Materialism

           

Philosophical materialism maintains that all things can be understood in terms of matter in motion. The only things that exist are matter and energy. Because of this, there is an association between different varieties of materialism and the scientific method. Many scholars credit Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus as being the intellectual predecessors to philosophical materialism.

            During the 17^th and 18^th centuries, materialism became a philosophical tradition that openly emerged.  Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) raised the question of consciousness as integrated into the physical world and known through the senses. Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709-51) and Baron Paul Heinrich Dietrich von Holbach (1723-89) taught that consciousness is simply the consequence of the biological structure and activity of the brain. Dialectical materialism and physicalism have existed since the 19^th century as the modern expression of philosophical materialism. Physicalism is the point of view that any observed study can be articulated as a record of visible physical objects and events.

            The main principle of dialectical materialism is that everything consists of matter briskly in motion; and everything is constantly changing, breaking down and dying, while constantly being renewed and reborn.  This is "the struggle of opposites.”

            Physicalism, or logical positivism, states that most things can be understood through science and mathematics. Metaphysics, ethics and religion make announcements that are pointless, since their proposals could not be verified by observation and experimentation, or by logical deduction.

            Three themes relate historical materialism to social action.  They are materialism, action, and freedom. Action within nature is central to movement.  Freedom through action is central to liberation and sovereignty. By way of action, we continuously alter the orchestration we have with nature. Given this, preexisting but changing boundaries limit freedom. Frontiers we cannot transgress include the physical universe, biology, ecology, social arrangements, technology, populations, organization, social design and the mode of production. Theory leads to action, from action comes theory, freedom, determinism and moral choice. This interaction cannot be separated. Natural history, which consists of geology and biology, is in inseparable unity with human history; or history, sociology, anthropology and psychology.

 

Methodological Materialism

 

Marx used the concept that there are real regularities in nature and society which are independent of our consciousness. This reality is in motion, and this motion itself has patterned consistencies that can be observed and understood within our consciousness. This material uniformity changes over time.  For Marx, tensions within the very structure of this reality form the basis of this change; this is called dialectics. These changes accumulate until the structure itself is something other than the original organization. Finally, a new entity is formed with its own tensions or contradictions.

Human interaction in a natural setting is a given, because people are, at their core, a part of nature. It is because of this interaction that people are able to live. Through cooperation and labor, people produce what they need to survive. People live both in a community and in a natural environment.  Any study of history cannot separate people from either the social or natural environment.

The interaction between a social organization, called relations of production, and the use of technology within an environment, called forces of production, can be used to understand many particulars about the total culture. The evolution from band-level society to tribal-level society, tribal to chiefdom, and chiefdom to state-level society, has to take into consideration changes in the organization of labor; including the growing division of labor and ultimately changes in the technology people use.

With changes in the organization of labor, there are corresponding changes in the relationship to property. With increasing complexity of technology and social organization, societies move through these diverse variations to a more restrictive control over property; and eventually, in a state society, restrictions develop around access to property, based upon membership in economic classes.

A social system is a dynamic interaction between people, as well as a dynamic interaction between people and nature. The production required for human subsistence is the foundation upon which society ultimately stands. From the production of the modes of production, people produce their corresponding sets of ideas. People are the creators of their ideology, as people are continually changed by the evolution of their productive forces and of the relationships associated with these productive forces.  People continually change nature and thus continually change themselves in the process.

Julian Steward (1902-72) is credited with the twin concepts of “multi-linear evolution” and “cultural ecology.”  Multi-linear evolution is the exploration of recurring themes in cultural change. Cultural laws are then described in ways that make these changes clear.  What become apparent are patterns of historical change that explain arrangements of the interaction between parts of a society and the larger environment. Cultural traditions are made up of basic characteristics that can be studied in context. Similarities and differences between distinct cultures can be studied in a meaningful way, and cultural change becomes more understandable. The evolution of recurrent forms, processes, and functions in different societies has similar explanations. However, each society has its own specific historical and evolutionary movement.

Cultural ecology is the adaptation of a unique culture, modified historically in a distinctive environment. This provides for observation of recurrent themes that are understandable by limited circumstances and distinct situations. The importance here is to discover specific means of identifying and classifying cultural types.  “Cultural type” serves as a guide in the study of cross-cultural parallels and regularities. This allows investigation into the reasons for similarities between cultures with vastly different histories. This, of course, depends upon the research problem.  But for problems related to historical change, economic patterns are important because they are more directly related to other social, cultural and political arrangements. This is the “cultural core.”  Cultural features are investigated in relation to environmental conditions.  Unique behavioral patterns that are related to cultural adjustments to distinctive environmental concerns become more understandable. The cultural core is grouped around subsistence activities as demonstrated by economic relationships. Secondary features are related to historical possibilities and are less directly related to historical change. Changes are, in part, evidenced by modification in technology and productive arrangements as a result of the changing environment. Culture is a means of adaptation to changing environmental needs. Before specific resources can be used, the necessary technology is required. Social relations reflect these specific technological adaptations to the changing environment. These social relations organize specific patterns of behavior and its supportive values. A holistic approach to cultural studies is required to see the interrelationship of the parts.

Leslie White (1900–1975) looked at culture as a super-organic unit that was understandable only in cultural terminology. The three parts of a culture were the technological, the social and the ideological. All three parts interact, but the technological was the more powerful factor in determining the formation of the other two. Thus, cultural evolution has all three parts playing important roles; with the technological influencing the sociological to the greater degree, and the sociological ultimately determining the ideological. Culture becomes the sum total of all human activity and learned behavior.  It is what defines history. Through technology, humans try to solve the problem of survival. To this end, the problem arises of how to capture energy from the environment and use this energy to meet human needs. Those societies that capture more of this energy and use it most efficiently are in a more advantaged position relative to other societies. This is the direction of cultural evolution. What decides a culture’s progress is its capability of “harnessing and controlling energy.”  White’s law of evolution, simply stated, says that a society becomes more advanced as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the activity of putting the energy to work is increased.  This is cultural evolution.

Cultural materialism is based on the concept that human social existence is a pragmatic response to the realistic problems that are the consequence of pressures of the interaction between populations, type of technology, and the environment; with the economy as ever important. Marvin Harris is the major spokesperson for this model, in which the social scientist investigates the basic relationship between particular social activity and overall tendencies.

Human communities are connected with nature through work, and work is structured through social organization. This is the foundation of the production of all societies. The way people come together to provide for their necessities, how these goods are distributed within the population, and networks of trade and exchange establish what is possible for the social organization. This relationship between environment, technology, population pressure and social organization sets up the potential alternative ideologies within any culture.

How the basic needs are met within a society affects all members of that society, though often not equally. Ideology reflects not only the interaction between culture and nature, but the understanding of this relationship. The model used is one that begins with the infrastructure, which includes environment, technology, and population pressure. Infrastructure is roughly similar to the Marxist concept of forces of production.

The structure or social organization is similar to the Marxist theory of relations of production or social organization. Structure is one step removed from the human interface with nature, and therefore the infrastructure has more influence on the structure than vice versa.  The superstructure is what would be called ideology, or the symbolic and the ideational by other theories. The superstructure is twice removed from the human interface with nature, and thus influenced more by both the infrastructure and the structure. The economy is the interaction between the infrastructure and the structure.  This would be the mode of production of Marxism. Unlike Marxism, cultural materialism emphasizes the primacy of the infrastructure over the structure in the formative relationship between the various parts of society. Changes in technology that are adaptive, given the environment and population pressure, are likely to be selected for and kept. This, in turn, will create long-range changes in both the structure and superstructure. Marxism, because it is dialectical, understands the relationship between forces of production and relations of production, and is more reciprocal. In Marxism, the forces and relations of production together make up the mode of production or, roughly, the economy. Again, cultural materialism would observe, more than Marxism would, that the economy or infrastructure and structure more closely influence the substance of the superstructure. Only in the last instance do the forces of production determine the relations of production, and only ultimately does the mode of production control the superstructure using a Marxian model. The materialism of the Marxist is founded upon Hegelian dialectics; the philosophical foundation of cultural materialism is logical positivism.

Marxism, cultural ecology, and cultural materialism all begin with the first premise that the study of any social system is the dynamic interaction between people, as well as the dynamic interaction between people and nature. Because people come together in groups in the production of human subsistence, they are social animals. This is the foundation upon which society ultimately stands. In producing what people need to live, people also produce their corresponding set of ideas. In this way, it can be said that people are the creators of their history and ideology; though usually not in ways they are aware of. The process is historical because people are continually changed by the evolution of their productive forces, and they are always changing their relationships associated with these productive forces.

“Cultural core” is the central idea of cultural ecology. These are economic patterns because they are more directly related to other social, cultural, and political arrangements. The cultural core sets the limit of what is possible, rather than directly determining what other theorists would call superstructure. Current scholars in the field add the use of symbolic and ceremonial behavior to economic subsistence as an active part of the cultural core. The result of cultural beliefs and practices continuing sustainability of natural resources become more likely. Symbolic ideology is as important as economics in defining the cultural core. Through cultural decisions, people continually become accustomed to a changing environment. Cultural ecology is closer to Marxism than it is to cultural materialism.

Finally, in the debate between Hegelian dialectics and logical positivism as the philosophical foundation for methodological materialism, the radical behaviorism of B. F. Skinner stands closer to the cultural materialism of Marvin Harris.

The radical behaviorism of B. F. Skinner begins with the idea that psychology is the science of behavior and not the science of the mind. The ultimate source of behavior is the external environment, not the world of ideas. Skinner maintained behavioral explanations of psychological observable facts as physiological influences. Behavior includes everything that an organism does. Thinking and feeling are another example of behavior. All behavior is what psychologists try to explain. Skinner promoted the explanation that environmental characteristics are the correct causes of behavior. Environmental factors are external and separate from the behavior being studied and can influence behavior by manipulating the environment. Conditioning is caused by the influence of the total environment including physiology. Conditioning is also influenced by culture and the ability of the organism to learn its own history.  Each individual observes private events, like thinking, which is also a behavior. Introspection is also a behavior that is affected by the environment.

Radical behaviorism claims that behavior can be studied in the same manner as other natural sciences. Animal behavior is similar enough to human behavior that comparisons can be made. Ultimately, for all animals including humans, the environment is eventually the cause of the behavior that is studied; and an inclination for operant conditioning, or the modification of behavior.  The occurrence or nonappearance of rewards or punishment is conditional upon what the animal does. This is achieved through reinforcement of already existing behavior, either by introducing a stimulus to an organism's environment following a response, or by removing a stimulus from an organism's environment following a response. Reinforcement will cause a behavior to occur with a greater rate of recurrence. Punishment or removal of the stimulus, also called negative reinforcement, will lead to a decrease in frequency, leading to extinction of such behavior. By inflicting an aversive stimulus, a subject learns to avoid the stimulus by removing adverse stimuli.  The avoidance learning may still be in place for a time.

Consistent with the theory of operant conditioning, any behavior that is repetitively rewarded, without error, will be more rapidly changed than when behavior is reinforced sporadically. This will lead to a more constant occurrence of a particular behavior and is comparatively more resistant to extinction.

 

 

Michael Joseph Francisconi

University of Montana Western

 

Further Readings:

Afanaslev, A. G. (1987) Dialectical Materialism. New York: International Publishers.

 

Afanaslev, A. G. (1987) Historical Materialism. New York: International Publishers.

 

Bakunin, Michael (1970) God and the State.  New York: Dover.     

 

Cameron, Kenneth Neill (1995) Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science. New York: International Publishers.

 

Engels, Friedrich (1975) Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New York: International Publishers.

 

Engels, Friedrich (1977) Dialectics of Nature. New York: International Publishers.

 

Engels, Friedrich (1978) Anti-During. New York: International Publishers.

 

Foster, John Bellamy (2000). Marx’s Ecology: materialism and nature. New York: Monthly Review.

 

Harris, Marvin (1980) Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Vintage Books.

 

Harris, Marvin (1998) Theories of Culture in Postmodern Times. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

 

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1970) The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers.

 

Materialism. Reference.com. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/materialsm (accessed: February 27, 2007).

 

Skinner, B. F. (1974) About Behaviorism.  New York: Vintage Books.

 

Skinner, B. F. (1971) Beyond Freedom and Dignity.  New York: Vintage Books

 

Steward, Julian H. (1955) Theory of Culture Change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.

 

Vitzthum, Richard C. (1995) Materialism : an Affirmative History and Definition. Amherst, New York: Promethus Books.

 

White, Leslie A. (1949) The Science of Culture: A study of Man and Civilization.

New York: Noonday Press