sociological importance of castoriadis

8/12/2019 Sociological Importance of Castoriadis

1/17

Institutionalization as a Creative Process: The Sociological Importance of Cornelius Castoriadis'sPolitical PhilosophyCrossroads in the Labyrinth. by Cornelius Castoriadis; Kate Soper; Martin H. Ryle; TheImaginary Institution of Society. by Cornelius Castoriadis; Kathleen Blamey; Domaines del'homme: Les carrefours du labyrinthe II. by Cornelius CastoriadisReview by: Hans Joas and Raymond MeyerAmerican Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Mar., 1989), pp. 1184-1199Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780470.

Accessed: 15/07/2013 18:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.80.118.17 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:44:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2780470?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2780470?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/17

Review Essay: Institutionalizationas a Creative Process: The SociologicalImportance of Cornelius Castoriadis'sPolitical PhilosophyCrossroads n the Labyrinth.By CorneliusCastoriadis.TranslatedbyKate Soper and Martin H. Ryle. Cambridge:MIT Press, 1984. Pp.xxxi+ 345. $12.50 (paper).The Imaginary nstitution fSociety. By CorneliusCastoriadis.Trans-lated by Kathleen Blamey. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987. Pp. 418.$35.00.Domaines de l'homme:Les carrefours u labyrinthe. By CorneliusCastoriadis.Paris: Editionsdu Seuil, 1986. Pp. 455. Fr 150.Hans JoasUniversitit rlangen-NiirnbergIf it is not to lapse into academicsterility,ociological heorymust on-tinually ebate the mportantublic ssuesand approaches o socialthe-ory hat rise outside ts own boundaries.Otherwise, ociological heoryis in danger f occupying tselfwithmerely elf-posed roblemswithouthope of capturing he public's interest nd risking creeping oss ofinfluencewithin he family f social- and human-scientificisciplines.The extraordinarilytrong nterest vinced in the writings fJiirgenHabermas and AnthonyGiddens n recentAmericandiscussions fso-ciological heory estifieso a recognition y sociologistsf thisneed toexpand their nquiries, ut itis also clear thatthisneedcannotbe fullysatisfied y ts own intellectualmeans and resources.The publication ftheEnglish ranslationfa decade-oldFrenchbookprovides n occasion for alling ttention o the workof a socialtheoristwhose tature s a thinkers,without ualification,omparable o that fthe forementionedheorists,utwhoseworkhasheretoforeone lmostunnoticed y sociologists. ertainofCorneliusCastoriadis's deas haveexercised surreptitiousnfluencehrough hewritings f AlainTour-aine, which, however,offer wealth of empiricaldata at theexpenseoftheoreticalxactness.CorneliusCastoriadis snot sociologist,ndheis, moreover, uite skeptical bout the sociological roject nsofar s itseeks to replacethe old politicalphilosophywith technicalknowledgemodeledon thepositive ciences nd oriented o immediatepplication.? 1989 by The University f Chicago. All rights eserved.0002-9602/89/9405-0007$0150.1184 AJS Volume 94 Number5 (March 1989): 1184-99

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

ReviewEssayCastoriadis'sentirepersonal history redisposeshim for the role of aboundary rosserbetweenthedisciplines, etweenphilosophynd sci-ence, and also betweentheoreticalystematizationnd engagementnsocial movements.Born in Greece n 1922, he joined theGreek Communist arty s ayoungman and tookpart n the struggle gainst heoccupyingGermanarmy.Disappointedby the Stalinist haracter f thatparty, e switched,evenbefore heend of the war, to theTrotskyistourth nternational,whichfor time mbodied ormanyEuropeanand American ntellectu-als thehope of a democraticnd revolutionaryocialism.However, oonafter rrivingnParis, wherehe intended o study hilosophy, e brokewith his rganizationoo. Togetherwith number fother, ow-famousFrench intellectuals,he founded a political and theoretical ournal,Socialismeou barbarie.Whileprofessionallyctive as an economist, epublished many analysesof capitalism,of the Soviet system, nd ofMarxism, singdifferentseudonyms.While hehigh ntellectualualityof thesearticles s undeniable, t is also true thattheywerepoliticallyineffectualor longtimeand burdenedby the radical Left's ectarianpolemics.Castoriadiswas one ofthe ntellectualnspirationsor heunex-pected ruption fMay 1968 nParis. Even before hisuprising, e hadpublished critical ssessmentfMarxism hatwas,forhim, antamounttoa rupturewith hat heory. uring hisperiod,hechangedprofessionsand became a practicing sychoanalyst.ut ifthiswereall, I would notbe discussing imhere. Castoriadiswithdrew rom hefashionablentel-lectualmovementsf thetime nd worked oryears n a new startnhisownthinking,o buildwith aborious eflectionhebasisof n alternativetheory n theruinsof a discreditedMarxism.Castoriadis'sundertakinglearlydiffersn two respects rom rucialfeatures f the Frenchzeitgeist fter1968. It is neither tructuralistorpoststructuralist)or iberal. Castoriadis's xtensiveworkon a theoryflanguage s intended rimarily o engagestructuralismt the verypointon which his heory ases its scientificlaims.He seeks nonstructural-ist theory f the signand of the symbolical.But his trenchant ritiqueof Marxismdoes notmake himan uncritical hampionof liberalism,as ifthe failure f Marxism proved that iberalisms the deal or theonly acceptable form of government Domaines de l'homme DH],p. 106). The critical xamination f psychoanalysisnd the alternativetheoryfferedyCastoriadis an be characterized egatively,irst f all:hepolemicizes gainstbothJacquesLacan's theory nd theform fther-apyLacan advocated and practiced. peakingpositively,nthewritingsof thistransitionaleriod,Castoriadis ubscribes o thetenets f a post-empiricist heory f science: The illusions bout successive pproxima-tions, bout the accumulation f results, boutthegradual and system-aticconquest f a simplerational rderpre-existingithin heworld rebeing dissipated Crossroads n theLabyrinthCL], p. xiv). For Cas-toriadis, owever, hisrecognitionoes notgivecarteblanchefor elativ-

1185



4/17


5/17

ReviewEssayally transformsumanbeings nd their iversekindsof abor nto ome-thing hat shomogeneous nd measurable, rwhetherhat conomynlymakesvisible omethinghathas alwaysbeenso buthas remained iddenfrom umanbeingsby their ystem f deas,or, ast, whether hequalita-tive ameness f abstract abor s only n appearanceresulting romhereificationffected y capitalism, n appearance that stems from hetransformationf abor power nto commodity.his ack ofclaritys anindication fa morefundamentalmbiguitybout why particular alueis a value. Had Marx clearly ddressed hisquestion,he would havehadto abandon thehope of elaborating scienceofcapitalism's asic pro-cesses, ndependent fcultural reconditions.With his ritique fMarx'slabortheory fvalue, Castoriadis ejects heveryheart fMarx's critiqueofpolitical conomy, hecoreofhisscientificife'swork.Castoriadis oesnot,however, eject t n favor fthemarginalist evolution'subjectivisttheory fvalue. ForCastoriadis, his onceptionfthe conomys a logicofthe choice of means s vitiatedby a fundamentallyntenable iewoftherelationship f meansand ends nsocial ife.His critique iffers romthatofHabermas, who maintains hatthe conditions or hevalidity fthis heory btainonlyduring certain tageof iberal apitalism.Haber-mas concludes hat,with the ncreasing revalence fmonopolies, co-nomic nterventiony thestate, nd the cientificrganizationfproduc-tion,thepossibilities f applyingMarx'stheory re also eliminated, ndthe whole production aradigm becomesobsolete. Since Castoriadis'scritiques more mmanent hanthatofHabermas,thesignificancef theconcerns nforminghe labor theory f value and the philosophy fpraxis are not ost fMarx's theory s notvalid. These concerns, ow-ever,cannotbe adequately xpressednthe production aradigm. Theunresolved ontradiction etweenMarx'sdeterministiceduction fhu-manaction and a practicalphilosophy frevolutions ofcrucial mpor-tance. For Castoriadis,a false scientisticdeal of theorys intrinsicoMarx'sinconsistencies.

As an alternative o the positivesciences'conception f theory, otMarxbut Aristotles thedecisive uthorityorCastoriadis's nderstand-ing of a practicalphilosophy.Using political houghtbut also pedagog-ical and medicalthinking), astoriadis xplains he nature f a nontech-nical relationbetween knowledge and action. In all these domains,comprehensivenowledge oes not assume the form f awlikeproposi-tions mployed o realize xternal ndpredeterminedoals. nstead,non-technical ction bears ts endwithin tself; heknowledge orrespondingto it is always fragmentarynd mustrelyon continuous xpansionofitselfwithin oncrete ction,without, owever, ver becoming theoryabout n object- To think: o elucidate,notto theorise.' heory sonlyonemoment felucidation, nd always acunary nd fragmentaryCL,p. 84). In this ecourse o theorigin fpractical hilosophynthepraxis ftheGreekpolis,Castoriadisdiffers rom ther ritics f a latentpositiv-ism in Marx's thought, uch as Lukacs, Korsch,and Gramsci. n this

1187



6/17

AmericanJournal f Sociologyregard, nd in his fundamental eservations bout the cognitive dealof the social sciences,he resemblesMartin Heidegger, Hans-GeorgGadamer,JoachimRitter,Hannah Arendt, nd,today,AlasdairMacIn-tyre.But none of thesemake such ntense se in thetheoreticalmodelofpractical hilosophy s Castoriadisdoes of a momenthat s present utmarginalizedn Marx'sthought: he creativenature f praxis.In both his conceptof labor and his historiographicalnalysesof theclass strugglesn France,Marx ascribed o humanaction creative a-pacity, n ability o producenew objectsor newsocial forms. astoriadisdoesnottry o trace he ntellectual ath alongwhichAristotelianracti-cal philosophy ecameso transformedy German dealism nd GermanromanticismhatMarxwas able to use it as thestarting oint f his ownreflections. ut because Castoriadis'sown thinkingtraddlesAristotleand Marx, he is sensitive o the traces of a romantically ransformedAristotelianismn Marx's thought.Marx charges he conceptof praxiswith the meaningthat classical philosophy ounterposed o techne':poiesis, which is not imitativebut creative.Castoriadis takes thisunderstandingfpraxisfurther:To do something,o do a book,to makea child, a revolution, r ust doing as such, s projecting neself nto afuture ituationwhich s opened up on all sidesto the unknown,which,therefore,ne cannotpossessbeforehandnthought,ut which ne mustnecessarily ssume to be definedn its aspectsrelevant o present eci-sions (The Imaginary nstitution f Society [IIS], p. 87). He vehe-mently pposes, though, he reduction fthispossibilityf creating ewthings r social forms othe contingencyf unforeseeablevents.Admit-tedly, ontingencys one ofthe fundamentalharacteristicsfhistoricalprocesses, ut t s nottheir istinguishingeature.n humanhistory,hecontingencyfnaturalprocesses s mitigated ecause man can providenew responses o the 'same' situations r createnew situations IIS,p. 44).Forsociological heoryhismeans,first fall, thatCastoriadisswork-ingwithconcepts fthetheory f action that cannotbe made to fit herigiddichotomyf theoreticalmodelsof rational ction nd their orma-tivecritique see mycritique f Jeffreylexander n Inquiry31, forth-coming).Castoriadisdoes notconsider hegoal-oriented,lannedmo-ment s theprimaryomponent factionbecauseitconstitutesnly hetechnicalmoment fan activity hatrequires hesetting fconditions,goals, and means. The implications f thisposition,however, xtendfurther nd lead to a questioning f the theoretical tatusof social-scientificheoriesngeneral.Just s theplan sbutone moment faction,so too s theexplanatoryheory nly singlemoment f a historical elf-reflectionhatexpresses tselfn science.Historical nd social processesbecome ntelligiblenlywithin heframeworkfpracticalntentionsr ofschemesof action;all metatheoreticalategorial rameworksre them-selvespartofthehistory hey et out to explain.This idea was byno meansforeigno Marx. He regarded is scientific1188



7/17

ReviewEssaylabors s partofa praxis hatwould bring bouta worldwide evolution.But he undercuthis dea because, following egel's example,heconsid-ered t possibleto anticipate he goal of humanhistory. y holding hisposition,Marx oinedhis eanings oward causallydeterministiccienceofthe historicalwith a teleological onception f history.nasmuch asMarxismdemands,writes astoriadis, hat byasserting hat verythingmustbe grasped n terms f causation nd at thesame time hatevery-thingmustbethoughtn terms fmeaning, hat here s butone mmensecausal chain which s simultaneouslyne immense hainofmeaning, texacerbates he twopolesof theenigma othepoint fmakingt mpos-sible to thinkrationally bout it (llS, p. 53). However,the historicalcharacter fhuman action, and knowledge f t, acquires ts existentialseriousness nlywhen the opennessof history,ts always only partialrationality,nd the rreversibilityf human actions re recognized.The driving orce ehindCastoriadis's enetratingritique fMarxismis his horror fthe states hathave elevatedMarxism o an officialdeol-ogy. In his eyes, his theory s not a rejectionbut a radicalization fMarxism: Starting rom evolutionary arxism,we have arrived t thepointwherewehave tochoosebetween emaining arxist ndremainingrevolutionaries11S, p. 14). In Castoriadis's iew, thedeterministicer-sions ofMarxismuphold bureaucratic laimsto authoritynd domina-tion.Whereas democratic nstitutionserve as a counterweighto thisembodiment fformal ationalityn capitalism, hesocialmodelrepre-sented y theSovietUnion s characterized y the otaldominance fthisone principle.The ideology f egitimationf scientificocialism s inand of tself ndemocratic,ince heclaimto provide cientificnswers oquestions boutpoliticalgoals invalidates uthentic ecisionmakingbythe members fa society. n opposition o that deology nd its conse-quences, Castoriadis dvocates forms f political elf-organization,uchas councils and models of industrial elf-management,hat have ap-peared only nisolated nd short-livednstances. t is notmypurpose opass judgment n the politicalplausibilityf thisorientationut to castlight n thebackground f Castoriadis's heoreticalnnovations. or thisorientationo themodel suppliedbyrevolutionaryctiongiveshimthestrengthodemonstratehe creativityhat s proper o all action, ustasHerder and Germanromanticism uilt on an examination f aestheticpraxis,pragmatistsnvestigatedxperimentalcientificraxis, nd Marxreflected n materially roductive raxis. This theory f action is thefoundation fCastoriadis's olitical hilosophy, hich s built round heconceptof theinstitutionnd also provides he basis forhis effortsoelaborate n ontology findeterminacy. reativeactionrefers o thecreationof institutionsnd to theworldas a sphereof possibility oraction.The concept fthe nstitutions one of themost mportant ategoriesforbothsociology nd anthropology.t was given ts most ambitioustheoretical ormulationnDurkheim's heory freligion,whichParsons

1189



8/17

AmericanJournal fSociologytended oundermine y conceiving f nstitutionalizationrocessesmoreas therealization fpreexistingalues than s thecreation fnewvalues.Castoriadis s clearly nterestedn the nonfunctionalistomponents fDurkheim's ater theories.His theory f the nstitutions intended s acritique fthefunctionalistnterpretationf nstitutions, hich eekstoexplain ocialphenomena y meansof ystemmperatives et s unabletostateanystable human needs or system equirements.f, however, ys-tem mperatives hemselves onsistncultural efinitions,hen hepossi-bility fstrugglingver and arguing bout these definitions ithin heframeworkfsocial systemsmust lso be considered. hese imperativesdo notrepresentndependent, ominalvalue but rreducibleonceptionsof a possiblefuture. The modern iew ofthe nstitution, eclaresCas-toriadis, whichreduces tssignificationo thefunctional spect, s onlypartially orrect. o theextenthat tpresentstself s the ruthbouttheproblemof the institution,t is onlya projection. t projectsonto thewhole ofhistoryn idea takennoteven from heactualreality fthe n-stitutions elonging o theWestern apitalistworld which,despite hevastmovement frationalization, ave neverbeenand are stillnomorethanpartially unctional),ut fromwhatthisworldwould ike ts nstitu-tions o be (llS, p. 131).Although ne mightwish thatthe critical xamination fthisview ofthe nstitution erebroader nd included n assessment f Talcott Par-sons'senormous heoreticalccomplishments,ittle an be added toCas-toriadis's ritique f structuralism. he reader ensesthegreat nfluenceof thisFrenchschool of thought n Castoriadis'swork. Inasmuch asstructuralismpprehends nly hesymbolic imension fthe nstitution,it is a one-sided view of social phenomenathat complements unc-tionalism's ne-sidedunderstandingf them. n his essays,Castoriadisargues gainst he structuralistdeology nd criticizest for liminatingthemeaning-producingccomplishmentsf the subject and therewiththesubject'sresponsibilityor nd poweroverhistory.n contrast, heImaginarynstitutionf ocietypresents thoroughgoingndsystematicalternative. aking up reflectionsfMauriceMerleau-Ponty,astoriadisdenies tructuralism'sentral rgument,hat inguistic heory as shownthatmeanings theresult f a combinationf igns,merelyhedifferenceamongthe bearersofmeaning. t is true that the relation etween hesignifiednd the signifiers not an empirical r a logical one; what isdecisive,however, s thatthe relation f a signto a meanings theresultofthe nstitutionalizationf a sign ystemnd that ign ystemsmustbeunderstood ogetherwith their xtrasystemiceferenceso what is per-ceivedand intended. he arbitraryharacter f thesign, owhich truc-turalism ttaches such importance,s retained,but it is accountedforbya processof institutionalization.n thisway, Castoradisrevealsthemeaning-originatingccomplishmentsf thesubject,behind tructural-ism'sback, as it were.For the determinationf linguisticmeaning s nevercompletedbut1190



9/17

ReviewEssaycan be continuedndefinitely.very inguistic tterance ecomesunder-standable onlywhen placed in its propercontext; his context om-prehends oth he ign ystem fthe ntire anguage nd thecomplexes faffairsmaking ptheuniverse. n The Sayable andtheUnsayable CL,pp. 119-44), Castoriadisexplains, n reference o Merleau-Ponty, hatstructuralismhould be understood s merely he reverse ide of thephenomenologicaldea of a constitutiveonsciousness;n contrast, isowntheory f anguagemakes tpossible o preserveubjectivity ithoutmaking tall-important.n the anguage t shareswith thers, he ubjectis not obligatedto make specificutterances ut rather s aware-inMerleau-Ponty's ords-of a significativentention, a void which sdeterminedn the sense that the one who is about to speakknowsthattheres something ther nd more obe said thanwhathas alreadybeensaid, but knowsnothing ositive eyond hatfact,beyond hefact hat tisnot aid by whathas alreadybeensaid CL, p. 132). n language hereis an interplay f ndividual ignificationnd institutionshatcannotbegraspedwith hetypical heoreticalmodelsused byscience o understandthe social and thehistorical.In hiscritique fthe falsetheoreticaldeals ofthenon-Marxist umanand socialsciences,Castoriadis epeats he stages fhiscritique fMarx-ism.The transfernto hose ciences fphysical r ogicalmodels an leadto a failure o grasp what is unique about humansociety nd humanhistory. hese attempts o define ociety nd historyeparatelyonvincehimof thefundamental alsity f such models.Also of importance orsociology, e objects IIS, pp. 177ff.) o identifyinghedistinguishingfeatures fhumansocietywiththeemergence f supraindividual he-nomena r with heprimacy fthecollectivity. otcollectivityndemer-gencebut thespecifictructure fhumancollectivitynd individualitysat issue. For history,hisposition ntails refusal fdeterministic,re-dictivestatements: L'histoire st cre'ation u sens-et il ne peutpasy avoird explication'd'une creation, l ne peut y avoir qu'unecompre-hension x postfacto de son sens historys thecreation fmeaning-there an be no explanation fa creation; here an be only compre-hension xpostfacto f tsmeaning) DH, p. 220). Thus thecentraldeaofCastoriadis's heory faction,the creative imension faction,reap-pearsas the centraldeterminantfthe peculiarity fthe social and thehistorical. ocial reality s described s the unionand the tension finstitutingocietynd of nstitutedociety, fhistorymade and ofhistoryinthemaking llS, p. 108). Whatthe falsemodelsfailto accountfor sprecisely hecreation f things hatare radicallynew, a creation risingoutof the nherent otentials f the maginary. or Castoriadis, he m-aginarys an ultimate etermination;t cannotbe accounted orbyany-thing lse,nor hould tbe confusedwith copyoftheperceivedworld,mere ublimation fanimaldrives, ra strictlyational laborationfthegiven. Thus, thetitle fCastoriadis's rincipalwork,whichmay at firstseemstrange othereader,becomesunderstandable:ociety s theresult

1191



10/17

AmericanJournal fSociologyof an institutionalizationrocess, nd thisprocess, ecause t arisesfromthe imaginary, rom he human capacityto conceive meaning,has anirreduciblyreativedimension.This nsight an be pursued n a number fdifferentirections. irst, tcan be applied empirically o the collective ction of social movementsthat lter s well as produce nstitutions.his path has been followed yAlain Touraine, althoughnot by Castoriadishimself, aising uestionsaboutthecritical nalysis fthepresent-the currentignificancef uchsocialmovementsnd the maginaryoreofmodernWestern ulture ndof othercultures. n this connection, astoriadis trongly uggests hecentral mportancefrationalitys an imaginary chemaunderlyingheculturaldominanceof technology, cience, bureaucracy, nd economicefficiency. owever,he does not clearlydifferentiateis position romsimilar heoreticalmodels uch as thatof Max Weberorfrom ompetingways of thinking. econd, the cultural nd intellectual istory f thistheory f creativity nd of the social institution an be traced n thepublished ragmentsf the major study hathehas announced.Perhapsthemost impressive xample is the studyof the Greek polis and thecreation fdemocracy DH, pp. 261-306). In thisessay,Castoriadisinvestigateshe ntertwinedrigins fdemocracy nd philosophy, indingthatthey hare a disavowal of mere social unrest nd ofmyth. n thedemocracyfthepolis, an institutionalizationfthecollectivehaping fsocial institutionsppearsfor he first ime; n philosophy,nquiryntothetruth nd the ethicalrightness f received deas and beliefs.In his principalwork to date, however,Castoriadisfollows thirdpath: theelaboration f an ontologyf ndeterminacys a presuppositionfor reation.The starting ointfor hisundertakings Castoriadis's leargrasp of the problemsposed for a philosophy f praxis or a theory factionwhenthesereston traditionalmetaphysical remises.How is in-tentional ctionpossible ftheworld s a cosmosofendless,deterministicconcatenations f causes and effects, r else a chaos that can acquiredeterminateorm nly hroughhe mpositionfhuman chematizations?For Castoriadis, heproblems ontainedntheself-understandingf thesocial and natural cienceshave their ssential oundationn these sci-ences'unexamined ependence n an ontology fdeterminacy.n ordertoescape from hispredicament, e broadenshistheory fthe nterplaybetween hatwhichhasbeen nstitutednd the nstitutinggencynto nontology f magma, of a fluid ubstrate f all determinateeing. ndoing o, he is notseeking o establish heexclusive, rivilegedtatus fthis ndeterminacy,s did Bergson nd Heidegger; ather, e acknowl-edges thepragmaticnecessity f determinacyoreveryday ctionandspeech. Using theGreek terms legein nd teukhein, astoriadis n-vestigates hese slands ofdeterminacyn an ocean of ndeterminacy.In this nvestigation, e persuasively emonstrateshe nadequacyofthetraditionalmodeofthinking,n particular hrough n examinationofthephenomenonf time nd oftheexperienceftime.To sociologists,1192



11/17

ReviewEssaythese roblemsmight ot eemto affect ositive esearch.However, incethepostempiricisturnof the theory fscience,no scientist an permithim- r herself he uxury f ndifferenceo themetaphysicalmplicationsofhis or hermethods. urthermore,astoriadiss abletoexplain he ig-nificance f his reflectionsor n adequate theoretical nderstandingfpersonalitynd oftemporality. is reflectionsnthese opics, re, find,most imilar o the ate work of GeorgeHerbertMead, whichhas alsobeen ittle nderstood,nd to thewritingsfJohnDewey fromhesametime.For theseAmerican hinkers,oo,thephilosophyfaction ed toatheory f time and of natureas conditions f thepossibilityfaction.Castoriadis's ntological nterprises importantor ociologistsor sec-ond reason. At the present ime,at least in the Federal RepublicofGermany,Niklas Luhmann'sattempt o developfunctionalistystemstheory urther,nto theory f autopoiesis, nthebasisofrecent evel-opmentsnthebiological heoryfcognition,sone ofthemost nfluentialtheoreticalpproaches.How else should he discussion f this pproach,which, ike that ofCastoriadis,focuses n theself-originationfsystemstructures,roceed hanby reflectionn theontological remiseshat reimplicitnLuhmann'sprogram?ForCastoriadis, akingeaveofMarxism oesnotmeantakingeaveofa concept fcentralmportancet leastfor heyoungMarx: alienation.On thecontrary. is theory fthe nstitutioneadsdirectlyoa concept falienation: Alienation ccurswhenthe maginarymomentnthe nstitu-tionbecomes utonomous nd predominates, hich eads to the nstitu-tion'sbecoming utonomous nd predominating ith respect o society. . . in other words (society)does not recognize n the imaginary finstitutionsomethinghat s its ownproduct IIS, p. 132). Thus, it isnotthenature f the nstitutionss such,but therelationshipf a societyto ts nstitutions,hat s ofdecisive mportance or hequestion f liena-tion.Witha pathos ofenlightenmentqual to thatof Kant, Castoriadiscounterposeso alienation hepositive oncept fautonomy.He uses theterm n completeaccordance with its etymological ense; autonomymeans society's r an individual'smaking he aws bywhich t s bound.In a reformulationfFreud's dictum,Castoriadis xpresses hegoal ofautonomyhus: WhereNo onewas, thereWe shallbe (CL, p. 40). Theproject fautonomyscharacterized ythepractical issolution fgover-nancebyothers nd ofsubjection ounrecognizedmechanisms.Ifthisproject s to be more hantheproclamationf thevaluesoftheyoungMarx typicalof humanistic ostwarMarxism,thenCastoriadismust nswer everalquestions: n what kindofa relationship oes indi-vidualautonomy tand o socialautonomy?What are the onsequences fthefindingsfpsychoanalysisnd of tsprogram or urconceptions findividual autonomy?By what means can autonomybe gained and,speakingwithKant,the mmaturityorwhichwe areourselves esponsi-ble be leftbehind?Castoriadis's esponses o thefirstnd lastofthese uestions ndoubt-

1193



12/17

AmericanJournal fSociologyedlymake his task too easy. Social autonomys brought bout by revolu-tion: The socialistrevolution ims at transformingociety hrough heautonomous ctionofpeople and at establishing society rganized opromote he autonomy f all its members IIS, p. 95). However, as aresult f his rejection f Marxism nd, since1968,his oss of belief n thehistoricalmission ftheworking lass, the dentity fthe ctorswho willcarryout the revolution as become uncertain.Clinging o the act ofrevolution hus eems, t least primafacie, obe a remnantf hisMarx-ism, and his overemphasis n it may be a response o accusationsofaccommodationndresignation. willreturnothispoint ater.ThewayCastoriadisoins individual nd socialautonomys similarlynsatisfac-tory.According o his theoreticalmodel,individualautonomys onlypossiblewithin heframeworkfsocial autonomy.Habermashas cor-rectly ointed ut that Castoriadis versteps he boundsofthe Aristote-lianconcept f praxiswhen he gives tfar-reachingmplicationshat reconsonantwith heenterpriseftheEnlightenment.astoriadis uppliesnoarguments gainst litistmodelsofautonomyhat re validonlyforparticular ndividual r for he few, regardless fwhether hesemodelsare of the Nietzscheanor colonialsort. That is notto say thatmoralphilosophy annot demonstrate he necessity f linkingndividual ndsocialautonomy. ather,Castoriadis oes notprovide convincingem-onstration.This criticism annotbe made of Castoriadis's iscussion f ndividualautonomyn light f the recognition f thedrive-based nd corporeallyconditioned ature four egos, a recognitionhathas been assertedmostconsistentlyy psychoanalysis. ust s social autonomywas understoodas a differentelationship f society o its institutions,astoriadishasdeveloped concept f ndividual utonomy otas completelyonsciousintentionalityut as a changed relationbetween onscious nd uncon-scious ntentions.f,forFreud, thegoalofpsychoanalysiss expressedntheprecept: Wherethe d was, there he ego shouldcometo be, thenCastoriadis dds to the Freudiandictum he njunction:Where heegois, there he d shouldshowitself.When Germanromanticismurned wayfromKant,theproblemwasraisedofhow to adhere to a conceptof moralautonomy hat might eachievedonlyat thecost ofthe magination, hich tself equired ree-domfromhecontrol freason.Does moral utonomy ecessarilymplyrepressive elationship o oneself?Does self-controlequire elf-repres-sion,anddoes creativity emandrenunciationfself-control? ithin hepsychoanalyticystem f concepts,Castoriadis eeks to apprehend heconflict etween rives ndreality, hich ppearsnot o besusceptibleoarbitration,na manner ifferentrom hat fKant. He makes he magi-nary reaction o, and processing f, both drives and reality centraltheoretical oncern.The imaginary ccomplishmentsf thesubjectren-der moral utonomy ossible,both nrelation orealitynd inrelation othedrives. can learn to acceptstatementsboutreality s true ven f1194



13/17

ReviewEssaythey ontradictmyown wishes.Similarly, can learn oacknowledgemydrives s they re even f do notwant tofollow hem. Anautonomoussubject s one, declaresCastoriadis, thatknows tself obe justified nconcluding: his is indeed true, and: this is indeedmydesire IIS,p. 104). This theoretical ransposition, hichhas analogues n ego psy-chology nd in the theories f the selfproposedby psychoanalysisndsymbolicnteractionism,oes notput forwardhegoalofan idealpersonwhohas onceand for ll achieved control verhimselfnd has silencedthe voice of his unconscious,but rather f a personwho has as openrelation o and dealings with himself s withothers, nd who allowshimself o be surprised ver and over againby the unforeseeable ealthof hisownfantasies nd ideas.

This conceptof moral autonomy, rounded n a way differentromthat n Kant'sphilosophy, s immanentlyied to a theory fthehumanbeing'scorporeality.f intentionalityannot be limited o thesphere fconscious ntentions,ut nsteadrequires newunderstandingf a per-son's relation o his unconscious nd unexamined ntentions, hen thebodyas the ocus of an unexamined nvolvementn the worldmustbeconsidered artofourconcept f action.Castoriadis oes notpursue hisinsight o elaborate theory f actionfrom he standpoint f philosoph-ical anthropologyut develops,with xclusive eferenceo psychoanaly-sis, the basicoutlines f a theory f socializationIIS, pp. 273-339) thatfollowsfromhis model of the imaginary. ince, for Castoriadis, theimaginarymustnotbe understood ausally, tcannotbe a causal result fthe ctivityfthedrives.He thus nverts herelationshipetween rivesandimagination ecause he does notregard antasies s theexpressionrthecompensatoryatisfaction f drives but insteadpositsan originaryimaginationhat s prior o theorganization f hedrives nd that ids thedrives o attainpsychical epresentation.ut how shouldwe conceive fthis riginarymagination?n a radicalmanner, astoriadis utshimselfinthe ituation fthechildbefore hedifferentiationf ubject nd objecthas takenplace. In this ituation, ven the maginationsunable to makea mental epresentationfobjectsthat atisfy eedsand drives.Thustheimagination an originally pprehend nly an undifferentiatednity fthe hild nd theworld, f ubject nd object,which s satisfyingn tself.However,this tate s one that s incapableofever ppearing s a mentalrepresentation:What s missing nd willalways be missing s theunrep-resentablelement fan initial state,' hatwhich s before eparation nddifferentiation,proto-representationhichthe psyche s no longer a-pable ofproducing,which has always servedas a magnetforthe psy-chical field as the presentificationf an indissociableunityof figure,meaning nd pleasure IIS, p. 296).Castoriadis oessofar s to refer o this orever-losttate funitys theprimordialmonadic tateofthe ubject nd identifiesuchphenomena sthewishfor otalunionwith nother r the spiration o total ntellectualapprehension f theworld with the onging o return o thisprimordial

1195



14/17

AmericanJournal f Sociologystate.He develops theory f ocializationnwhichwell-knownheses fFreud are reformulated-forxample, he tages fthe daptation fthepsyche o social institutionsnd the psychicalmechanismsuchas pro-jectionand identification.ocialization,however, s never socialshap-ing of the inherent ossibilities f the drives that may vary over anunrestrictedange; t s, rather, process f confrontationndconflictualinteraction etween he maginative ifeof the ndividual nd social in-stitutions s the embodiment f collectivementalrepresentations.hisconfrontation, hichconstituteshesocialization rocess, s like the ifeof nstitutionsngeneral, processhavingunforeseeableesults. sycho-analysis s an elucidationnot only oftheway inwhichthecreations fsociety nd history ind nalytic support'within he ndividualpsyche,butofthe psychic ap which he atter onstantlyupplies o theformer(CL, p. 95). The recognitionfthe ociality ftheactormustnotbepaidforwith he oss ofthepossibilityfgraspinghecreativityfthe ndivid-ual imaginativeife.Castoriadis'sreference o the primordialmonadic state mightgivethe impression hathis conception f socialization acks an adequatemediation f individual nd society, criticism dvanced by Haber-mas, adducingMead as a counterexample. consider hiscriticismmis-placed, sinceCastoriadis oes regard ndividuations theresult f ociali-zation.He refuses nly o derive heunconsciousmotivationsnd mentalimages f the ndividual rom he ocial conditions fthis ocialization. fwe consider hat n his category f the I Mead, too, counterposedbiologicalroot of spontaneity o the sociallyproduced agencies of theme and the generalized ther, hen here s noperceptible ifferencebetweenMead and Castoriadison this point. t would be a Parsonianmisunderstandingf Mead to strip he I entirelyfthe character f anextrasocial imension hatMead, admittedly,onceives fas biological.WhereasMead first cceptsthepremises f thepsychologyfinstinctsandthen dopts Freudian deasofthefundamentalmpulses o solidarityandaggression, astoriadis evelopshistheoryfthe hild's arly xperi-ence ofunity s thebasis ofthe evolution f the drives.Unfortunately,Castoriadishimself lmostforceshisreader ntothismisunderstanding.Withhis talk ofthemonad,as well as hisexplicit efusal fa biologicalbasis ofhuman ocialbehavior ndhisbeliefnthepresocial haracterfprehumanhistoryIIS, p. 205 ff.),his argumentn The Imaginaryn-stitution f Society precludes he possibilityfembedding istheory fsocialization n a philosophical nthropology hat recognizes he con-tinuitynd discontinuityfanimals and humanbeings.This weakness s directly elated o a further ifficulty.astoriadis'stheoryfthepsycheednecessarilyo the deaof protorepresentation.On theotherhand,hisdescriptionsfthechild'spsyche ecognizehat ntheearly stagesof our development,ust as in the unconscious f theadult,we cannoteventhink f mentalrepresentationss separatefromaffectsnd intentions. hen, however, here s no protorepresentation1196



15/17

ReviewEssaybut rather protoexperience orwhich hecategories fthe ater,moredifferentiatedtages of psyche'sdevelopment re notsuited.However,Castoriadis oesnotdevelopa positive heoryfthemannernwhich hechildpractically onfrontsnd interacts ithhisworld.He does not inkthe body ofpsychoanalytic nowledgewith that gainedby a develop-mentalpsychologyhat, ikePiaget's,does not start rommentalrepre-sentationsbut frommodes of behavior,sensory-motorircuits.Cas-toriadis's nability orelateprehuman nd human ociality o each otherhas a parallel n his inability otreat he unity fmental epresentation,affect, nd quasi intentionalityhat s characteristicf theyoung hild'sbehavior s practical chemata ather han s somesort f mental epre-sentation, concept that belongsto the terminologyf a mentalisticpsychologyfconsciousness.This is, certainly, ota superficialhortcoming.n contrast o Piagetand thepragmatists, astoriadisdoes notdevelopa functional elationbetweenmentalrepresentationsnd action. Unlikethem,he does notinterpretmentalrepresentationss the mediating ink in problematicaction situations.Undoubtedly, orCastoriadisevery nterpretationftheimaginary rom he standpoint f functions a reduction.Yet thepragmatistsid notbelievethat heywerebeingreductionistshentheyrooted reativentelligencen thenecessity fthehuman pecies oadaptto its environment.he problems f such adaptation re notgivenbynaturebut are mediatedby culturaldefinitions;ndeed, the solution ftheseproblems s at the heartof thevery reation hatCastoriadis na-lyzes. The relation etween n actionproblem nd its solution oes nothave to be causal. Nor is itnecessary o denythatthere s any relationbetween problem nd its solutionnorder o oppose a falsely etermin-istic elation etween hem.Pragmatismmayhavefalsely eneralizedheapplicability f the experimental cientificmethod its prototype fcreativity)oencompass olitical ndartisticreativity. ertainly,Marx-ism tied thecreativity f action o closely o humanbeings'material ifethat nlyfeeble races fthe iberating ossibilitiesndpowerofproduc-tioncould stillbe detected.AfterHerder,theGermantradition ftheanthropologyfexpressivity as faced repeatedlywith theproblem fconceptualizing he self-expressionf a being that s not teleologicallydefined. astoriadis srightwhenheseeks orise bove narrowmodels fexperimentation,roduction, nd expressionwithout bandoningtheframeworkf a philosophy fpraxis. But it cannot nd well if the Gor-dian knotoftheseproblems s severedwith singleblow,for here henremains nlytheabstract dea ofcreation x nihilo, n unaccounted-forconception,n ungroundable roject.

Politically, he act ofrevolution een as the autonomous elf-institu-tionalization fa better ociety ssumes ever stronger oluntaristicea-tures nCastoriadis'swritings.n bitter nalysesofpresent-dayWesternsocieties,which are admittedlyssayistic nd lack empirical roundingfor heir onclusions, e sees an absenceof creativitynd ofvisions fthe1197



16/17

AmericanJournal f Sociologyfuture nd pervasivetendencies owardanomie. Counterposed o thesepessimistic nalysesthere re onlyvague prospects or better ociety.His critique f technologyCL, pp. 229-59) arguesfor ts transformationinto a means forthe freeunfolding f the potentials findividuals ndgroups. But the real problemsbegin only afterproclamationf such apraiseworthyoal.Castoriadis onsciously oes not inkhisdemandfor radical qualiza-tionof income with thequestionofthe productive fficiencyesultingfrom ifferencesn levelsof ncome, incehe is concerned o break ym-bolicallywith he deology f productionism.But onewould really iketo know how the masses of people mightreact to thepossible oss ofproductive fficiencyn their conomy nd to the consequentoss of n-come and Castoriadis's political assessmentof these reactions.Thevagueness fCastoriadis's rogramwithregard othese internal ffairsstands n contrast o theclarity nd decisiveness fhisanalysesof for-eign affairs. n the atter,he, like manyformer rotskyites,ocuseshisattention n the Soviet Unionand on thearmament olicies nd relativemilitarytrengthftheWesternnd Easternblocs. n 1981,he publisheda book nwhichhe asserts hattheSoviet Union smilitarilyuperior otheWest quantitativelyquivalent nd strategicallytronger)nd, fur-ther,deniesthat the Westenjoys a superiorityver theSoviet Union nmilitaryechnology. is analyses econcile hese ssertions ith he ndis-putable economic nferiorityf the Soviet Union by arguing hat theSovietUnion s ruledbya stratocracy ;hat s, Sovietsocietys domi-natednot by the bureaucracies f the Communist arty nd the tatebutby tsmilitary-industrialomplex.The politicalwritingsn his mostre-cent ollection fessays refull fpassionate ppealsfor esistanceo theSovietUnion. The declaration fmartial aw in Poland especially ut-ragedhim nd led himtocall for total conomic ndcultural oycottfthegovernmentf-as Castoriadis efers ohim- Gauleiter Jaruzelski.This review s not theplace to begin a politicaldiscussionwithCas-toriadis.However,the tridentones fhispolitical tatements, hichhedoes notomitfromhisphilosophical nd scientific ritings, rovide noccasionfora fewbrief riticisms. et me first all intoquestionCas-toriadis's ssessment fJaruzelski nd also thethesis-which was pub-lished fterGorbachevhad assumedoffice-ofthe ssentialncapacity ftheSoviet Union to reformtself.The pathosof a call fora boycottsoften short-lived ffair.Onlytheforeseeable onsequences f a totaldemarcation etweenEast and West in CentralEurope are politicallyreal. One ofthe essonsGermany as learned n thepostwar ra is thathostile nd intransigentonfrontationith he tates ntheSoviet phereofpowerhas not advanced the nternal emocratizationfthese tates.Transformationhrough approchement as the slogancoined n the1960s by Egon Bahr (WillyBrandt's adviser n matters fdetente nddisarmament)o express hisrecognition. ertainly,his trategyanalsobewrong. f t s to be morerealistic,hen t mustnotbe criticized s less1198



17/17

ReviewEssayethical han strategyf combattingotalitarianism. astoriadis'smili-taryanalyses are a rather terile ontributiono thediscussion f therelativemilitaryuperiorityf therival blocs and opennonew prospectsforEurope in thenuclear ge. In thisconnection, he position fsharedsafety orelse shareddestruction)s certainlymorecreative.Speakingpersonally, am deeplypained bythe ostentatiousndiffer-ence-despite hisdeep attachmento German hought-withwhichhedescribes he securitynterests f theFederalRepublicofGermanys ofnoimportanceoNATO strategyDM, p. 124).Thus Castoriadis's olit-icalworldviews composed fa utopian hampioningfrevolutionnthesphere f nternal olitical ffairs nd ofan aggressive, eace-threateningforeignolicy oward heSovietUnion.Especially hosewhosympathizewithhistheoreticalndeavorswishthatCastoriadishad arguedbetter nthistopic. The linking f a newprogram freform-motivated ythenew socialmovementsnd joined to the nterestsf the traditional on-stituency f European labor parties-with policies of European andworldwide isarmament,f a shift odefensivermaments,nd of ointsecurityan also be understood s thepolitical oncretizationfhistheoryofsocial autonomy.It is,after ll, not ust the revolution hat rticulatesutonomy oliti-cally.Many years ago, Mead describeddemocracy s institutionalizedrevolution, xpressinghecapacity or elf-transformationhat s associ-ated withthe dea ofdemocracy. tzioni'smodel of theactivesocietyslikewise n attempt oanalyze,with ociological heory, he tructuresfa society hat s institutionallyreative nd able to learn. n hispoliticalwritings, astoriadis oth voids anddisplaces he entral roblem osedbyhistheory fsociety,which s, after ll, based on thephilosophyfpraxis:How can we continue o believe n, and strive o carry ut, theproject fautonomywhen the myth ftherevolutions dead?

(Translatedby RaymondMeyer)

1199

sociological importance of castoriadis

Documents