the old normal

I fell into this book unexpectedly while searching for articles describing Marx’s method. The reviews on the web were favorable, but that’s often been the case for stinkers i’ve read in the past. For some reason, i took the bait this time and oh am i glad i did. i hope by reading this, you’ll be more interested in understanding Marx’s method too because i really believe in its value in conjunction with the many other epistemologies in use today. That’s enough of a preface, let’s begin.

Ollman has dedicated a big chunk of his career to the study of Marx’s method, and this book is a culmination of those effort. Dance of the Dialectic collects his best work on the subject in one volume. This means, of course, that it can be repetitive at times, but with a subject like dialectics, that’s actually a benefit. So few scholars, including most Marxian scholars, have little idea what dialectics really was to Marx: a complex web of interlocking parts that allowed him to dissect the world in new and interesting ways, to the end of contributing to an ongoing dialog of how capitalism works both theoretically and in practice. Ollman’s work fills the void Marx left by dying before he write his intended work on method.

“The notion of the interpenetration of opposites helps Marx to understand that nothing—no event, institution, person or process—is simply and solely what it seems to be at a particular place and time, that is, situated within a certain set of conditions. Viewing it in another way, or by other people, or under drastically changed conditions may produce not only a different but the exact opposite conclusion or effect… A losing strike in one context may serve as the start of a revolution in another… Looking for where and how such changes have already occurred and under what set of still-developing conditions new effects are likely to occur helps Marx gauge both the complexity of the part under examination and its dependence on the evolution of the system overall.”

Though he thoroughly covers three abstractions Marx used in his work, he gives short shrift to the four kinds of relations he identifies as central to dialectical inquiry: identity/difference, interpenetration of opposites, quantity/quality and contradiction. I’m still fuzzy on most of these, so i may have to look elsewhere to firm up my grasp. Maybe y’all can help.

Instead, Ollman puts considerable emphasis on abstraction by extension, levels of generality and vantage point. These, he claims, are crucial to solving the enigma of Marx that makes his writing so detested by graduate students.

Abstraction by extension, simply put, is looking at a process through an appropriately expanded view in time, space or both. Starting with an analysis, the dialectician focuses her lens a bit more broadly to pick up perceptions otherwise obscured by too close of concentration. As Ollman points out, this becomes incredibly useful in conjunction with the other two abstractions.

The second abstraction is level of generality. Ollman’s example goes a long way toward explaining this concept: “Operating rather like a microscope that can be set at different degrees of magnification, this mode of abstraction enables us to see the unique qualities of any part, or the qualities associated with its function in capitalism, or the qualities that belong to it as part of the human condition.”

Vantage point makes up the final abstraction Ollman discusses in detail. This is probably the most intuitive of the three. A researcher assumes the persona or perspective of a subject, understanding that relations are internal and objectivity is impossible. Sometimes, though, Marx (and Ollman) find it useful to fein objectivity to point out important relationships before tying them together into the web of internal relations. Vantage point allows for this style of analysis. Think of it as a sculptor, who has to view her subject from different angles in order to get a complete vision of the three dimensional object. But then add in ever-burning time and space (through abstraction by extension) and you have a truly powerful tool.

Ollman stresses the importance of both analysis and historical inquiry in his proposed dance. First, the researcher steps side to side, feeling out the surrounding textures of his subject. Then he steps backward to gain an understanding of historical process and how it relates to the development of his subject. Next, he steps two forward, past the present and into the “possible futures”. Peering backward, he reassesses the present from these futures to evaluate and detail his present understanding. Last, he steps back into the present and hops up to a new level of generality, beginning the whole dance once again.

It’s no jitterbug or whatever the kids are doing these days, but Ollman certainly makes Marx more accessible to people trying to unravel his unfinished projects and understand the effects of wicked crazy crises (i’m writing this on the train to Boston) like those we’re engulfed in today.

Posted in book review