|
Parametric determinism refers to a Marxist interpretation of the course of history formulated by Ernest Mandel, and it could be viewed as one variant of Karl Marx's historical materialism or as a philosophy of history.〔Ernest Mandel, "Die Dialektik von Produktivkraften, Produktionsverhaltenissen und Klassenkampf neben Kategorien der Latenz und des Parametrischen Determinismus in der Materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung". In: ''Die Versteinerten Verhaltenisse zum tanzen Bringen. Beitrage zur Marxistischen Theorie Heute''. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1991.〕 In an article critical of the Analytical Marxism of Jon Elster, Mandel explains the idea as follows: In formal-logical determinism, human action is considered ''either'' rational, and hence logically explicable, ''or else'' arbitrary and random (in which case human actions can be comprehended at best only as patterns of statistical distributions, i.e. as degrees of variability relative to some constants). But in dialectical determinism, human action may be ''non-arbitrary'' and ''determinate'', hence reasonable, even although it is ''not'' explicable exclusively in formal-logical terms. The action selected by people from a limited range of options may not be the most logical one, but it can be shown to be ''non-arbitrary'' and ''reasonable'' under the circumstances, if the total context is considered.〔Philippe van Parijs, ''Evolutionary explanation in the social sciences: an emerging paradigm.'' Totown (New Jersey): Rowman and Littlefield, 1981.〕 What this means is that, in human situations, typically ''several "logics" are operating at the same time'' which together determine the outcomes of those situations: *the logic of the actors themselves. *the logic of the parameters constraining their behaviour. *the logic of the interactive relationship between actors and their situation. If one considered only one of these aspects, one might judge people's actions "irrational", but if all three aspects are taken into account, what people do may appear "very reasonable". Dialectical theory aims to demonstrate this, by linking different "logical levels" together as a total picture, in a non-arbitrary way. "Different logical levels" means that particular determinants regarded as irrelevant at one level of analysis are excluded, but are relevant and included at another level of analysis with a somewhat different (or enlarged) set of assumptions.〔Ernest Mandel, "Partially independent variables and internal logic in classical Marxist economic analysis’", in ''Social Science Information'', vol. 24 no. 3 (1985), pp. 487–88 (reprinted in Ulf Himmelstrand, ''Interfaces in Economic & Social Analysis'', London 1992).()〕—depending on the kind of problem being investigated. For example, faced with a situation, the language which people use to talk about it, reveals that they can jump very quickly from one context to another related context, knowing very well that at least some of the inferences that can be drawn in the one context are not operative in the other context. That's because they know that the assumptions in one context differ to some degree from the other. Nevertheless, the two contexts can coexist, and can be contained in the same situation, which we can demonstrate by identifying the mediating links. This is difficult to formalize precisely, yet people do it all the time, and think it perfectly "reasonable". For another example, people will say "you can only understand this if you are in the situation yourself" or "on the ground." What they mean is that the meaning of the totality of interacting factors involved can only be understood by experiencing them. Standing outside the situation, things seem irrational, but being there, they appear very reasonable. Dialectical theory does not mean that, in analyzing the complexity of human action, inconvenient facts are simply and arbitrarily set aside. It means, rather, that those facets of the subjectmatter which are not ''logically required'' at a given stage of the analysis are set aside. Yet, and this is the point, as the analysis progresses, the previously disregarded aspects are integrated step by step into the analysis, in a consistent way. The proof of the validity of the procedure is that, at the end, the theory has made the subjectmatter fully self-explanatory, since all salient aspects have been given their appropriate place in the theory, so that all of it becomes comprehensible, without resort to shallow tautologies.〔Ernest Mandel, ''Late Capitalism''. London: NLB, 1975, p. 16.〕 This result can obviously be achieved only after the research has already been done, and the findings can be arranged in a convincing way. A synthesis cannot be achieved without a preceding analysis. So dialectical analysis is not a "philosopher's stone" that provides a quick short-cut to the "fount of wisdom", but a mode of presenting findings of the analysis after knowledge has been obtained through inquiry and research, and dialectical relationships have been verified. Because only then does it become clear where the story should begin and end, so that all facets are truly explained. According to Ernest Mandel, "Marx's method is much richer than the procedures of ' successive concretization' or 'approximation' typical of academic science."〔Ernest Mandel, ''Late Capitalism''. London: NLB, 1975, p. 17.〕 In mainstream social theory, the problem of "several logics" in human action is dealt with by game theory, a kind of modelling which specifies the choices and options which actors have within a defined setting, and what the effects are of their decisions. The main limitation of that approach is, that the model is only as good as the assumptions on which it is based, while the choice of assumptions is often eclectic or fairly arbitrary.〔Shaun P. Hargreaves-Heap and Yanis Varoufakis, ''Game theory. A critical introduction.'' (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, 2004. Steve Keen, "My Friend Yanis, The Greek Minister Of Finance." ''Forbes'', 31 january 2015.() 〕 Dialectical theory attempts to overcome this problem, by paying attention to the sources of assumptions, and by integrating the assumptions in a consistent way. ==Brief explanation of the concept== One common problem in historical analysis is to understand to what extent the results of human actions can be attributed to free choices and decisions people made (or free will), and to what extent they are a product of social or natural forces beyond their control.〔Howard Sherman, "Marx and determinism". ''Journal of Economic Issues'', Vol. 15 No. 1, 1981, pp. 61–71.〕 To solve this problem theoretically, Mandel suggests that in almost any human situation, some factors ("parameters") are beyond the control of individuals, while some other conditions are under their control (arguably, one group of people could "impose parameters" on another, analogous to parents imposing constraints on children). Some things can under the circumstances be changed by human action, according to choice, but others cannot or will not be, and can thus be regarded as constants. A variable can vary, yet it cannot vary in any direction whatever but only within the given parameters. In a general sense, a "parameter" is a given condition imposed on a situation, or a controlled variable, but more specifically it refers to a condition which, in some way, ''limits the amount and type of variability there can be''. Those given, objective parameters which are beyond people's control (and thus cannot normally be changed by them) ''limit'' the realm of possibilities in the future; they ''rule out'' some conceivable future developments or alternatively make them ''more likely to happen''. In that sense human action is "determined" and "determinate". If that wasn't so, then it would be impossible to predict anything much about human behaviour. Some of these parameters refer to limits imposed by the physical world, others to limits imposed by the social set-up or social structure that individuals and groups operate within. The dominant ideology or religion could also be a given parameter. If for example most people follow a certain faith, this shapes their whole cultural life, and is something to be reckoned with that isn't easily changed. At the same time, however, the given parameters cannot usually determine ''in total'' what an individual or group will do, because they have at least some (and sometimes a great deal) of personal or behavioural autonomy. They can think about their situation, and make some free choices and decisions about what they will do, within the framework of what is objectively possible for them (the choices need not be ''rational'' or ''fully conscious'' ones, they could just be ''non-arbitrary'' choices influenced by emotions and desires). Sentient (self-aware) organisms, of which human beings are the most evolved sort, are able to vary their own response to given situations according to internally evaluated and decided options. In this sense, Karl Marx had written: "The past" (what really happened before) is not something which can be changed at all in the present, only reinterpreted, and therefore the past is a given constant which delimits what can possibly happen in the present and in the future. If the future seems relatively "open-ended" that is just because in the time-interval between now and the future, new options and actions could significantly alter what exactly the future will be. Yet the variability of possible outcomes in the future is not infinite, but delimited by what happened before. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Parametric determinism」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|