Society operates as a complex formation structured in dominance with relative institutional autonomy

Evidence

The unity formed by this combination or articulation is always, necessarily, a “complex structure”: a structure in which things are related, as much through their differences as through their similarities. This requires that the mechanisms which connect dissimilar features must be shown—since no “necessary correspondence” or expressive homology can be assumed as given. It also means—since the combination is a structure (an articulated combination) and not a random association—that there will be structured relations between its parts, i.e., relations of dominance and subordination. Hence, in Althusser’s cryptic phrase, a “complex unity, structured in dominance.” — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 616 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Marxism attempts to understand a social formation as a “complex unity,” composed of different levels which exhibit their own “relative autonomy” while being determinate “in the last instance.” A particular conjuncture like the seventeenth-century Revolution is the result of the accumulation of contradictions stemming from each of those levels and the overdetermination of effects between the relatively autonomous instances. It is precisely in giving to any social formation the full complexity of this articulation, and in not assuming a “given,” simple, or immediate correspondence between the levels, that Marxism breaks with the expressive totality central to—among other traditions of thought—the Geisteswissenschaft approach outlined above. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 336 (#expands, via linked claim)

Here, however, different positions within the general problematic of “articulation” can be identified. 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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

Category: Definitional Content

Related

• Social formations are complex unities structured in dominance, not determined by a single cause (similarity 0.89)
• Full autonomy of levels fails to explain complex social formation unity. (similarity 0.87)
• Marxism reads social formations as overdetermined unities with relatively autonomous levels (similarity 0.87)
• Marxism conceives society as overdetermined relatively autonomous levels, not a simple unity (similarity 0.86)
• Superstructures may require relative autonomy to function at advanced capitalist stages. (similarity 0.85)
• Capitalist and formally pre-capitalist modes combine in structured dominance. (similarity 0.85)
• Social formation elements articulate with each other in complex ways (similarity 0.83)
• A social formation is a structured complex where no single practice reduces to another. (similarity 0.82)
• Marxism’s relative autonomy model rejects the expressive totality of Geisteswissenschaft thought (similarity 0.82)
• Marx’s 1857 Introduction supports viewing social formation as an articulated hierarchy. (similarity 0.81)
• Later Marx saw superstructures as relatively autonomous rather than mechanically determined (similarity 0.80)
• Articulation links different social structures through their differences, not their identities. (similarity 0.80)
• No single practice (like economics) determines all others; overdetermination does. (similarity 0.80)
• Articulation is a non-necessary linkage connecting ideology to social forces under specific conditions (similarity 0.80)
• Social formations form complex unities structured in dominance rather than expressive identities. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Social formations form complex unities structured in dominance rather than expressive identities. #corroborates (0.90) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 616
• Marxism reads social formations as overdetermined unities with relatively autonomous levels #expands (0.85) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 336
• Full autonomy of social levels cannot capture a social formation’s complex unity #corroborates (0.80) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 623
• Capitalist and formally pre-capitalist modes combine in structured dominance. #exemplifies (0.70) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 609
• Dominance is maintained through unstable equilibria that concede some subordinate interests #complicates (0.60)