Chance, Necessity, Mode of Production.pdf

7/24/2019 Chance, Necessity, Mode of Production.pdf

1/16

Chance, Necessity, and Mode

of

Production:

A

Marxist Critique

of

Cultural Evolutionism

DOMINIQUE LEGROS

Johns Hopkins University

Cultural evolutionism and historical materialism are tw o fundam enta lly divergent

theories o f evolution. Th e nonrecognition by cultural evolutionists of Marx s

distinction between social formation and mo de o f produc tion has led them t o

interpret his thesis o f the determination o f superstructures by ec ono mic base

as

tec hno -eco nom ic change begets new levels o f general evolution. In fact Marxs

actual thesis was aimed at explaining the interrelationships between superstructures

and economy within

a

previously established mode o f produc tion.

s

con-

sequence Marxs analysis o f how a new m ode is given has been consistently

ignored. Marx poses the problem

o the origins o f capitalism not in terms o f

econom ic determinism mu ch less technological fatalism but in terms o f chance

and necessity. In this paper I attem pt to draw the theoretical implications o f such

an approach in respect to general cultural evolution. [ M a r x i s m and cultural

evolutionism; mode

of

production; economic determinism crit icized; capitalism,

rise

of; cul tural evolut ion, chance

in]

La me thod e cest precisement le choix des faits.

-Henri PoincarC

THERE HAS BEEN A TENDENCY to identify the cultural evolutionism of American

anthropologists with Marxism. In fact, their work developed quit e indep ende ntly of Marxist

theory and is often inconsistent with

it.

The purpose of this pap er is to indicate th e ways in

which Marxism represents a radically differen t approach from that of cultural evolutionism.

The major points that I shall make are the following: 1) the two theories differ

fundamental ly in how they def ine and relate the concepts

of

society and mode of

product ion;

(2)

the Marxist thesis of th e determ ination of superstructu res by the ec onom ic

base, or infrastructure, is aimed not at explaining the historical origin of these

superstructures, bu t a t explaining their relationship to the economic base within

a

given

mode

of

product ion, a synchronic phenomenon ;

3)

when o ne examines Marxs fo rmulatio n

of the problem of the origins

of

th e capi tal is t mod e

of

production, i t becomes clear that he

does n ot develop this q uestion in terms of econ omic determ ination , and stil l less

as

a mat ter

of technological fatalism. Marxs materialism is historical not economic, and gives as much

emphasis to chance as to necessity.

SO C I E T Y A N D M O D E

O F

P R O D U CT I ON : T H E D I V S R G E N T T H E O R E T IC A L

F R A M E W O R K S O F C U L T U R A L E V O L U T I O N I SM A N D M A R X IS M

In order to contrast the theoretical framework of cultural evolutionism with that of

Marx,

I

have chosen six anthropologists who, taken together, can be seen as a representative

sample of the major trends of cultural evolutionism. These are Leslie A. White, Julian H.

Steward , Rober t L. Carneiro, June Helm, Marshall D. Sahlins, and Marvin Harris. The works

of White (1959) and Steward (1955) reopened the study of cultural evolution

in

America,

26


2/16

Legros] MARXISM AND

CULTURAL E V O L U T I O N I S M

27

af ter 50 years of neglect . Their approa ches differ , however. Stewar d set forth and defende d a

theory of multilinear evolution against what he believed to be Whites thesis of unilinear

evolution. Helm (1969) and Carneiro (1960)

re

mentioned as representative sources for

subseque nt formu lations drawing upon th e work of White and Steward.

I

refer

to

Sahlins for

his remarkable paper, Evolution: Specific and General (1960a), but i t should be noted

that in his latest works (1972, 1974, 1976), Sahlins has developed new theoretical

orientations which consti tu te a rupture with cultural evolutionism. Nevertheless, though

dated in respect to Sahlins present position, this pap er represents one of the best synt hese s

of cultural evolutionist approaches.

At the end of th is paper, fo llowing

a

brief presentation of the main points of Marxs

analysis of the rise of capitalism, I criticize Harris interpr etat ion of

Marxs

work

s

a form of

cultural materialism (1968:230-233) similar to the framework of cultural evolutionism.

Harris interpretation rests on the Preface to the Critique o Political Economy and sets

aside the results of Mams main work,

Das Kapital.

This procedure is debatable. In my

criticism, I use Harris interpretation

to

furth er i l lustrate the divergences between cultural

evolutionism and Marxs theses on evolution as formulated in Capital. I t should be made

clear a t the ou tse t that my purpose i s no t to com me nt on the relat ive merits of the differen t

cultural evolutionisms; rather,

it

is

to

att em pt to outl ine t he premises basic

to

all.

Leslie

A.

Whites theory of culture (1959:6-7, passim) identif ies four components: the

ideological, the sociological, the sen tim enta l or attitu dina l, and th e technological. White

elaborates (1959:19) :

The fact that these four cultural categories are in terrelated, that each

is

related to the

other three, does not mean that their respective roles in the culture process are equal, for

they are no t. T he technological factor is the basic on e; all o thers are dependent upon i t .

Furth erm ore, t he technological fac tor dete rmines, in a general way a t least , the fo rm and

co n ten t of the social , philosophic, and sentime ntal sectors.

.

. I t is fair ly obvious that the

social organization of

a

people is not only dependent upon their technology but

is

determ ined to a great exte nt , if no t wholly, by i t , both in form and cont ent.

In

The

Culture Process-an early paper (1960)-Carneiro differs fro m White in according

equal priority

to

technology and e cono my, bu t o therwise, he appro aches the problem of

cultural evolution in a m anne r structurally identical to Whites. He writes (153 -154 ):

The technological an d e conom ic aspects of culture change more readily an d m ore rapidly

than

its

social and religious aspects. Inevitably this brings ab ou t a discon form ity between

the two, which, when

it

reaches a certain magnitude, results in abru pt readjustive changes

in social and religious institutions.

Stewards position is somewhat elusive in regard

to

the causal relationships between

technology , econom y, social organization, mili tary patterns, es thetic features, and relig ious

institu t ions. On t he on e hand, th e research strategy that he sets forth (1955:39-42 ) clearly

accords

a

determin ing ro le to the in terrelat ion ship of exploitative or productive technology

and environ me nt (1955:40). We are invited

to

ascertain the ext ent

to

which the behavior

patterns entailed in exploit ing the environment affect o ther aspects of culture (1955:41).

On the oth er hand, Stewar d is unwill ing to take a stand and say wha t domains of culture are

likely to be affected. Interrelated features, which for m what he term s the cultural core

(1955:37) of a society, have to be identified for each case study by empirical observation.

Aspects of a given culture that are not found to be connected with subsistence activities

and economic arrangements are said

to

be

determined

to a greater exte nt by purely

historical factors, by ran dom innovations o r by diffusion (1955 : 37; emphasis added).

Incidentally , i t shou ld be no ted tha t in the case of fea tures which are found in the cultural

core, Steward carefully avoids phrases such as determined by economic arrangements.

Apparently in a quandary, he only clgims that they are related to , connected with , or

involved in the utilisation of enviro nm ent (195 5: 37).


3/16

28 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 79 1977

Younger scholars l ike Helm (1969) have expressed similar positions, but more

forthrightly. Helm distinguishes between the exploitative pattern, the settlement pattern,

and the community pattern. The exploitative pattern results from cultural definition of

environmental resources and of the tools and techniques for the util isation of those

resources (1969 : 15 1, emphasis added). The settlem ent patte rn comprises the societys

forms of human occupat ions

(for example, nucleated versus dispersed groups in their

temporal, spatial , and size dimensions) existing through seasonal or other exploitative

cycles (1969 : 151). The relationships and arrangements, based in cultural convention ,

amo ng occu pants of locales are commu nity pa ttern (1969:151). For Helm (1969 :151-152);

W e

canno t predict a simple progression

of

exploitative pattern-shaping settlem ent patte rn

which in turn shapes comm unity pat tern. In the long run of huma n condi t ion there may

be flow

in this di rect ion, but in any short run there is cer tainly interdependence and

feedback. Ideological and social directives can and

do

affect set tlement an d exploi tat ion.

This brief survey makes it clear tha t Helm and S tewa rd together are op posed t o White a nd

Carneiro. Th e m ore re cent trends o f cu ltural evolutionism represented here by Carneiro and

Helm have not made the controversy between White and Steward outdated-they merely

replicate it. Helms primary con cern , like Stewards, is to indicate that technology (or

econo my) does no t determ ine everything, and moreover, that the central issue for a theory

of cu ltural evolution is to ascertain

for

each con crete society, the precise sh apingeff ect of i ts

techno-ecological pattern . On the contra ry, Carneiro, like White, uses the shaping-effect

thesis s

a

law which explains cultural evolution. In

a

sense, th e divergence betwe en these

tw o tre nds is comparable t o the gap which would separate two schools of ornithologists, one

claiming that loons fly south in the fall , and the ot he r rejecting this formulation on the

grounds that the scientific issue is to determine the specific locale where each loon spends

the winter. That

a

gap of this natu re can easily be filled is evident.

As Sahlins (1960a) has pointed out, the misunderstanding between Steward and White

stems from th e fact that th e phenomen on of cul tural evolut ion may and mu st be approached

from t w o points of view. Evolution proceeds throu gh the differentiation of specific societies,

and through this process there emerge increasingly complex levels of social integration.

Thus, on the one hand, i t i s perfect ly legi t imate

to

focus on the different evolut ionary

processes by w hich societies diverge. In o rde r to ascertain these various developments, on e

clearly

must

take int o acco unt more than the level of technology. On the othe r hand, apar t

from their initial causes, improvements

in

harvesting energy (and consequently in

technology) becom e chief factors in explaining the differen t world stages of social

integration, regardless

of

where and when they appeare d. At this level the subject of analysis

is the en tire social history of the hu man species, and n ot this or that particular culture.

Consequently we cannot say that there exists an actual theoretical rupture between the

two main t rends

of

cultural evolutionism here represented on the on e side by White and

Carneiro, and on the othe r side by Steward and Helm. The thesis of the d etermin ation of

none cono mic levels by the techno-economical level perform s a differe nt heuristic function in

each case an d thu s app ear s un der dif eren t formulations-but the thesis itself is

p u t

in to

question

by

neither. That i t assumes a different theoretical role is only the upshot of a

displacement in the focus of research-displacement which is ma de necessary by the very

doub le nature of the object unde r study-and no t an indication of the existence of two

theories in conflict.

While Sahlins argument is essential in showing that the two main trends of cultural

evolutionism b oth lie within the same theoretical framework, i t remains uncritical of cultural

evolutionism as such.

As

a

matter of fact, i t gives to cultural evolutionism the very

fundamentals

it

had been lacking. His argumen t puts an end to a false controversy, but in

this early paper Sahlins accepted the set of underlying a ssump tions shared by White and


4/16

Legros] M A R X I S M A N D C U L T U R A L

EVOLUTIONISM 29

Steward. It is this underlying layer

of

common categories that I will contrast with the

somewhat differ ent premises of Marx.

Cultural evolutionists regard humanity, past and present,

as

a series

of

distinct entities

termed cultur es or societies. Each society is divided into ranked c om pon ents or levels. What

is sometimes called mode of production (Harris 19 68: 24 4; Gabel 1967 :2) , at oth er times

mode

of

exploitation or exploitative pattern (Murdock 1969:129; Helm 1969:151), and

more commonly economic structure, techno-economic base, techno-economic conditions

(Harris 1968:231, 233, 240), subsistence pattern or utilization

of

environment in culturally

prescribed ways, etc. (Steward 195 5: 37-38, passim , echnological component or technology

(L.

A. White 1959:18-28,

passim ,

s the set

of

techniques, me thod s, and culturally d efined

environmental resources with which society produces the goods and services necessary to

fulfill its members material and social needs. General levels of evolution are viewed

in

the

same terms as particular societies; these levels are defined merely as classes

of

sociopolitical

entities or societies of a given order (cf. Sahlins 1960a:33).

The Marxist approach to social evolution is radically different. The empirical entities

defined by cultural evolutionists as societies, cultures, or cultural systems are

conceptualized by Marx

s

social form ations. What is involved here is more th an a change

of vocabulary. In contr ast to cultural evolutionism, the Marxist approach does not perm it

the classification of social formations in terms

of

levels of general evolution.

The complex corpus of techniques, customs, institutions, rules, etc. is dissected

so

as to

inventory the modes

of

prod uctio n tha t are present in the social forma tion. Here lies the

sharp divergence from cultural evolutionism: what is at issue for Marx are the modes of

production

of

a society and not

its

mode of production. Th e premise is tha t a society may

combine several modes of production. In other words, within a given society, there may

exist (and

s

a matter

of

fact do exist) n ot simply several exploitative techniques (th at is

self-evident), but several distinct modes

of

prod uction with their respective economic bases,

ideological sup ers tru ctu res , and juridical and political superstructures. Conse quently there

is li ttle relation between w hat cultural evolutionists sometimes term the mode of production

of

I

society (the sum of i t s productive techniques) and the Marxist concept of mode of

prod uctio n. For Marx, a mode of prod uction is a distinct prod uctio n structure in association

with its superstructures (cf. Althusser and Balibar 1970). It may be found within several

social f orm ations w hich are quite dissimilar to each othe r in other respects. In one socie ty, it

may be the str uctur e of produc tion in one economic branch;

in

another society, the

structu re of two different branches. Fo r this reason,

Marxs

sequence

of

general evolution

(slavery, feudalism, capitalism) is

of

an entirely different nature from that

of

cultural

evolutionism (band, tribe, chiefdom, state). A series of production structures which are

general types (Idealer Durchschnitt or Allgemeiner Typus) abstracted as distinctive

parts from more complex wholes termed social formations, can hardly be equated with the

cultural evolutionist sequence for which the entire structure

of

social formations is the basis

of

classification and

of

definition of the levels of general evolution. A state cannot be a level

of general evolution in the M arxist perspective; it is a superstru ctura l apparatus, a form of

sociopolitical integration which may be required by different types

of

mode of production.

Consequently, as a form

of

integration, the state is to be fou nd a t differen t levels of general

evolution (the modes of pro duction).

Balibar (Althusser and Balibar 1970:225) is inaccurate when he bluntly states that

Marxism is a radically anti-evolutionist theory of the history of societies, but his remark

makes sense if we consider that evolutionism has been equated with the theory of evolution

of

cultural evolutionists. Perhaps, is it more correct to say,

as

Althusser does (19 71:9 6), that

cultural evolutionism is th e po or mans hegelianism Thou gh Althusser is unnecessarily

derogative, he might h ave a point. Like Hegels, the cult ura l evolution ist sequence of

evolution ends with the apotheosis of the state. Thus, with cultural evolutionism, the Inca


5/16

30 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [

79,1977

state, the Roman empire, the United States, the Peoples Republic of China, etc. are lumped

into one category as variants

of

a single level of general evolution (as if there were n o

differences among their respective dom inan t modes of pro duc tion).

Marxs sequence

of

evolution (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) is the sequence in which

these types of economic str uctu re came i nto existence in W estern Europe. However, at any

given moment, any European social formation was more complex,

s

a whole, than the

structu re of its dom inan t p rodu ction mode. C ertainly, Marx uses expressions like capitalist

society or feudal society , bu t these are form ulas employed t o refer t o societies

in

which

either the capitalist or the feudal mode of pro ducti on is dom inant.

Marx, for example, chose England

s

the main source

of

da ta f or his analysis

of

capitalist

production, but he never equated England

s

a social formation with the capitalist mode of

production. While he stated repeatedly tha t the structu re

of

capitalist production requires

only the existence

of

two classes (bourgeoisie a nd proletariat), he of ten referred us

to

other

types of social classes that were present in England at the time

of

his study and were active

in the framework

of

noncapitalist production organizations (landlords, independent

craftsmen, and small farmers). Different types of juridical supers tructu res corresponded to

these different modes

of

production. Thus Marx noted for 1 9th century England,

. . .

occasionally in rural districts a labourer

is

condemned to imprisonment

for

desecrating the Sabbath,

by

working in his front garden. The same labourer

is

punished

for breach of contract

if

he remains away from his metal, paper, or glass works on the

Sunday, even

if

it be

from

a religious whim [M arx 19 67:I, 264 , n.11.

The coexistence

of

several modes

of

prod uctio n within a single social formation is not a

phenomenon peculiar t o industrial societies. Terray (1972 : 136 -138 ,pass im) has shown that

the traditional Go uro social form ation (Ivory Coast) represented a combination and

articulation of wo different modes of production. Hunting, but net-hu nting only and not

trapping,

of

big game, is organized according to mode

of

production

I.

Agriculture, fishing,

gathering, house building, trapping

of

big game, and breeding cattle are the economic

branches in

which production is structured according to mode

of

production

11

The

economic basis of mode I is characterized, socially speaking, by collective ownership of

means

of

production and egalitarian sharing of products and, technically speaking, by

complex cooperative grou p labor. Because

of

this structure

of

the economic base the only

noticeable superstructural institutions that are required are a huntingparty leadership

(technical exigency) who is chosen according t o merit (th e result of the egalitarian social

aspect of economic base), an d a village, loosely s tructu red, which is brought toge ther into a

single unit for hunting purposes and in time of warfare. Simple cooperation is the main

aspect (in terms of technology)

of

the economic base of mode

11

Socially speaking, this

economic base is differentiated from that of mode I by the fact that, without technological

necessity, the right

of

usage

of

means

of

production is under the control

of

older men who

are related through kinship t o th e producers (male and female in this case). This implies, as a

necessary superstructural apparatus, an ideology

of

social dif fer en iation through age and

sex. With the lineage system, kinship is shaped and structured in order to fit the

socioeconomic dimension

of

the economic basis and its technical requirements (transfer of

orphans and individuals and integration of captives in order

to

correct the imbalance of

natural reproduction between units).

Marcel Mauss (1968), in his essay on the Eskimos, gives further evidence that a primitive

society may represent a combination

of

several mod es

of

prod uctio n. His conclusion, similar

to tha t of Terray in the case of the Gouro, is the result

of

a careful analysis of the

ethnographic data and certainly not

of an

intention to illustrate a Marxist thesis. Mauss

demonstrated tha t the mode

of

prod uctio n th at is prevalent during the w inter season and the

mode which dominates the summer activities correspond respectively

to

two jural systems,

two codes of ethics, and two types of religious life (1968:470). He goes further than any


6/16

Legros

MARXISM AND C U L T U R A L E V O L U T IO N ISM

31

Marxist would go in using expressions such as two successive and alternating civilizations

(196 8:4 70) to characterize the two m odes of production tha t can be found w ithin a single

Eskimo society.

In co ntras t t o the cuk ural evo lutionists who regard societies as a single struc ture of

interrelated levels, Marx, and approaches like Mausss in this instance, conceive of society as

composed of several primary structures of interrelated levels: i.e ., the combi nat ion /

articulation o several modes

o

product ion . It is essential to point out this difference in

order to comprehend the precise content of Marxs theory of determination by the

economic base.

DETERMINATION OF SUPERSTRUCTURES BY ECONOMIC BASE

Marxs thesis of the determination of the superstructures by the economic base is a

theory

of

how certain elements of production, ideology, law, political system, education,

etc., are interrelated, and constitute a given mode of production. Necessarily, in a given

society there are institutions which are external, or inconsistent with what is identified as

one of its modes of production. For instance, as in Marxs example mentioned above, in

19th century England it was illegal to work in ones own garden (noncapitalist production)

on the Sabbath, while a capitalist employer had the legal right to compel his employees to

work on Sunday. Thus we can see that desecrating the Sabbath is not a superstructural

element of the capitalist mode of production. Yet, it belonged to the general corpus of laws

of the British social formation of that period.

Th e con cep t of determination is used in order to define the articulated hierarchy

(Gliederung) o

the levels within a given mode

o

production

(Mam 1970:213; in the

English translation Gliederung is rendered by position). As Marx pu ts it, the problem is

not to explain a social whole in which all relations of production coexist simultaneously

and support one another by the single logical formula

of

movements, of sequence of

time (Marx 19 63 :llO -11 1). Within a mode o f production as a system of levels, Marx

accords a determining power to the economic base. However, this is nothing more than to

state that: (1) from mode to mode the economic bases represent different systems of

relations of production; (2) th at sup erstructural apparatus are required in order to replicate

through time the system of relations of production of each economic base; (3) that the

nature of what has to be replicated fo r each base (its specific system of relations of

production) determines what type of superstructural apparatus is to be dominant

in

each

mode (devices to prevent the development of inequalities if an economic base is egalitarian

or means to protect inequalities

if

what has to be replicated is a class system). In other

words, according to its nature, the economic base determines the dominance of this or that

level for its own replication process.

For example, a sector of agriculture implemented by free peasants and another sector

worked by slaves could coexist in a single society. The tools and techniques used might be

roughly identical in bo th sectors. Bu t it should be clear tha t, for instance, cha ttel slavery

requires special apparatus in order to endure as a system or economic base. For free

peasantry, kinship might be the dominant structuring apparatus, while chattel slavery

supposes the existence of a paramilitary arm controlled by the ruling class. This, however,

does no t necessarily prevent kinship fr om also being one structuring com pon ent

in

the slave

organization of production.

Servile labor in native A merican cultures, in Asia, or in som e African societies, tends to be

readily labeled

s

slavery; perhaps a name that palliates other deeds

of

folly and of shame

Yet, in most cases, it is quite different from that which is habitually implied by the word

slavery-as divergent as feudal servile relationships of produc tion are from the c ha tte l slavery

of Athens or of the ante bellum United S tates (for bondage in Africa cf. Meillassoux, 19 75 ).


7/16

3 2

A M E R IC A N A N T H R O P O L O G IST 179,1977

Those different forms of servile labor, subsumed under the category of slavery, may each

require the dominance of very dissimilar apparatus.

Th e p oint is that, servile or not, servile in this way and no t in that way, relationships of

production are part of the economic base and thus, that the base determines what type

of

com pone nt or a ppar atus is crucial to th e replication process

of

the system of produ ction (cf.

Althusser 1969 ). According to its characteristics, the econom ic base entrusts, if one may say

so,

this or that apparatus with much greater confidence; the very survival of the base

depends primarily upon the existence of that dominant component. In Das

Kapital

Marx

gives an enlightening n ot e o n his position.

In the es timat ion o f . . . [a German

paper

in America that published a review

of

Marxs

work

Zur Kri tik de r Pol it i schen Oek on om ie]

my view that each special mode of

production and the social relations corresponding to it, in short, that the economic

structure

of

society,

is

the real basis on which the juridical and political supe rstruc ture is

raised, and to which definite social forms of thought correspond; that the mode of

prod uctio n determin es th e character of th e social, political, and intellectual life generally,

all this is very true for

our

own times, in which m aterial intere sts prep ond erate, bu t no t

for

the middle ages, in which Catholicism, nor

for

Athens

and

Rome, where politics,

reigned supreme. I n

the first place i t strikes on e

as

an odd thing fo r anyone

t

suppose

that these well-w orn phrases abou t the middle ages and the ancient world are unk now n

t

anyone else. This much, however,

is

clear, that the middle ages could not

l ive

o n

Catholicism, nor the ancient world on politics. On the contrary,

it

is the mod e in which

they gained a livelihood that explains why here poli t ics , and there Catholicism, pla yed the

c h i e f p a r t

[ arx 967:I 1, n.1, emphasis

added].

In the same footnote, Marx adds that it requires but a slight acquaintance with the h istory

of the Roman Republic, for example, to be aware that

i t s

secret history is the history of its

landed property. Thus the system of relations of production-in this case, th e syste m of

land property-is readily defin ed by Marx as an integral aspe ct

of

the eco nom ic base.

When an economic base rests on a relation of exploitation, it is mandatory to arrange for

apparatus that, ultimately, will permit society to resort to organized violence in order to

enforce the reproduction of relations of exploitation; these are what Marxist tradition calls

sta te app ara tus (S.A.). However, violence, w ith its disr upti ng effects, is always a last reso rt.

Parallel to state apparatus must exist what Althusser (1971:

142)

calls ideological state

appa ratus (I.S.A.): ed ucati ona l I.S.A., religious I.S.A., com mun icati on s I.S.A. (T.V., rad io,

press, etc.), cultu ral I.S.A. (leisure, spor ts, arts, etc.). Each distin ct I.S.A. fun cti ons

independently of the others. Meanwhile, in their respective autonomy, and at their

respective level and form of intercession, they all aim

to

educate differentially the diverse

types of agents required for the relation of exploitation (workers, foremen, engineers,

technicians, theoreticians of labor m anagem ent, etc., in th e case of capitalism).

The main function

of

the ideological state apparatus is to justify the relations of

production, however unjust or unnatural they may be. They educate in such a way

that the outcome is the production of the very types

of

agents who, depending on each

others specialized knowledge, must work together and thus reproduce the structure of the

economic basis. Yet it must be said that this whole process of differential education is not

with out cont radict ion and discrepancies. In contrast, s tate appara tus (governm ent, adminis-

tration, army, police, courts, prisons) operate in more coherent manner. By inducement and

by coercion they reinforce the reproduction of the economic structure when ideological

apparatus have failed in their educational mission.

Th e a bove-m entioned I.S.A. are, as a whole, particular

to

the capitalist mode of

production. In the feudal system, for example, religion, education, and most of literature

and theater, etc., w ere integrated into a single ideological state appa ratus, the Church. The

oth er ideological state apparatus-the family (which played a far more im porta nt role than

within capitalism), the estates general, the parliam ent, the leagues, the system of free

comm unes, th e m erchants and bankers guilds, and the journeyme ns association-were in


8/16

Legros]

MARXISM

AND

CULTURAL E V O L U T I O N I S M

their functioning more or less dominated by the Church

I.S.A.

Hence, apparatus such

s

law,

courts, religion, and educational systems, may very well appear undifferentiated

in

the

superstructures of other modes of production, and in each case,

it

is indispensible to break

down the superstructural order into its particular concrete institutions.

In fact, Marx may have been the first social scientist to be aware of this problem.

As

he

explained a t length

1970:205-214),

categories like labor, law, production, etc. are fully

valid only within the most modern societies where they express recognized relations. The

fact that these categories apply analytically in societies in which they are not

so

recognized

leaves the historian and anthropologist with the task of explaining why they are not to be

found as recognized concepts in these other societies.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS

OF

A

MODE

O F

PRODUCTION: CHANCE AND NECESSITY

Marxs thesis of the determination of the superstructures by the economic base bears only

on the internal relationships between the components of a mode already constituted; i t

remains to be outlined how Marx conceives the historical formation of a mode of

production. This can best be done by examining how he analysed the rise of the capitalist

mode of production.

I n

Das Kapital

and the Grundrisse Marx criticizes classical economy which presents

capitalism as the result of savings made before capitalism ever existed. According to the

myth of bourgeois economy some groups

are

said to have accumulated, through their

personal industry and their personal productivity, enough money to be advanced in the form

of wages and means of production. Once this process was started, accumulation snowballed.

Marx regarded this interpretation

s

an

a

posteriori justification. As he insists

1973:498 499, 506-510) ,

the capitalist mode of production requires two main conditions:

monetary capital and, more important, the possibility of hiring workers for wages and,

therefore, the availability

of

labor

to

be exploited in this form. If merchants capital had

been the only condition for the development of capitalism, Rome and Byzantium would

have become capitalist cf. Marx

1973:506,

passim . Capitalism was the result

of

two

independent historical processes that delivered simultaneously the two requisites of capitalist

production to Western Europe and that marked the end of its feudal period. The

presence of a number

of

free workers was mainly the result of agrarian transformations

from within the feudal mode of production (cf. Marx

1967:I, 717-733).

It produced

a mass which was free in

a

double sense, free

f rom

relations

of

clientship, bondage and

servi tude, and secondly free

of

all belongings and possessions.

. .

;dependent on the sale

of its

labor capacity or on begging, vagabondage and robbery as its only source

of

income

[Marx 1973:507; mphasis added].

On the other hand, accumulated money was the product of activities external to the feudal

mode of production cf. Marx,

1967:I, 713-716, 742-744, 750-760, 765-774; 1967:III,

323-337, 593-613, 782-813).

One has to remember the Churchs opposition to usury and the

fact that the Church

was

the dominant ideological apparatus within the feudal mode of

production. Usury, merchants capital, developed at the fringe

of

feudalism. Usury, like

commerce, exploits a given mode

of

production. It does not create it, but is related to it

outuardly

Marx

1967:III, 609-61 0,

emphasis added).

Merchants capital found an element, dispossessed peasants, given by an external mode of

production feudalism) which permitted it to form the base of a new mode of production.

As soon as, and wherever, merchants capital found this element, no matter how limited the

scale, at once and wholly, their combination constituted a capitalist mode of production.

However, and this is not contradictory), for two or three centuries, capitalism did not bring

any significant innovation within the technological level. Capitalists left the producers to

work with the same tools cf. Marx

1967:III, 332-337 , 197 3:50 8-50 9).


9/16

34

A M E R IC A N A N T H R O P O L O G IST [7 9 ,1 9 7 7

Th e original historical for ms in which capital appears at first sporadically or locally,

alongside the old modes [note the plural]

of

production, while exploding them little by

little everywhere

is

on one side manufacture proper (n ot yet the factor y). . . . (Marx

1 9 7 3 :5

10).

Even with manufacture, the process of labor remained skilled labor. Use-values were the

results of assembled serial products, but each serial product itself was the product of a

craftsman. I t was only when machines were in troduced (19 th century industrial revolution)

tha t t he function of labor power was displaced and tha t individuals were in a technological

sense dispossessed

of

the means of labor of society (cf. Althusser and Balibar 1970).

Independ ent craftsmens production could n o longer comp ete with mos t industrial products.

Producers, as individuals, were then separated from socialized production in two ways:

technically and socially (in t he capitalist system th e major means of produ ction

of

society

is

the prop erty of the capitalist class). This implies tha t, at the beginning, the subor dina tion of

labor power to capital was only fo rmal and had

to

be directly enfo rced by law and the state.

With his wages, th e dispossessed pea sant o r craftsman still cou ld have acc umu late d eno ugh t o

start independe nt production. Necessary tools were as ye t very simple, and his production

would still have been socially worthwhile.

Thus, a t the very dawn of capital ism, there was a need f or a forceful in tervention from

the superstruc tural level . The capital ist class a t i ts emergence neede d an d used the power

of the

state

to regulate wages and to kee p the laborer himself in the normal degree of

dependency. Peasants, who in th e 1 5t h cent ury were dragged from their accustomed mode

of l ife, could not instantly adapt themselves to the discipline and rate of exploitat ion of

capitalist production. They chose first to become beggars and vagabonds.

.

. [ they] were

drawn off this road by gallows, stoc ks and whippings, on to the narrow pa th to the labour

market. . Marx 1973:507).

Hence, a t the end o f the 15 th cen tu ry and during the whole o f the 16 th cen tu ry , the

bloody legislation against vagabondage (Marx 1967:I , 264-277, 734-74 1) Under Edward

VI,

according to a statute of 1547, al l persons had the r ight to take away the children of

vagabonds and to keep them

s

apprentices. If the y ran aw ay, these children were to become

the slaves of their masters, who could put them in irons. The parents fate was not any

better. F rom the same s ta tu tes , it follows tha t if an y beggar o r vagabond

refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who has denounced h im

as

an idler. T he master shall feed his slave on bread and w ater, weak broth and such refuse

meat as he th inks f i t . He has the r ight to force him to do any work, no matter how

disgusting, with whip and chains. If the slave is absent a fortnight, he is condemned to

slavery for life and is to be b randed o n fo rehead o r back w i th the le t ter S; if he runs away

thrice, he is to be execu ted as a felon. The master can sell him, bequeath h im, le t h im ou t

on hire as a slave, just as any other personal chattel or catt le. If the slaves at tempt

anything against the masters, they are also to be executed. Justices

of

the peace, on

information, are

to

hunt the rascals down. .

.

.

Thu s were th e agricultural people first

forceably expropriated from the soil , driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds,

and then whipped, branded, tortu red by law grotesquely terrible, int o the discipline

necessary

to

the wage system [Marx

1967:I

351.

Yet th is is only one e xtra ct of one statute. In England, as on e exam ple, this legislation was

perfected many t imes under Elizabeth and James I. Som e of these st atute s remained legally

binding until the beginning of the 18 th century (cf . Marx 1967:734-741, 264-277). Capital

and free workers were not brought togeth er by a natural evolution. Th ey were united

by legislative means.

These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g . , the colonial system. But they all

employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society , to

hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transform ation of t he feudal mode

of

product ion in to the cap ita li s t mode, and

to

shorten the transit ion.

Force is

the midwife

of every society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power [Marx

1967:1,

7511.


10/16

Legros] M A R X IS M A N D C U L T U R A L E VO L U TI O NI SM

3 5

This

is

no t a reca pitu latio n of Diihrings theses. Engles (19 72: 176 -20 3) insisted tha t nei-

ther Marx nor himself were treating the role of violence in history

s

a matter of individual

will. To be socially effective collective violence must rest on an economic base. In France,

the capitalist class had t o resort t o the means of th e feudal state thro ugh the m onarchical

apparatus. As a result o f i ts alliance with the bourgeoisie, from an initial statu s ofprimus

inter pares in th e Middle Ages, cro wne d lineages acquired th e status o f absolute mon archy .

The monarchy provided the bourgeoisie with all the superstructural apparatus i t needed in

order to establish a new way of producing. The mon archy articulated the exprop riation of

the peasants by th e nobili ty to the nee ds of the bourgeois class (for the role of th e mon archy

in England, see Marx 1973 :506-5 07). This does n ot a t all imply that capitalism ineluctably

had to follow feudalism. T here is no fate in history, o nly constraints. This, a t least, is Marxs

conclusion o f his case stud y

of

capitalism (cf. also his L ette rs to Vera Z assoulitch, March 8,

188 1, Marx and Engels 1970 :III, 15 2-161 ). Marx conceived of the appearance of the

capitalist mode of producing s a find, a n historical discovery. Th e cond itions capitalism

required were given by the feudal social fo rma tion , bu t the feudal mode of product ion alone

could not have led to capitalism. Once the required elements for the new structure were

found, they were put together by force.

We

make our history ourselves, but, in the first

place, und er very definite assum ptions and conditions (Engels to Bloch, September 21,

1890, Marx and Engels 1970:III , 487 , emphasis added) .

A new mo de of produ ction can be organized as soon as the social preconditions it

requires exist , and then new developments may occ ur in the technology of produc tion on

the basis of what the new social order renders feasible (cf. Mam 1967:I, 761-764).It is no t

Marx who is wedded to th e thesis that evolutionary changes are essentially responses to

initial changes in the mode of exploitation or the subsistence activities, but cultural

evolutionists. Marvin Harris presentation (19 68: 217 -24 9) of Marxs work a s a con tribu tion

to cultura l evolutionism is qui te revealing. I t is an unf ortu nate parad ox because Harris is one

of the few A merican cultural evolutionists, if no t the only one, who has explicit ly defen ded

the relevance of Marxs work, a nd this, in a hostile political and cultural environm ent.

Harris regards as confusing the fac t that in Marxs analysis th e transition t o capitalism is

supposed to occur as a resul t of the organisat ion of the craf t an d m erchant guilds, and the

transformation of feudalism into capitalism is not related to changes in the technology

of

product ion (1968:232-233) . This leads him, then,

to

express a disinterest in the atte mp t to

find out precisely what Marx and Engels intended by the phrase mode of production

(1968 : 233). Consequently, Harris reco mm ends th at for theoretical purposes Marxs peculiar

analysis of capitalism b e set aside and tha t we focus on th e Preface t o the Critique

o

Political Economy which is no t committed to the explanat ion of any sociocul tural type, but

sets forth general Marxist principles. From this text he summarizes Marxs position as

follows:

The

major ingredients in . . . [Marx and Engels law of cultural evolution] in retrospect

may be

seen as:

1)

the trisection of sociocultural systems into te chno -econ omic base,

social organization, and ideology; 2) the exp lanation of ideology and social organization

as adaptive responses to techno-economic conditions;

3) the

formulation

of a

functionalist model providing

for

interactive

effects

between all parts

of

the system; 4)

the provision for analysis

of

both system-maintaining the system-destroying

variables;

and, 5) the pre-eminence of culture over race [Harris 1968:240].

Though this

is

a secondary point, i t must be stated that Harris is not correct in writing

that fo r Marx the t ransit ion

to

capitalism is supposed

to

occur s a result of the organization

of craft a nd merchants guilds. Fo r Marx,

Manufacture seized hold initially not

of

the so-called urban trades, but of the rural

secondary occupations, spinning and weaving, the two which least requires guild-level

skills,

technical training. [Manufacture] takes

up

i t s

first

residence not in the cit ies,

b u t

on

the land,

in

villages lacking guilds, etc. Th e rural

subsidiary

occupat ions

have

the

broad


11/16

36

A M E R I C A N

ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 7 9 ,1 9 7 7

basis (characteristic)

of

manufa ctures, while the urban trade s demand great progress in

production before they can be conducte d in factory style [Marx 197 3:51 1].

A most crucial problem is Harris summary of Marxs law of cultural evolution. This

law provides for only two possible types of explanation of evolutionary processes:

1)

from within , transformation of a system into another as a result of the system-destroying

variables; (2) a dapt atio n of ideology and social organization in response to techno-economic

changes. The system-destroying variables explanation is the familiar interpretation of

evolutionary change according

to

which the techno-economic base of culture changes more

rapidly than its social organization and ideology. This brings ab ou t a disc onfo rmit y between

the two, leading

to

a violent collapse of the whole system and to the consti tu tion of a new

syst em by readjustive func tiona l changes. Although this is only implicit in Harris form ula, it

is ma de clear in his section on Marxist diachronic causal functionalism (Harris

1968 :235 -236 ), and is rendered evident by his distress a t Marxs failure

to

relate the rise of

capitalism to changes in the technology o f pro duction (1968: 232-233).

For

Marx, however, we have seen that c ultur al evolution c an not be viewed in term s

of

a

self-transformation of on e m ode of production into a nothe r one. The internally destructive

con trad ic t ions o f a mode o f p roduct ion c anno t t ransfo rm the mode in to ano ther one. They

can on ly lead to

its

disintegration. Marx is very clear on this questio n, in the pre para tory

tex t s t o

Das Kopital

and in

Capital.

After a description of the process of th e dispossession

of

the peasa nts during the feudal period, he concludes:

These are, now, on one side, h istoric presupposit ions needed before the worker can

be

found as a free worker, as objectless, purely subjective labour capacity c onfronting the

objective condit ions of production as his not -proper ty , as alien property , as value for

itself,

as capital . But the question arises, o n the ot her side, which condit ions are required

so

tha t he f ind s himself up against a

capital

[Marx 1 9 7 3 :4 9 3 ]?

[O n the othe r hand Merchants capital] is incapable by itself

of

promoting and explaining

the t ransit ion f rom o ne mode

of

product ion to ano ther (Marx 1967 :I I I ,

327) .

Under Asian fo rms, usury can c ontinue a long t ime, without producing anything more

than economic decay and poli t ical corruption.

Only where and when the other

prerequisites

o

capitalist production are present

does usury become

one

o

the means

assisting in the establishment of a new mode of production..

. .

[Marx 1967:III , 597;

emphasis added ] .

The sam e point is made over and over (cf . Marx 197 3:506-507, 1967:I , 713-716, 742-743,

It is perfectly true that the Preface to the Critique o f Poli tical Eco nom y suppor ts

Harris formula. But this holds only if the rest of Marxs work is brushe d aside-a fa ct of

which Harris is aware, a nd ab ou t which he is fully explicit (Harris 1968:2 41). His proc edur e

is debatable, however. The

Critique o f Pol i tical Ec ono my

and its Preface were a mere

curtain-raiser to Marxs main work, Das Kapital: Kritik der Poli t ischen Oeconomie. T h e

Critique o Poli t ical Economy,

published in

1859,

was presented by Marx s

the

f irst section

of the

first

book of a larger study . Bu t this first section was published unfinished. A t the

end, Marx an nounced a th ird chap ter that would conc lude i t (1970:187, n . 1) . The project

was never achieved under this planned form. Instead, Marx wrote

Das Kapital

in which

Kritik der Politischen Oeconornie became a mere subti t le and was even deleted from the

French translation, entire ly revised b y him (1872-75).

T h e

Critique

was entirely rewrit ten and most of i ts content embodied in Das

Kapital

in

th e first ~ h a p t e r . ~he fam ous 18 59 Preface, where Marx had defined the dialectic of

the correspondence and non-correspondence between the productive forces and the

relations of production, had been explicitly presented by him

s

the results of his critical

re-examination of Hegels Phi losophy o f Low (Marx 1970 :20). This profoundly Hegelian-

evolutionist Preface did no t reappear in

Capital,

neither in form nor in content, despite

1967:III , 325-327).


12/16

Legros] MARXISM AN D CUL TUR AL EVOLUTIONISM

3 1

the initial importance tha t M arx had atta ched to it in 1 859 . This reminder is necessary in

order to delineate where the Preface stands in Marxs work.

The trouble with Harris procedure is not that he decided in favor of a text which is

Hegelian. The problem is simpler: should the glitter, the rapid formula, and the bold strokes

of a 68-line text on evolution prevail over the results of an exhaustive analysis of data Dus

Kapitul and its preparatory manuscripts)?

CONCLUSION

Marxs analysis indicates that in the case of capitalism, the constitution of a new mode of

production-or world stage of evolution-was the

result of two unrelated phenomena

(todays Marxist historians would say: of at least two unrelated phenomena; cf. Vidal

1956): monetary capital and expropriation of peasants. Their synthesis, which was the

basis of the new mode, was achieved thanks to the most brutal violence. There was no

technological imperative. It does indicate that there may be no technological necessity

i n

cultural evolution. Technological or population growth may have been as much the upshot

of

innovation in the social order as the result of unconscious or natural processes (cf.

Cowgill 1975; Legros 1976). For instance, in the early Middle Ages low population, low

production, and low consumption were a vicious cycle. Not without reason, monks tended

to

postulate a dense rural popu lation as a prime mover (cf. Lopez 19 71 : 27,

30).

At the same time, Marxs analysis provides the concepts that render possible the

formulation of why, and in what respect, each society has to be treated as an irreducible

specificity (a rediscovery of

Boas

cultural relativism; relativism for which Boas

unfortu nately provided n o theor y). From the Marxist poin t of view, one can explain, for

example, why France, Germany, and England are each unique social form ation s despite the

fact that

all

three are dominated by the capitalist mode of production. One identical mode

can be present and dominant in different social formations but in each case may

be

respectively articulated with other modes, or may be placed in a different type of

relationship to them. In this example the three social formations must be considered with

their particular zones

of

influence, colonies, neocolonies, and internal underdeveloped

or backward provinces.

As a result, a given mode of production can never appear in a pure form. In its concrete

actuality, it is always altered, adapted to the exigencies or constraints

of

the social

environment where it functions. F rom society to society the same mode of production-the

same from th e stan dp oin t of its basic structure-may show numerous variations in

appearance which can be ascertained solely by analysis of the empirically given cir-

cumstances (cf. Marx 1967:III, 791-792). Hence, it is essential to realize that the mode of

production is, in itself, an abstract object. An understanding of it,

s

such, is nevertheless

necessary in order to analyze its concre te effec ts in a given social formation.

To unravel the nodal structure

of

an empirically distinct type of organization, which

appears under various altered forms, is to construct the theory of a given mode of

production. For example, the presence of a potlatch complex in several societies may

indicate the existence of one particular mode which crosscuts these societies. A contrasted

analysis of the variations in appearan ce can be made in orde r to ascertain wh at is essential

and what is secondary to the structure; what is the general type (Idealer Durchschnitt or

Allgemeiner Typus) and what is local coloration. The same variations in appearance

may also

be

analyzed in terms of what causes them. Thus, they can serve as guides

in

the

elucidation of what are the modes of production which, in each society, modify in a specific

form the mode of production und er study. (Of course, this does no t deal with every aspect

of Marxs methodology.)

Our knowledge of the modes of production that marked human history is indeed

small.


13/16

38 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[7 9 1 9 7 7

Marx produced the theory of the capi tal is t mode of product ion, but his concept of an

Asiatic mode of production seems to have been a scientific

faux

pas (cf. Godelier 1973;

Silverberg and Silverberg 1975 ). Brunners papers on the feudal mod e of productio n (1 894 )

and Blochs t w o volumes (1 960 ) stil l offer the best c onstru cts for this mo de.

Incidentally, it is interesting

to

note that technology did not play a seminal role in the

rise of feudalism-no mor e th an it did with capitalism Certainly, historians have insisted

upon the importance of the discovery of the s ti r rup (cf. Lynn White 19 64 );but i t is not a

disconformity between this technological innovation and the old social order which

produced an abrupt t ransformat ion of par t of the society into

a

feudal structure. Put simply,

for

some

historians, what led to this social innovation were politico-military decisions of

Martel, Carloman, and Pepin to put the s t i r rup into use and to transform their armies into

armies of mounted fighters. As the expenses of maintaining large number of war-horses were

great, the ancient custom of swearing allegiance to

a

leader (vassalage) was fused with the

granting of an estate (benefice), and the result was feudalism (Lynn White 1964:5). In

order

to

end ow their cavalry, Martel an d his immed iate successors simply distributed vast

tracts of land forcefully seized from the Church. In truth , the rise of feudalism has been far

more com plex than w hat one ma y summarize in a few lines. B ut once again, we should not e,

violence came from authorities in power making history themselves under very definite

conditions. Without these political decisions, the stirru p would be classed for wha t it is: a

min or discovery which renders horseback riding mo re stable by giving lateral su pp ort in

addi t ion t o the f ron t and back suppo rt offered by pommel and cant le . While the s t i rrup has

been discovered or rediscovered by other peoples, feudalism has been essentially a European

find.

In add ition to capitalism and feudalism, ou r knowledge includes only partial elements of

theory: Terray (1 972), R ey (1 971, 197 3), Meillassoux (19 64), and Sahlins (19 60b ) on a

l ineage mode; Mauss (19 68) on tw o unnam ed mo des among the Eskimos; Sahl ins (1972 )

o n

one domestic mode of production, etc. Many economic types of organization have been

empirically discerned by anthropologists, but our work by and large has remained at the

stage o f mon ograp hic description and classification. None of th e societies of which we kn ow

can be regarded as primitive in the sense of being the primeval type

of

human society.

Rathe r, they are pro ducts of long processes of transformations an d we may a nticipate that

vestiges of past stages stain the ir respective cores.

Thus, to provide the abstract construct of each type of organization that has been

discerned may prove

to

be as complicated an endeavor

as

Marxs analysis of c apitalism.

No

doubt some of our present categories will reveal themselves s having been mere mirages, as

Fried (19 75) suggested for th e so-called tribal mode of p roduc tion. A crit ical examin ation of

ou r vague empirical categories (foraging econ om y, redistributive sy stem , tribe, etc.) is a

necessary step toward defining the different preindustrial modes of production. General

evolution can be elucidated only if the fundamental requisites of each mode of production

have been ascertained; for t o find the origins of a mod e of produ ction X is

to

discover or

to reconstruct the historical occurrences in which the requisites of X appeared together at

the same time.

The concept of mode of production, in the theoretical framework in which Marx uses i t ,

constitu tes a discriminating criterion for a science of history. It allows us to constru ct an

evolutionary sequence in term s of a succession of m odes of productio n, but renders

purposeless the classification of societies in terms of general evolution. With Marxism, what

is at s take is not a classification of societies, but an understanding of the specificity of each

actual concrete society as a uniq ue synthesis of heterogeneous modes of production. In one

social form atio n, certain mod es wou ld necessarily have

to

be classified into one level

of

evolution and others into another. This constitutes a reversal of cultural evolutionism.

Marxism certainly offers fewer definitive answers than cultural evolutionism does. It is, in


14/16

Legros] M RXISM AND CULTUR L EVOLUTIONISM 3 9

fac t , c loser to the m odern conce pt ion of b io log ical evo lu t ion

in

w h ic h th e c o n c e p t of c h a n c e

h a s b e c o m e s crucial

as

t h e c o n c e p t o f necessity (cf . Mo nod

1971).

I u se th e w o rd chance del ibera te ly fo r

its

c o n n o ta t io n , a l t h o u g h its ideological weight

is certainly

not

sufficient

to

c o u n te rb a l a n c e th e m e c h a n i s t i n t e rp r e ta t i o n

to

which

Marxs

work has been subjected. Yet, as Piaget p o in t e d

out

1971:30-31) n relat ion

to

Monods

w o rk , c h a n c e s su c h is not explana tory . Us ing Wadding tons mode ls and those fo r which

Monod received h is Nobel p r ize , P iage t ind ica tes ho w M onod could have e labora ted fu r t her

o n th e c o n te n t a n d th e s ig n if ic a ti o n o f c h a n c e in biological ev olution. My poi nt

is

t h a t w i th

Marxism,

we are fa r f rom having means of th is na ture to su b s t a n t i a t e w h a t is chance in

h is to ry . Nonetheless, o ne of the in te re s ts o f

M a d s

work s c o m p a r e d

to

the theore tica l

f ramework of cu l tu ra l evo lu t ion ism, i s tha t it p ro v id e s t h e c o n c e p t s t h a t a l l o w o n e to

del inea te and to set fo rward th e very prob lem of an historical cha nce.

N O T E S

Acknowledgments.

This is a revised version of a pap er presented in the symp osiu m, T he

Mo d e

of

P ro d u c t io n : Me th o d a n d T h e o ry , a t t h e

141st

Annual Meet ing of the Amer ican

Assoc ia t ion fo r th e Advancement o f Sc ience , New York , 26 -31 Jan uar y , 1975 .

I w ish to express my gra t i tude to those who have encouraged me, c r i t ic i sed me, and

advised me in the course of this work: David F. Aberle, David Feingold, Marvin Harris,

Edmund R . Leach , Michae l D . L ieber , Margare t MacKenzie , Jud i th R . Shapi ro , James

Silverberg, Paul M. Sweezy , and Eric R. Wolf . Also my than ks go t o Cheryl Leif an d Betsy

Traub e , who w ere mo re th an p a t ien t in convinc ing m e tha t my English was mere ly awfu l

ra ther than id iosyncra t ic . Marv in Harr i s s t rong c r i t ic i sms s t imula ted me to fo rm u la t e m y

disagreements mor e c lear ly in those a reas whe re our pos i t ions d iverge . Fo r exam ple , h is

o b je c t io n s to m y use

of

a c a te g o ry su c h a s c h a n c e (w h ic h c a n or could have been in te rpre ted

as a bourgeo is historical relativism) pro mp ted m e to clarify th e actua l issues involved in

the las t paragraph of the p resen t vers ion of th e paper .

Read ers fami l ia r w i th Marx is t ep is temology wi ll recognize m y indeb tedness to the

p ioneer ing work of Louis Al thusser and h is s tuden ts .

I n t h i s p a p e r m y in t e n t io n is o n ly

to

del inea te the p lace and func t io n of t h e c o n c e p t

of

m o d e of produc t ion in Marxs theory of soc ie ty and evo lu t ion . I d o n o t a t t e m p t

at

all to

offe r a fo rm al def in i t ion of the concep t . Th i s def in i tion ca n be found in Al thusser and

Balibar 1970); T e r r a y (1 9 7 2 ) a n d R e y (1 9 7 1 ) giv e e x a m p le s o f h o w th is c o n c e p t m a y b e

used in the con tex t of noncapi ta li s t p rodu c t ion s t ruc tures .

To p re m ise t h a t d i f f e r e n t m o d e s m a y c o e x i s t i n o n e so c i e ty t o g e th e r w i th t h e i r

respec t ive supe rs t ruc tu res en ta i ls ne i ther th a t i t mu s t a lways be so, n o r t h a t a t o n e g iv en

t im e a so ci al f o rm a t io n m ig h t n o t b e m a d e of o n ly e l e m e n t s

of

several mo des of p ro d u c t io n .

At t imes of t ransi t ion , som e mod es ma y remain more or less i n t a c t w h il e o th e r s m a y b e

represen ted so le ly by one

or

a few of the i r components . Modes of p roduc t ion of ten ex is t

only in al tered forms. This being so a cross-societal comparative work is a lmost always

deemed necessary in o rder

to

p ro d u c e th e a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t of a g iven mode . In o ne soc ie ty ,

the ideo log ical com pon ent o f t he m ode m ay have been conserved and in ano ther i t may

surv ive on ly in the fo rm

of

its e c o n o m ic f e a tu r e s ( fo r f u r th e r d e ta i ls c f. L e g ro s a n d C o p a n s

1976 .

Later , in 187 3 , in the Af te rword to the second ed i t ion of Capital, Ma rx a d m i t t e d th a t

th is chap te r was no t en t ire ly c lear , recogniz ing tha t he had coqu e t ted wi th the mod es of

express ion pecu lia r to [Heg e l ] . H is in ten t ion had been t o have openly avowed [h imse l f ]

the pupi l of t h a t m ig h ty t h in k e r w h o w a s t r e a t e d a s a d e a d d o g b y c u l tu r e d G e rm a n y

a t th e per iod Marx was wr i t ing (Marx 1967 :I , 12 , 19-20) .

R E F E R E N C E S C I T ED

Althusser , Louis

19 69 Fo r Marx. New York : V in tage Books .

1 9 71 Lenin and Phi losophy and Othe r Essays . New Yo rk : Month ly Review Press.

1970 Reading Capi ta l . Lond on: New Lef t Books.

Althusser , Louis , and Eti enn e Balibar


15/16

4 0

AMERI CAN

ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 7 9 , 1 9 7 7

Bloch, Marc

1 9 6 0 Fe uda l Society. 2 vols. Chicago: Universi ty of Chicago Press.

Brunner, Heinrich

18 94 Forschungen zur Gesch ich te des deu tsc hen und f ranzosischen Rechts . S tu t tgar t .

Carne i ro , Rober t

L.

1 9 6 0 T h e C u l tu r e Proc es s. n Essays in the Sc ience of Cul tu re in H onor of Leslie White.

G e r t ru d e E. Dole and R ob er t L . Carne i ro , eds . Pp . 145-1 61 . New York : Crowell .

Cowgill, Georg e L.

19 75 On Causes and Consequences o f Ancien t and Modern Popula t io n Changes.

Amer ican Anthropolog is t 77

:

5 0 5 -5 2 5 .

Engels, Friedrich

1972 Anti-Duhring: Herr Eugen Duhrings Revolution in Science. New York: Inter-

national Publishers. (Originally published 18 78 . )

Fr ied , M or ton H .

1 9 7 5 T h e r e Is No Tr iba l Mode

of

P ro d u c t io n . P a p e r i n sy m p o s iu m , T h e M o d e o f

P ro d u c t io n : Me th o d a n d T h e o ry , 1 4 1 s t A n n u a l Me et in g of the American Associat ion

fo r t h e A d v a n ce m e n t o f S c i en c e. N e w Y o rk , 2 6 -3 1 J a n u a ry 1 9 7 5 .

Gabel, Creighton

Godelier , Maurice

Harris, M arvin

19 67 Analysis o f Preh is to r ic Eco nom ic Pa t te rn . New York : Ho l t , R ineh ar t and Wins ton .

1 9 73 Hor izon : Tra je ts Marx istes en an thropolog ie . Par is: Maspero .

19 68 Th e Rise o f Anthropolog ical Theory : A H is to ry of Theor ies of Culture. New

York: Crowell.

H e lm , Ju n e

1 9 6 9 R e la t i o n sh ip b e tw e e n S e t t l e m e n t P a t t e rn a n d C o m m u n i ty P a t t e rn . n C o n t r ib u -

t ions t o A nthrop ology : Ecolog ica l Essays . David J. Damas , ed . Pp . 1 51- 152 . Nat iona l

Museum s of Canada, Bullet in 230.

Legros , Dom inique

1 9 7 6 Comments

on A

Naive Model

of a

Sto ne Age Econom y, by Jo hn Suckl ing . Curre n t

A n th ro p o lo g y 1 7 :

111-1

2 .

Legros, Dominique , and Jean C opan s

L o p e z , R o b e r t S.

19 76 Es t- il poss ib le de sy n the t i se r fo rmal isme, subs tan t iv isme e t Marx isme en an thro -

po log ie economique? Canadian Review of Soc io logy and Anthropology 13 3 7 3 -3 8 6 .

19 71 Th e Commerc ia l Revolu t ion of the M iddle Ages , 950-1 350 . Englewood Cli f fs :

Pr en ice-Hall.

Marx, Karl

19 63 Th e Pover ty o f Ph i losophy . New Y ork : In te rn a t iona l Publ ishers. (Orig ina l ly

publ ished 1847 . )

Publishers. (Originally published 18 67 , 1893, 1 8 9 4 . )

Publishers. (Originally published 1859. )

Books. (Original ms. 185 7-5 8. )

1967 Capi ta l : A Cr i t ique of Pol i t ica l Economy. 3 vols . New York : In te rna t iona l

1 9 7 0 A C o n t r ib u t io n

to

the Cr i t ique

of

Pol it ica l Econom y. New York : In te rna t iona l

1 9 7 3 G ru nd r is s e. F o u n d a t io n s of the Cr i t ique of Po l it ica l Econo my. New York : V in tage

Marx, Karl , and Friedrich Engels

Mauss, M arcel

19 70 Se lec ted Works in Th ree Volumes . Moscow: Progress Publ ishers.

1968 Soc io log ie et anth ropo logie . Paris: Presses Universitaires de Fran ce. (Originally

publ ished 1904 . )

Meillassoux, Claude

Meillassoux, Claude, ed .

Mo n o d , J a c q u e s

19 64 Anthropolog ie econo miq ue des Gour o d e CBte dIvo ire. Par is: M outon .

1 9 75 LEsclavage en A frique prCcoloniale. Paris: M aspero.

1 97 1 Chance and Necess ity : Essay on the Natura l Ph ilosophy

of

Modern Biology. New

York: Knopf .

Mu rdock, Ge orge P.

19 69 Corre la t ions o f Explo i ta tive and Se t t lem ent Pa tte rns .

n

C o n t r ib u t io n s

to

Anthropology: Ecological Essays. David

J.

Damas , ed . Pp . 12 9-1 46 . Nat iona l M useums

of Canada. Bullet in 230.


16/16

Legros] MARXISM AND CU L T U RAL EVO L U T IO N I SM 4 1

Piaget, Jean

19 71 Ex amen cr i t ique des th6ses de Jacques Monod : Hasard e t d ia lect ique en

epist6mologie biologique. Sciences: Revue d e la Civil isation Scientif ique 7

1

2 8 -3 6 .

Rey

,

Pierre-Philippe

1 9 7

1

Colonialisme, n6o-colonialisme

et

t ransit ion au capital isme: Exemple de la

1 97 3 Les Al l iances d e classes: Sur l a r t icu la t ion des mod es de p rodu c t ion suivi de

Comilog au Congo-Brazzaville. Paris: Maspero.

mat6rialisme historique e t lut te d e classes. Paris: Maspero.

Sahlins, M arshall D.

196 0a Evolu t ion : Spec i f ic and General .

In

Evolution and Culture. Marshall

D.

Sahlins

1960b The Segmentary L ineage : An Organiza t ion

of

Preda tory Expans ion . Amer ican

19 72 S to ne Age Econ omy . Chicago: A ld ine .

19 74 Pensee Sauvage and Pensbe Bourgeoise. Unpub lished manuscript .

1 9 7 6 C o m m e n t s o n Struc tura l and Ec lec t ic Revis ions

of

Marxist S t ra tegy : A Cul tu ra l

a n d E lm a n R. Service, eds. Pp. 12- 44. An n Arb or: Universi ty

of

Michigan Press.

Anthropolog is t 63 :322-345 .

Material ist Cri t ique, by Allen H. Berger. Cu rren t An thro polo gy 1 7 29 8-3 00.

Silverberg, James, a nd D onna Crothers Silverberg

1 9 7 5 E x c h an g e in t h e Mo d e

of

Produ ct ion : The Hindu Ja jma ni Sys tem as a Cus tod ia l

F e u d a l G ro u p . P a p e r i n sy m p o s iu m , T h e Mo d e o f P ro d u c t io n : Me th od a n d T h e o ry ,

141 s t Annual M eet ing of th e Amer ican Associa tion fo r the Advancement of Science,

New York , 26 -31 January 1 975 .

S tew ard , Jul ian H .

1955 T h e o r y of Cul ture Change: The Methodology

of

Multi l inear Evolution. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Ter ray , Emmanuel

Press.

19 72 Marxism and Pr imi tive Soc ie t ies : Two S tud ies . New York : Month ly Review

Vidal, Pierre

1 9 5 6 P ro ble m s o f t h e F o rm a t io n

of

Capital ism. Past and Present: Journal

of

Historical

S t u d ie s 1 0 :

15-38.

(Repr in ted in par t in The Rise

of

Capitalism. D.

S.

Landes, ed. New

Yo rk: MacMillan [ 1 9 6 6 1 . )

White, Leslie A.

19 59 The Evolu t ion of Cul tu re : The Development of Civilization to the Fa l l of R o m e .

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Whi te , Lynn , J r .

19 64 Medieval Technolog y and Social Change. Ox ford : Ox ford Universi ty Press.

Submitted

22

July 1975

Revision submitted

1 7

December 1975

Accepted 9

July

1976

Final revisions received October 19 76

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pedro-allemand
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Chance, Necessity, Mode of Production.pdf

Documents