marxism, institutionalism and social evolution
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]On: 06 November 2014, At: 01:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Review of Social EconomyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrse20
Marxism, Institutionalismand Social EvolutionMayo C. ToruñoPublished online: 05 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Mayo C. Toruño (2002) Marxism, Institutionalismand Social Evolution, Review of Social Economy, 60:2, 279-281, DOI:10.1080/00346760210146604
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346760210146604
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
1:30
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
William M. Dugger and Howard J. Sherman, ReclaimingEvolution: A Dialogue Between Marxism and Institutionalism on
Social Change. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Marxism, Institutionalism and SocialEvolution
Mayo C. ToruñoCalifornia State University, San Bernardino
The following papers were prepared for a panel discussion of William M.Dugger’s and Howard J. Sherman’s new book, entitled Reclaiming Evolution: ADialogue Between Marxism and Institutionalism on Social Change, held in Aprilof 2001 at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Thought inReno, Nevada. While the immediate purpose of the discussion was to reviewDugger and Sherman’s book, its broader objective was to explore the extent towhich Marxian and Institutional theories of social change offer a commonframework for the interpretation and critique of society. This broader objectivecan be seen as having emerged out of a dialogue, which has been occurring withincreased frequency, between Marxists and Institutionalists seeking to � ndcommon ground. This search is re� ected in the growing number of papersexploring the points of convergence between Marxism and Institutionalism, towhich Dugger and Sherman have contributed (1994, 1997), the growing numberof panels dedicated to this topic at meetings of the Association for InstitutionalThought and the Association for Evolutionary Economics, and the emergence ofa Radical Institutionalist movement within the Institutionalist camp, of whichDugger is an excellent example.
This search for common ground has occurred against a background of rightistpolitics on the one hand, with its concomitant attack against the progressivewelfare state, and, on the other hand, a fatuous scientism that has prevented
REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY, VOL. LX, NO. 2, JUNE 2002
Review of Social EconomyISSN 0034 6764 print/ISSN 1470–1162 online © 2002 The Association for Social Economics
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/00346760210146604
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
1:30
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
mainstream economics from venturing beyond empirically vacuous models ofhyper-rational, self-interested, individuals. It’s against this background that thegrowing dialogue among Marxists and Institutionalists should be placed. Indeed,Dugger and Sherman’s book carries with it the hope that their synthesis ofMarxian and Institutionalist theories of evolution will provide a unifyingapproach, one that views evolution as intrinsic to social processes. Central tothis approach is the understanding that societies are continually evolving, eitherin slow incremental terms or in structurally disruptive, revolutionary, terms; thatsocial change is an endogenous process incorporating all spheres of society, andthat change generally brings with it social con� ict.
In his review of Reclaiming Evolution, Enrico Marcelli notes that Dugger andSherman’s synthesis carries with it a challenge to unorthodox economistsrelying on quantitative methods to incorporate the evolutionary principle ofcumulative causation, while being attentive to the con� ictive and contingentnature of social change. John Bellamy Foster sees Dugger and Sherman’scontribution as providing a much needed stimulus to Thorstein Veblen’s classicquestion “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science,” but wonders whythe artillery they developed is not used to critique orthodox economics. AndJohn Henry, after noting that Reclaiming Evolution is a provocative work thatdeserves to be studied by all, challenges Dugger and Sherman to explain howideology, in particular an enabling myth, can be a causal element in the absenceof requisite material conditions.
It’s risky, and probably unfair, to expect answers to questions not posed by atext, yet Reclaiming Evolution might leave the reader wondering how theconcept of evolution can be used as a guide for progressive change. Thisquestion is particularly relevant to Marxists and Institutionalists who agree thatthe point of developing an understanding of society is to change it. Fosterexplicitly asks this question while Marcelli alludes to it by noting that the bookunderscores the idea that the best way of predicting the future is to create it. Andin his critique of Dugger and Sherman, Henry answers the implicit question bynoting that democracy requires the empowerment of workers.
While Dugger and Sherman did not write Reclaiming Evolution with theexpectation of developing a guide for social action, it’s a testament of the qualityof their work that the synthesis they offer compels us to ask, how can we shapeand guide the evolutionary process? The following papers, I’m sure, will piqueyour interest and motivate a reading of Dugger and Sherman’s book. Moreimportantly, it should encourage us to reclaim evolution as the unifyingprinciple upon which to interpret, critique and change society.
REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY
280
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
1:30
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
REFERENCES
Dugger, W. M. and Sherman, H. J. (1994) “Comparison of institutionalism andMarxism,” Journal of Economic Issues 28(March): 101–128.
Dugger, W. M. and Sherman, H. J. (1997) “Institutionalist and Marxist theories ofevolution,” Journal of Economic Issues 31(December): 991–1010.
SYMPOSIUM: MARXISM, INSTITUTIONALISM AND SOCIAL EVOLUTION
281
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
1:30
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14