Parametric determinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Parametric determinism refers to a Marxist interpretation of the course of history formulated by Prof. Ernest Mandel, and it could be viewed as one variant of Marx's historical materialism or as a philosophy of history.
In an article critical of the Analytical Marxism of Jon Elster, Mandel explains the idea as follows:
Dialectical determinism as opposed to mechanical, or formal-logical determinism, is also parametric determinism; it permits the adherent of historical materialism to understand the real place of human action in the way the historical process unfolds and the way the outcome of social crises is decided. Men and women indeed make their own history. The outcome of their actions is not mechanically predetermined. Most, if not all, historical crises have several possible outcomes, not innumerable fortuitous or arbitrary ones; that is why we use the expression ‘parametric determinism’ indicating several possibilities within a given set of parameters. [1]
Contents |
[edit] Brief explanation of the concept
One common problem in historical analysis is to understand to what extent the results of human actions can be attributed to free choices and decisions they made (or free will), and to what extent they are a product of social or natural forces beyond their control.
To solve this problem theoretically, Mandel suggests that in almost any human situation, some factors ("parameters") are beyond the control of individuals, while some other conditions are. Some things can under the circumstances be changed by human action, but others cannot and can be regarded as constants.
Those given, objective parameters which are beyond their control (and thus cannot be changed by them) limit the realm of possibilities in the future; they rule out some conceivable future developments. In that sense human action is "determined" and "determinate".
At the same time, however, the given parameters cannot usually determine in total what an individual or group will do, because they have at least some (and sometimes a great deal) of personal or behavioural autonomy. They can think about their situation, and make some free choices and decisions about what they will do, within the framework of what is objectively possible for them.
In this sense, Karl Marx had written:
"People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." [2]
[edit] Implications
The implications of this view are as follows:
- At any point in time, the outcomes of an historical process are partly predetermined, and partly uncertain because they depend on what human choices and decisions will be made in the present.
- While the past and the present rule out some courses of action, a human choice is always possible between a finite number of realistic options, which often enables the experienced analyst to specify the "most likely scenarios" of what could happen in the future. Some things cannot happen, and some things are more likely to happen than others.
- Once an important choice has been made and acted upon, this will have an effect on the realm of possibilities; in particular, it will shift to a greater or lesser extent the parameters delimiting what can happen in the future. Thus, once "a train of events has been set in motion", it will foreclose other possibilities, and also it might open up some new ones.
- The process of history is both determined, in that the parameters delimit the possible outcomes, but also open-ended, insofar as human action (or inaction) can change the historical outcomes within certain limits.
[edit] Perceptions and illusions
According to the theory of parametric determinism, the "human problem" in this context is usually not that human beings lack free choice or free will, or that they cannot in principle change their situation, but rather it is their awareness of the options open to them, and their belief in their own ability to act on them.
Perceptions of what people can change or act upon may vary a great deal, they might over-estimate it, or under-estimate it. Thus it may take scientific inquiry to find out what perceptions are realistic. At crucial points, humans can "make history" actively with a high awareness of what they are doing, changing the course of history, but they can also "be made by history" to the extent that they passively conform to (or are forced to conform to) a situation which is mostly not of their own making.
In this process of making choices within a given framework of realistic options, plenty of illusions are also possible, insofar as humans may have all kinds of gradations of (maybe false) awareness about their true situation. They may, as Mandel argues, not even be fully aware of what motivates their own actions [3]. Therefore, human action can have unintended consequences, including effects which are completely opposite to what was intended. This means that popular illusions can also shape the outcomes of historical events. If most people believe something to be the case, even although it is not true, this fact can also become a parameter limiting what can happen.
[edit] Skeptical criticism
Because this is so, some historians are skeptical about the ability of people to change the world for the better in any real and lasting way. However, it could be argued that this skepticism is based on perceptions of what people are able to know about their situation and their history. Ultimately, the skeptic believes that it is impossible for people to have sufficient knowledge of a kind that they can make any real change for the better, except perhaps in very small ways. This skeptical view does not necessarily imply a very "deterministic" view of history however; history could also be viewed as an unpredictable chaos. However, most politicians and political activists at least do not believe that history generally is an unpredictable chaos, because in that case their own standpoints would be purely arbitrary and be perceived as purely arbitrary. Usually, they would argue, the chaos is limited in space and time.
[edit] A dialectical view
Mandel believed that his theory of parametric determinism in history is a dialectical one, insofar as it interprets the dualism of free will versus determinism as a unity of opposites. If history was only a chaos or a combination of accidents, people would be unable to exercise free will by making choices between known options, let alone understanding history at all. If history on the other hand was totally pre-determined, people would not even be able to reach an awareness that they could change things, let alone make a free choice or decision. Yet if people were totally free to make their history as they choose, regardless of the given circumstances, it becomes impossible to understand why their choices often do not obtain the results which they intended. Thus, in a dialectical interpretation, human action must be viewed both as determined and as self-determining.
[edit] References
Ernest Mandel, "How To Make No Sense of Marx" (1989) in: Analyzing Marxism. New essays on Analytical Marxism, edited by Robert Ware & Kai Nielsen, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 15, 1989, The University of Calgary Press, pp.105-132.
Ernest Mandel, "Why I am a Marxist", in Gilbert Achcar (ed.), The Legacy of Ernest Mandel. London: Verso, 1999, pp. 232-259.
