Full autonomy of levels fails to explain complex social formation unity.

Evidence

Some theorists argue that all we can do is to deal with each level, in terms of its own specificity, and of the “conditions of existence” which must be fulfilled for it to function (e.g., the economic relations of the capitalist mode require, as a condition of existence, some extra-economic, juridical framework, which secures the “contract” between buyer and seller of labor-power). But, it is argued, the internal forms and specificities of the extra-economic levels can neither be prescribed nor identified from the economic level which “requires it,” as a formal necessity of its functioning. This is tantamount to a theory of the “autonomy” (not “relative autonomy”) of the different levels (Hirst 1976; Cutler et al. 1977). This, however, fails to deal with social formations as a “complex unity”: Marx’s “unity of many determinations.” — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 623

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes ‘autonomy’ from ‘relative autonomy’ of levels, and contrasts a conditions-of-existence approach with complex-unity analysis.
• XREF: connects to: Social division is constitutive and cannot be explained by any positive ground — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 604