Rethinking Marxism Volume 4 Issue 2 1991 [Doi 10.1080%2F08935699108657965] Milberg, William --...

8/22/2019 Rethinking Marxism Volume 4 Issue 2 1991 [Doi 10.1080%2F08935699108657965] Milberg, William -- Marxism, P

1/14

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 09 October 2012, At: 13:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Rethinking Marxism: A Journal ofEconomics, Culture & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrmx20

Marxism, Poststructuralism, and the

Discourse of Economists

William Milberg

Version of record first published: 05 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: William Milberg (1991): Marxism, Poststructuralism, and the Discourse of

Economists, Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 4:2, 92-104

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08935699108657965

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use ofthis material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrmx20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08935699108657965http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrmx20


2/14

RADICAL CONOMICS

Downloadedby[McGillUniversityLibrary]at13:3109October2012


3/14

Marxism, Poststructuralism, and theDiscourse of EconomistsWilliam Milberg

It took a Chicago-trained, libertarian economist to blow apart accepted views ofeconomic methodology and introduce poststructuralism to economics. McCloskey(1983, 1985, 1988) has criticized current practice in economics in the name ofantimodernism and antipositivism, but the gist of his ideas are typical of poststruc-turalist thought. Economics is argume nt, according to Mc Clos key, and its claim totruth is based entirely on the persuasiveness of the argument. The implications ofhis work are profound and potentially troublesome for economists-neoclassical,Post-Keynesian, and Marxian alike.

Poststructuralist theory has traditionally been app lied to literary texts. But apply-ing the poststructuralist theory of mea ning , subjectivity, and ideology to economicstexts provides a new view o f econ om ics. Reading an econom ics text as literatureallows us to explore its particular construction of economic reality through itsimplicit rhetoric and its ideology.* Each economic paradigm poses as universal itsparticular conception of what is natural and what is social, what determinesvalue and what constitutes an economic agent.

Yet the challenges posed by poststructuralist thought to each economic paradigmare quite varied. For neoclassical thought, a poststructuralist critique reveals itsliberal humanist ideology, that is, its positing of capitalist economic relations asnatural, economic agents as universal and coherent, and economic discourse asautonomous and inevitably resolved of contradiction. Poststructuralisms challengeto Marx ian thoug ht is epistem olo gica l, opposing its traditional essentialism w ith amore relativistic notion of truth.M ore im portan t, perhaps, fo r econ om ic analysis, the challenge is over the choiceof theories. If meaning is constructed only within the complete system of language,



4/14

94 Milberg

how can different economic discourses be evaluated for their relative merit orvalidity? Are economists reduced to Feyerabends (1975) theoretical anarchy ? Oris it possible to develo p criteria for judg ing competing eco nom ic paradigms? Thetheory-choice dilemma is perhaps most profound for Marxian economics, whoseclaims to scientificity traditionally hinge on the assertion of objective productionrelations. Marxian economists have, implicitly or explicitly, responded to thepoststructuralist critique in a wide variety of ways. In this pape r, 1 first elabora te theimplications of poststructuralist thought for three of the major paradigms in eco-nomics (neoclassical, Post-Keynesian, and Marxian), then briefly delineate fivedistinct Marxian approaches and suggest a potential direction for a Marxian-poststructuralist economics.

Meaning, Subjectivity, and IdeologyMcCloskeys work on the rhetoric of economics sparked interest in the issue of

the role of language in the creation of meaning in contemporary economic analysis.McC loskey calls fo r the recognition of the rhetorical dimension of ec ono mi c theoryand thus an abandonment of the false pretense of positivism. Acknowledging therhetorical element is to accept that economic language contains certain elements-ploys-aimed at subtly persuading the reader of the validity of an argum ent.McCloskey says that these tactics are not unethical or unscientific but, to thecon trary, appropriate fo r and typical of scientific endeavor in econom ics. H e deniesthe existence of an absolute standard of truth against which competing economictheories may be judged, calling simply for more honesty and less jargo n in debatesover economic theories: Self-consciousness about metaphor in economics wouldbe an improvement on many counts (1983, 507).However, McCloskey fails to recognize the importance of the sociality oflanguage fo r meaning and subjectivity. Giv en this weakness, it is not surprising thathe avoids discussion of how the language of economics is ideological. While hecorrectly points to the active role of language in economic argu me nts, he stops shortof analyzing the social and unconscious dimensions of language. But these areprecisely the issues that poststructuralism has addressed since the 1960s. In thissense, poststructuralist thought is perfectly compatible with Marxian economicanalysis and its emphasis on the endogenous nature of culture and c o n sc i~ u sn e s s. ~

I . The term poststructuralist w ill be used here as an abb reviation , an easy way to indicate certainnotions that run through many schools of thought that have come into the fore since the mid-I960s,including sem iotics, narrative theory, new historicism, French fem inism, cultural criticism, and othe rs.Some of the important concepts common to these schools of thought are the nonreferentiality oflanguage, the cultural construction of subjectivity, the diffusion of power in communication, and thenotion of ideology as a pervasive, naturalizing tendency in language. For a concise overview ofpoststructuralism, see Belsey (1980) or Noms (1982). Also, see the next section.2. Ideology is defined here, following Descombes (1980, 137), as a particular discourse, seeking topass itself off as universal or absolute.3. See Eagleton (1976, chap. I ) for a concise treatment of the Marxian conception of culture.



5/14

Marxian Economics and Poststructuralism 95But for poststructuralism the sociality of culture and meaning is not rooted purely

in the economic realm but in language itself. More precisely, meaning is createdonly in relation to the entire system of words and symbols, that is, the semioticsystem. Meaning is not due to any fixed relation between language (the words) andthe real world:Signification [me aning ] depen ds not on the correlation of signs w ith bits of reality, buton the order of signs among themselves . . . Meaning is an endless chain of semiosis(Frow 1986, 57, 64).Following from the poststructuralist theory of meaning is its theory of the

constitu$on of the subject. The identity of the subject, or individual, does not existin some a priori or objective sense but is constituted in the signification process. Theprocess of signification is the process of the subject itself:As well as being a system of signs related among themselves, language incarnatesmeaning in the form of the series of positions it offers the subject from which to graspitself and its relation with the real (Nowell-Smith 1976, 26).Finally, the poststructuralist approach views ideology as that dimension oflanguage that poses the discourse as universal, completely general, that is, objec-tive. Ideology hides the particularity of the discourse and thus of its subject.Ideology suppresses the role of language in the construction of the subject (Belsey1980, 61). As a result, ideology serves to naturalize power.Deconstruction allows an analysis of the ideological nature of the text. Decon-structing the text is the process of analyzing the conventions used to create meaning,making it possible to tear away the veil, reveal the signifier-signified connection asthe uninnocent convention (however politically bolstered) it is (Hawkes 1977,120).To deconstruct, then, is to reinscribe and resituate meanings, events and objectswithin broader movements and structures; i t is, so to speak, to reverse the imposingtapestry in order to expose in all its unglamorously dishevelled tangle the threadsconstituting the well-heeled image it presents to the world (Eagleton 1986, 80).While deconstruction is traditionally applied to literary texts, there is no reasonwhy it cannot also be applied to economics texts. Economics texts are surprisinglysimilar to literary texts-in their styles of persuasion, the relation between authorand reader, the role of the narrator, and even the dynamics of the plot. If weconsider economic discourse as literary, we may apply to it the tools of contempo-rary literary theory. The use of literature as a metaphor reveals the particularity (andfrailty) of each of the competing economic discourses and their construction of

the economic. Poststructuralism and its conceptions of meaning, subjectivity, andideology, provides a potentially powerful foundation for the analysis of the dis-course of economists.



6/14

96 MilbergPoststructuralism and Neoclassical Discourse4

Neoclassical economics bears a remarkable resemblance to classic realist litera-ture. Consider the following description of a typical classic realist literary text:Classic realism presents individuals whose traits of character, understood as essentialand predominantly given, constrain the choices they make, and whose potential fordevelopment depends on what is given . . . The consistency and continuity of thesubject provide the conceptual framework of classic realism, but it is characteristic ofthe action of the story, the narrative process itself, to disrupt subjectivity . . . But themovement of classic realist narrative towards closure ensures the reinstatement oforder, sometimes a new order, sometimes the old restored, but always intelligiblebecause familiar (Belsey 1980, 80).

In comparison, neoclassical discourse typically posits rational agents (firms, con-sumers) making choices under constraints (preferably constraints unexplored inprevious analysis), resulting in an equilibrium solution. In the neoclassical concep-tion the individual economic agent (the texts subject) is naturally, as opposed tosocially, constructed. Neoclassical analysis is the tracing out of the implications ofthe rational pursuit of the natural agents objective in a society marked byscarcity. Because individual agent preferences are purely subjective, the theoryposes as value-free. By presenting the subject as innocent and noncontradictory,neoclassical discourse is ideological. Deconstructing the neoclassical text uncoversthis ideology, that is, its particularity, under its veil of objectivity and genera lity. Italso goes beyond McCloskeys (1985) exploration of the rhetoric of economiclanguage by focusing on the econom ist/authors conscious and unconscious tech-niques of generating meaning.Neoclassical discourse is aimed at establishing the universality of its categories(the utility function, for example, poses as permanently and generally relevant). Atthe same time, these categories are given an appearance of historical specificity, forexample, by the use of a term such as North-South in a two-country, one factormodel of international trade. The language presents its subject and its author asautonomous. The presentation of the subject as a unified, autonomous whole isepitomized by the language of rationality and coherence in describing behavior bythe economics agent. Since, as claimed by the poststructuralists, the individual-consc ious and unconscious-gains identity in relation to the full semiotic system,then to deny the full role of language in the constitution of the sub ject is to deny thatsubjects sociality. Language, in this view, has a fixed meaning. The subject is aconsistent, noncontradictory whole. The establishment of the authors innocence orautonomy also contributes to the sense of realism of the text: the innocent authoronly portrays the (objective) truth.Neoclassical discourse regularly appeals to the need for closure ( i.e ., equilibri-4. For a more extended treatment of the material in this section, and an application to the neoclassicaltheory of international trade, see Milberg (1988).



7/14

Marxian Economics an d Poststructuralism 97um) and yet throughout the text such closure is temporarily disrupted. The sense ofrupture, suspense, or disorder fundamental to the classic realist text results from thehierarchy of discourse. The reader of the text knows-has been explic itly told-thatthe model gives an equilibrium result. But temporary diversions are created. Thismay involve the dropping of an assumption previously believed crucial or theimposition of a seemingly conflicting set of forces. The hierarchy of discourse alsooperates at the level of the author and hid he r admiss ion of the models limitations orcontradictions. This has the effect of naturalizing the peculiarities of the model,which is presented as the discourse subordinate to the authors. Deconstructing theneoclassical text reveals the peculiarity of its conception of economic life, aconception grounded only by its presumption of generality.

Poststructuralism and Post-Keynesian DiscourseThe relation between poststructuralist and Post-Keynesian thought is perhapsmore ambiguous than that between poststructuralism and the other economic para-digms. Post-Keynesian discourse is epistemologically modernist, yet maintainsfewer of the modernist notions in its conception of the economic subject and ofhistory. Among Post-Keynesian economists (as within all paradigms) there is adivergence of epistemological positions, ranging from the empiricist (Eichner 1983;Sylos-Labini 1984) to essentialist (Steedman 1979; Davidson 197 8). Among the

essentialists, there is a strong disagreement over the true essence of economicphenomena between the neo-Ricardians and the Fundamentalist Keyne~ians.~t isonly the latter group that holds strongly antimodernist conceptions of the subjectand history. These deserve further discussion.The Fundamentalist Keynesian emphasis on expectations and uncertainty in theconception of the subject is perhaps the most poststructuralist approach in all ofeconomics. Th e Fundamentalist Keynesian subject, the consumer or entrepreneur,is not viewed as fully coherent in the sense that he/she is assumed to have verylimited information. Uncertainty is clearly distinguished from risk; that is, agentsare assumed not to know the probability distribution of future events. This is due tothe non-ergodic nature of economic evolution. Moreover, crucial decisionsfundamentally alter the present in an irreversible way, rendering the present verymuch a function of the past as well as of expectations about an uncertain future.6In part because of these features, Fundamentalist Keynesian discourse stronglyresists the notion of an inevitable closure, especially in the form of equilibrium.This group is wary of the equilibrium method of all schools of thought, emphasizinginstead the historical method. Yet epistemologically, the Fundamentalist Keynes-5 . The term Fundamentalist Keynesian is used here only to distinguish this group from the neo-Ricardians.6. On the notion of non-ergodicity, and a critique of the neoclassical concepts of risk and rationalexpectations, see Davidson (1987). Regarding crucial decisions and their implications for economicchange and uncertainty, see Shackle (1972).7 . See Shapiro (1978) and Davidson (1978, chap. 2) .



8/14

98 Milbergians are as essentialist as the Realist Marxian school discussed below. That is, theyassert an objective reality (albeit defined by certain culturally determined, psycho-logical behavioral patterns) without question. For example, in his summary critiqueof mainstream macroeconomics, Davidson remarks:

Hence, every quarter century or so, it has been necessary to stand back, to return tosquare one, and restate the essential principles of the real world so that furtherprogress can be made (1978, 360).This juxtaposition of an awareness of the incoherence and disjointedness of eco-nomic life with an uncritical appeal to epistemological essentialism places Post-Keynesian economics in a unique position vis-a-vis poststructuralist thought. *

Poststructuralism and Marxian DiscoursePoststructuralism, like McCloskeys work on the rhetoric of economics, is adouble-edged sword for Marxian economists. On one hand, as described above, therhetorical approach provides a new angle from which to attack the purely ideologi-cal nature of neoclassical economics. On the other, McCloskeys claim that eco-nomics is argument, and thus offers no absolute truths, threatens Marxian eco-nomics at its epistemological core. If economics has no claim on truth then neither

does the appeal to objective social relations that provides the foundation for mostMarxian analysis.A poststructuralist analysis of economic discourse thus poses different problemsfor Marxian from those for neoclassical thought. Essential to Marxian theory is thateconomic agents (workers, capitalists, rentiers) are viewed as socially determined,that is, as being identified in terms of their relation to the means of production.Marxian discourse traditionally presumes the objectivity of economic relations. Butthis notion is directly opposed to the poststructuralist view that meaning (reality) isdetermined only in relation to the complete system of signsAulture. Thus, manyhave pointed to the irreconcilable differences between deconstruction and Marxism:Deconstruction is inimical to Marxist thought at the point where it questions thevalidity of any science or method set up in rigid separation from the play of textualmeaning (Norris 1982, 83).For Marxian economists, the importance of the epistemological debate is its

8 . For an excellent treatment of the postmodernist element in the work of Shackle and the Fun-damentalist Keynesians, see Amariglio (1990).9. The reviews of McCloskeys book in the Review of Radical Polirical Economics exhibit moredefensiveness about the latter point than reflection on the forme r (Stewart 1987 ; Gleic her 1 987; Klamer1987). A number of reviewers have even registered suspicion that McCkoskeys intent is to revive MiltonFriedmans Essays in Positive Economics by denying the importance of realism of assumptions (seeSamuels 1984 and Gleicher 1987).



9/14

Marxian Economics and Poststructuralism 99

implication for the problem of judging the relative merits of competing theories.The theory-choice dilemm a is opened up because, when the objectivity of knowl-edge is doubted, the theories used to pursue knowledge and truth must be re-evaluated for their validity. While there may be only two basic epistemologicalpositions, essen tialist and antiessentialist, with Marxist economists lining up in eachcamp, there exist more than two sets of criteria for ranking the relative merits oftheories. l o Thus, within each epistemological category there may be numerousstances on the theory-choice problem. Overall, I have identified five categories ofresponses by Marxian economists to this problem . Two of these-Realists andEmpiricists-share essentialist epistemological positions. The other three groups-Overdeterminists, Globalists, and Localists-adopt, explicitly or implicitly, anti-essentialist epistemological positions.Essentialism in Marxian discourse is figured as determinism, be it economic ornoneconomic. Most essentialism in Marxian economics is of course economicdeterm inism. But again, all essentialist Marxian economic discourse does notshare the sam e criterion for theory choice. Th e Realist group holds the essentialistposition that there exists an objective set of relations and forces of production whichare the proper study of economics. The preferred theory is that which best describesthese relations. Introspection seems to be the main criterion for judging the relativemerits of theories:

The essence and goal of theory are then understood to be the adequate representation inthought o f its extra-theoretical object . . . If there are different theories, for such athinker, one is right (i.e., correct, adequate, verified, true, etc.) and theothers wrong or , m ore charitably, further from the singular truth (Resnick and W olff1985, xxi).For the Realists, there exists a labor process and Marxian theory reflects this moreaccurately than does neoclassical theory. I 2 There are, of course, differences withinthis group, for example, between the Fundamentalist and Monopoly Capitalschools.3

The Empiricist group shares the essentialist epistemological position of theRealists, but differs on the question of theory choice. For this group, the preferredtheory is that which best predicts economic phenomena. Theories are potentiallyfalsifiable using facts (data) observed in the world. The work of Bowles,Gordon, and Weisskopf (1983, 1986) is perhaps the most prominent representation10. It is of interest that Marxist literary critics also vary widely in their response to poststructuralism.Terry Eagleto n has resisted the poststructuralist question ing of the objectivity of production relation s. Hestates, materialism must insist on the irreducibility of the real to discourse (197 6, 51). On the otherextrem e, John Frow (1 98 6) has embraced the poststructuralist epistem ology and theory of history .Between these extreme positions is that of Fredric Jameson (1984, 82), who asserts that while the realexists, our only access to it is in textual form.1 1 . But there is a strain of noneconomic determinism as well; see Bowles and Gintis (1985).12. See, for example, Baran and Sweezy (1966). Shaikh (1978). and Amin (1977).13. See Sherman (1985) for a lively discussion of these differences.



10/14

100 Milberg

of this view. Of course, many Realists resort to empiricism and there are Empiri-cists who hold essentialist theoretical positions. The a ttempt here is to bring out thedifferences in emphasis in theory-choice criteria.The Overdeterminist group has embraced m ore fully the relativist epistemologi-cal position of poststructuralism (and M cCloskey) than any other Marxian econo-mists. By denying that there is any absolute or objective truth, this group seesdifferent economic pardigms simply as alternative sets of sentences with whichpeople can and do make sense of the ~ o r l d . ~o way of talking has any priorityover any other and thus theory choice is a question of individual preference. Wolffand Resnick see all phenomena as overdetermined:

Each aspect of society . . . is dependent on all the other aspects. No event or aspect of asociety in independent; nothing determines other things without itself being de-termined by them (1987, 21).Overdeterminists see theory choice itself a s overdetermined. That is, the choice ofone theory as true or superior depends on many personal and social factors,including ones age, sex, religion, schooling, and class interest:

The logic o f overdeterm ination requires Marxists to reject the idea that any onebasis-such as conse qu enc es-c an determine theoretical choices. Marxian logic com -pels the view that just as class processes themselves are overdetermined, so too are thetheories that exist in any society as well as the choices individuals make among them(Wolff and Resnick 1987, 261).Overdeterminists see theory choice as depending on the interests of the chooserand the perceived consequences of the theory (Wolff and Resnick 1987, 256-58).The overdetermination approach is explicitly antiessentialist. There can be noessential cause or ultimate determinant because all factors are themselves over-determined. T he O verdeterminists are thus critical of the Realists and the Empiri-cists for maintaining a belief in some objective economic reality and for identifyingthese relations as the ultimate cause of all social phenomena.

While the Overdeterminists embrace the rhetoric approach most exp licitly, otherMarxian economists reject essentialism but do not necessarily share the Over-determinist criteria (or lack thereof) for judging the relative merits of theories. Tw oother groups merit review: Globalists and Localists.The G lobalist position is that certain behavioral patterns and social structures aresomew hat independent of the particular mode of production. History is the outcome14. See W olff and Resnick (1987, 13). Note that this view differs from McClo skey s. McCloskey relieson Rortys concept of a consensus theory of truth, that is, that truth is what we agree on.15 . See Resnick and Wolff (1985, xxiii). At the same time, the Overdeterminists are careful todistinguish themselves from non-Marxist relativists. They reject the uncritical acceptance of the hierar-chy of knowledge by McCloskey and Rorty and instead seek to understand (i .e ., sociologically) why. forexam ple, certain theories dominate at a given historical moment. S ee Resnick and Wolff (1987, chap. 1,especially n. 33).



11/14

Marxian Economics and Poststructuralism 101

of the complex interaction among these patterns and particular economic forma-tions. Thus, for example, Heilbroner (1985, 19-25) speaks of the nature and logicof social formations in general. For him, history is the establishment of socialforms into which the primal energies of human nature must be poured. Thereis a universal necessity for the bestowal and receipt of libidinal energy . . . oedipalconflicts. The Globalists position is certainly not economic determinist andgenerally not essentialist in that they seek no single causal factor. Their analysis isMarxian in that they see the capitalist mode of production as fundamentallyexploitative. Theory choice for the Globalists depends on the descriptive richnessregarding this interaction of structural tendencies and historical particularities.Since such theory has been outside the traditional realm of economics, it is perhapseasiest to find examples in economic anthropology, for example, Sahlins (1972).

The Localist group focuses on power in each of its particular manifestations,whether or not they are explicable within the traditional Marxian class framework ofexploitation. Some Marxist feminist research would fit this category. 6 Localistshave been unfairly dismissed as either essentialists opposed to economic determin-ism or as watered-down Overdeterminists.17 But the Localists are not just es-sentialists who replace the economy with, say, patriarchy. Theirs is an approachconcerned with the hierarchy of causal forces (and thus not strictly overdeterminist),yet unconcerned with ultimate causes or totalization because of a focus on particularmanifestations of power (thus nonessentialist). 8 Power is both cause and effect. Ofinterest to Localists is the particular form of power and the process by which thisform takes shape. The positing of essential causes is clearly unnecessary. Butneither is overdetermination crucial to the analysis.

For Localists, theories are judged not according to any global criterion butaccording to their ability to expose the forces determining, and the nature of, theparticular manifestation of power in a given instance. That is, a theory would bechosen according to its ability to show how meaning reflects power:

t he r e l evan t c r i t e r ion is t ha t o f the r e l a t ions be tween d i s cour se and power , t heint r icat ion of power in di scour se . W e w o u l d be spec i f i ca l ly concerned wi th theins t i tu tions , t he fo rm s o f t r ansmis s ion and d i f fus ion , and the pedagogica l forms w h i c himpose and main ta in d i s cour ses and which con ta in d i s s en t ing or marginal pos i t ionswi th in ce r t a in l imi t s (F row 1986, 68).

16. See, for example, Beneria and Roldan (1987) and Albers (1985).17. The criticism of the Marxist Feminists and other Localists as being essentialist can be found inResnick and Wolff (1987, 43). The cooptation of the Localist position by Overdeterminists is attemptedin the discussion of Foucault in Amariglio et al. (1988). See also n . 15. Oddly, the Localists have notresponded to these attacks from the Overdeterminists. The response to Resnick and Wolff by Marxisteconomists has come mainly from those in the Realist group , and has consisted mainly of hostile. crudeappeals to the truth of economic determinism; see Dugger (1988) and Kanth (1988).18. While the Overdeterminists have claimed Foucault as one of their own (Amariglio et al. 1988;Amariglio 1988 ), one could also interpret Fouc aults work on truth and power as supporting a Localistperspective; see Smart (1984).



12/14

102 MilbergLocalist methodology will often take the form of case studies, combined with arecognition of the particular discursive positions of the author and subject. 9

Towards a Poststructuralist-Marxian EconomicsThe rhetorical or poststructuralist approach to economics denies the objectivityof any representation of the forces or relations of production, but not their sociality.

In fact, such an approach provides a firm ground (in communication and semiotics)on which to base the argument that economic phenomena are social and notdetermined naturally, as in the neoclassical assumption of natural preferences andtechnology and, accordingly, of prices, wages, and profits. Thus, while at firstglance the poststructuralist approach appears fundamentally opposed t o Marx ism, ina number of w ays it is not. Resnick and W olff (1987) have outlined on e link in theiroverdeterminist-Marxian model. Another link between Marxism and poststructural-ism is their shared em phasis on the sociality of discourse and thus on the creation ofparticular constellations of power. The key in the Marxist confrontation ofpoststructuralism is to recognize that, while the latter denies the validity of es-sentialism (economic determinism or other wise), it provides support for the notionof the sociality of the subject and thus of economic relations and exploitation.Meaning and individual subjectivity are created in the process of social interaction.For Marxian economists such an emphasis allows an analysis of the role of power inall forms of social interaction. That such an approach may be essentialist orantiessentialist is perhaps less important than the ability of Marxist economists touse the social critique implicit in poststructuralism to focus on power and exploita-tion.

The Overdeterminists are the only U.S. Marxian economists who have directlyaddressed the epistemological questions posed by poststructuralist thought. Wehave se en, how ever, that their views reflect just one of five Marxian approaches tothe theory-choice debate in economics. Marxian economists holding these otherpositions must begin to confront the difficult question s posed f or social science bypoststructuralism. In particular, I have argued that Marxian econom ists wh o acceptthe antiessentialism of poststructuralism in order to capture its important notion ofsubjectivity and power need not necessarily adopt a strict overdeterminist approachin choosing economic theories. Economic discourse may be antiessentialist withoutnecessarily being overdeterminist. By studying the form and causes of power inparticular (local) instances, economists may argue for a hierarchy of causal factorswithout designating any as the ultimate determinant.19. Such work may appear more anthropological than economic, that is , more interpretive. SeeKlamer and McCIoskey (1989).

An earlier version of this pape r was presented at the Marxism Now conference inAmherst, MA in December 1989. I would like to thank Bruce Pietrykowski, Hedy



13/14

Marxian Economics and Pos ts t ruc tura l i sm 103

Ka l i k o ff , A d a m L u t z k e r , R a d h ik a B a la k r i s h n a n , S t e p h e n R e s n i c k , a n d p a r t i c ip a n t sin the P o l i ti c a l E c o n o m y S e m in a r at the U nivers i ty o f M ic hig an f o r r u i ~ ~ li scus -s ion and cr i t i c i sm . Rem ain ing mis in terpre ta t ions a re m y respons ib i l i t y .

ReferencesAlbers, P. C . 1985. Autonomy and Dependency in the Lives of Dakota Wom en: A Study inHistorical Change. Review of Radical Political Economics 17 (Fall): 109-34.Amariglio, J. 1988. The Body, Econom ic Discourse, and Power: An Economists Introduc-tion to Foucault. History of Political Economy 20 (4): 583-613.

. 1990. Econom ics as a Postmodern D iscourse. In Economics as Discourse, ed. W.Samuels, 1 5 4 6 . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Amariglio, J . ; Resnick, S.; and Wolff, R. 1988. Class, Power and Culture. In Marxismand the Interpretation of Culture, ed . C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 487-501. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.Amin, S . 1977. Imperialism and Unequal Development. New Y ork: Monthly Review Press.Baran, P. and Sweezy, P . 1966. Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Belsey, C. 1980. Critical Practice. London: Methuen.Beneria, L. and Roldan, M. 1987. The Crossroads of Class and Gend er. Chicago: UniversityBowles, S. and Gintis, H . 1985. Democracy and Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.Bowles, S . ; Gordon, D.; and Weisskopf, T. 1983. Beyond the Waste Land: A DemocraticAlternative to Economic Decline. New York: Anchor PressIDoubleday .

. 1986. Power and Profits: The Social Structure of Accumulation and the Profitabil-ity of the Postwar U . S . Economy. Review of Radical Poli fical Economics 18 (Springand Summer): 132-67.

of Chicago Press.

Davidson, P. 1978. Money and the Real World. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.. 1987. Sensible Expectations and the Long-Run Non-Neutrality of Money. Journal

Descombes, V. 1980. Modern French Philosophy. Trans. L. Fox and J. Harding. Cam-Dugger, W . 1988. Review of Knowledge and Class. History of Political Economy 20(4):Eagleton, T. 1976. Marxism and Literary Criticism. Berkeley: University of California

of Post Keynesian Economics 10 (Fall): 146-53.bridge: Cambridge University Press.688-90.Press.. 1986. Against the Grain. London: Verso.Eichner, A . S . 1983. Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science. In Why Economics Is Nor Yet a

Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.Frow, J . 1986. Marxism and Literary History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Gleicher, D. 1987. Review of The Rhetoric of Economics. Review of Radical PoliticalHawkes, T. 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Heilbroner, R. 1985. The Nature and Logic of Capitalism. New York: Norton.Jameson, F. 1984. The Political Uncon scious: Narrative as Socially Symbolic Act . Ithaca:Kanth, R. 1988. Review of Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. Review of RadicalKlamer, A. 1987. Review of The Rhetoric of Economics. Review of Radical Political

Science, ed . A. S . Eichner , 2 0 5 4 1 . Armonk, NY: M.E . Sharpe .London: New Left Books.

Economics 19 (Fall): 85-86.

Cornell University Press.Political Economics 20 (Spring): 132-33.Economics 19 (Fall): 8CL83.



14/14

104 MilbergKlamer, A. and McCloskey, D. 1989. The Rhetoric of Disagreement. Rethinking MarxismMcCloskey, D. 1983. The Rhetoric of Economics. Journal o Economic Literature 21:2 (Fall): 140-61.48 1-5 17 .

. 1985. The Rhetoric o Economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.. 1988. The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric. In The Consequences o Eco-nomic Rhetoric, ed. A. Klamer, D. McCloskey, and R. Solow, 28 e 9 4 . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Milberg, W. 1988. The Language of Economics: Deconstructing the Neoclassical Text.Social Concept 4 (June): 33-57.Noms, C. 1982. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London: Methuen.Nowell-Smith, G . 1976. A Note on History/Discourse. Edinburgh 76Magazine 1:26-32.Resnick, S., and Wolff, R. 1985. Introduction: Solutions and Problems. In RethinkingMarxism: Essays fo r Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy, ed . S . Resnick and R. Wolff,ix-xxxiv. New York: Autono media.. 1987. Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique o Political Economy. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Rorty, R. 1984. Foucault and Epistemology. In Foucault: A Critical Reader, ed . D . C .Hoy, 4 1 4 9 . New York: Basil Blackwell.Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.Samu els, W . 1984. Com ments on McCloskey on Methodology and Rhetoric. In Researchin the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, vol. 2, ed. W. Samuels,207-10. Gre enw ich, CT : JAI Press.Shackle, G. L. S. 1972. Epistemics and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Shaik h, A. 1978. An Introduction to the History of Crisis The ories. In U S . apitalism inCrisis, ed. Union for Radical Political Economics, 21940. New York: MonthlyReview Press.Shapiro, N. 1978. Keynes and Equilibrium Economics. Australian Economic PapersDecember: 207-23.Sherman, H. 1985. Monopoly Capital vs. the Fundamentalists. In Rethinking Marxism:Essays for Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy, ed. S . Resnick and R. W olff, ix-xxxiv.New York: Autonomedia.Smart, B. 1984. The Politics of Truth and the Problem of Hegemony. In Foucault: ACritical Reader, ed. D. C. Hoy, 157-173. New York: Basil Blackwell.Steedman, I. 1979. Trade Amongst C rowing Economies. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Steward, H. 1987. Review of The Rhetoric o Economics. Review o Radical PoliticalEconomics 19 (Fall): 83-85.Sylos-Labini, P. 1984. The Forces o Economic G rowth and Decline. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.Wolff, R. and Resnick, S. 1987. Economics: M arxian versus Neoclassical. Baltimore: Th eJohns Hopkins University Press.


Rethinking Marxism Volume 4 Issue 2 1991 [Doi 10.1080%2F08935699108657965] Milberg, William --...

Documents

Transcript of Rethinking Marxism Volume 4 Issue 2 1991 [Doi 10.1080%2F08935699108657965] Milberg, William --...