & Sedgwick 2005). The most important aim of the philosophical denigration must be the true essence of a person. This quintessence is not a historical thing and able to change, but totalities of the social relations. What really matters is generally, both the change and the explanation of the entire world (Burawoy 1989). In the process of explaining the senses that concern the concept of ideology, contained by its descriptive and experimental sense, a person can evaluate the social or cultural properties of the faction. Therefore, ideology constitutes the descriptive logic that includes both the discursive and the non-discursive components. This means that apart from including propositional content it portrays a methodical set of beliefs characterised by notional schemes. An alternative of the expressive sense is the version of pejorative, in which a particular ideology receives a negative judgment in the vision of its genetic, epistemic or functional properties. Contrary to that, considering ideology with respect to a constructive sense will mean that one is not handling a given thing scientifically. A scientific theory gives rise to objectified facts while the critical theory serves the objective of emancipation of humans by means of self-reflection and consciousness (Geuss 1981). When writing about economics, Marx managed to come up with an excellent examination of the structure and the functional properties of the capitalist society. He did that in a very objective manner and according to the scientific needs of his time. However, a critical standpoint of anthropology is present at all times, in that a person is a generic creature that is potentially gratis, rational, creative and social. Concerning what a person can originally become and the manner he can originally live in an industrialised society that is both productive and incorporated, Marx indicates how completely imperfect and crippled human in a system that saw his reduction of his working strength (Portes 2000). The working strength is a commodity that has a monetary value and not regarded as the power to create but as an amount of energy that can be objectified efficiently and marketed with substantial profit. The idea of the theory of Marx is not that a worker can adjust to suit the situation in the best manner by asking for high price for the labour he provides. This is because his labour strength is a commodity and he can therefore receive its equivalent. Marx theory therefore implies that a worker should not accept the status of being a thing or a commodity and adjust the entire social structure that sees the alienation of his labour (Marx & Engels 1975). The method of inquiry of Marx is unexceptional in that it is not distinguishable from the other social science that is not from Marx. Marx emphasised on the significance of careful experiential as well as historical inquest. He came up with an explanatory approach that through development it can assist in predicting social effects. He is not rigid to specific understanding of history taking an example of his agnostic sayings concerning the economic development of Russia to Vera zasulich. He comes up with an inquiry within a set of high degree of research suggestions, the class salience, the significance of material underpinnings of the societal institutions and the functioning of ideology. In addition, Marx offered what may earn the name Galilean method of societal explanation that aimed at explaining a phenomenon in terms of the fundamental causal situations rather than rough associations amongst the variables observable. The view guided him to slot in a formation of a hypothesis in a very mindful manner. To add on that, his view is significantly, consistent with the modern social science study standards (Marx 1964). Marx’s epistemology is to some extent very comparable to the current realistic empiricism in that scientific ideas can develop from statements concerning unobservable configurations that can be true and that the base of the process of examining the ideas is in line with the use of experiential methods. Marx methodology is not in agreement with a relativistic sociology of facts, according to which the soundness of the facts will depend on the societal class or outlook of the person doing the investigation. Instead, his explanation on knowledge has its foundation on the conception that well-established beliefs concerning the social world will come on the foundation of experiential techniques and theoretical reckoning (Marx 1964). Concerning ontology and metaphysics, Marx methodology is reasonably, very distinctive. He assumes various metaphysical postulations concerning the society as well as historical progressions. He postulated that the social environment is a contributory order, and that the social foundations consist of properties as well as contributory attributes. Additionally, he stated that persons have social configurations through their own actions and preferences that societal establishments fall in the categories of means of production, that the means of production have forces and associations of production as well as the existence of classes. All these postulations form part of the social ontology of Marx. These postulations represent ideas concerning the types of units and the relations that subsist in the modern world. They are in a logic form before the specific scientific discoveries. However, this does not signify that they are above the reach of scientific models instigated within the accepted terms (Marx 1964). Conclusion Marx is among the unmistakable initiators of social science that we currently see in the world. His research and writings during his lifetime aimed at arriving at a scientific examination of the economic environment. In his life, he mostly emphasised on the significance of embarking into a scientific examination of the capitalistic system. Marx constantly stacked to serious commitment to the principles of true scientific examination of facts. Marx’s methodology has greatly influenced the development of modern social science as well as theory. More specific, Marx’s contributions found relevance in sociology, social history and political financial system. Bibliography Abdel-Malek, A. 1963, ‘Orientalism in crisis’, Diogenes, Vol. 11, no. 44, pp. 103-140. Brenner, R., & Glick, M. 1991, ‘The regulation approach: theory and history’, New Left. Review, Vol. 188, pp. 45-119. Burawoy, M. 1989, ‘Two methods in search of science’, Theory and Society, Vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 759-805. Edgar, A. & Sedgwick, P., eds. 2005, Key concepts in cultural theory, Routledge, NY. Edgar, A. & Sedgwick, P. eds. 2007, Cultural theory: The key concepts, Routledge, NY. Giddens, A., Ociepka, F. & Zujewicz W. 1973, The class structure of the advanced societies. Hutchinson, London. Harding, S. 2002, ‘Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is―strong objectivity’, Viewed 17 November 2014, < http://researcherprogramme.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/files/2013/11/Harding-standpoint-strong-objectivity.pdf> Hartmann, H., I. 1979, ‘The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union’, Capital & Class, Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-33. Jameson, F. 1974, ‘Marxism and form: twentieth-century dialectical theories of literature’, Vol. 312, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Jessop, B. 1982, The capitalist state: Marxist theories and methods, Martin Robertson, Oxford. Lakatos, I. 1970, ‘Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes’, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Vol. 4, pp. 91-196. Marx, K. 1964, The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte With explanatory notes, International Publishers, New York. Marx, K., & Engels F. 1975, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels; selected correspondence. Foreign Languages Publisher House, Moscow. Portes, A. 2000, ‘Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology’, LESSER, Eric L. Knowledge and Social Capital, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston. Silver, A. 1990, ‘Friendship in commercial society: Eighteenth-century social theory and modern sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 1474-1504. Read More