The Manifesto of Structuralism

The Savage Mind (Paperback)
Levi-Strauss, Claude / Univ of Chicago Pr / 1968년 9월

구조주의가 대중화된 것은 이책의 출판과 함께이다. 개인적으로는 구조주의의 논리를 싫어한다. 앞으로 50년후에도 구조주의를 이름이라도 기억하는 사람이 있을지 의심스럽다. 지금도 레비스트로스를 읽는 사람이 읽을까? 그러나 구조주의 또는 포스트구조주의를 이해하려면 이책부터 시작하라. 실제 인류학 연구에서 레비스트로스가 어떻게 구조주의를 생각하게 되었는지 아주 명료하게 볼 수 잇다. 인류학의 사례를 통해 논리를 전개하기 때문에 읽기도 아주 쉽다. 그리고 적어도 이책에서 제시된 논리는 구조주의란 유행을 떠나 아직도 유효하다

다음은 내가 아마존에 섰던 리뷰이다.

hmmmm..... I can't see why this book has got such humble and unskilled review till now. This book is the easiest material to understand the tenet of structuralism. Personally I don't like the disposition of structuralism at all and I suspect whether in 50 years, anybody remember that kind of school existed at all except writers of history of philosophy.
Anyway, this book made structuralism floating on the vogue with its ease to understand and constructed the intellectual fashion of structuralsim which dominated the whether of discourse in human science in the 1960s and 1970s. Yep. now nobody read Levi-Strauss, even anthropolgists don't read his books. But if you want to understand structuralism, post-structuralsim and postmodernism, you'd better begin with this book for it's the easiest and fun to read.

사회과학의 존재론

The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Paperback)
Giddens, Anthony / Univ of California Pr / 1986년 3월

이책을 보면 하이데거가 생각난다. 인식론위주의 철학에 대해 논의가 비생산적인 이유는 존재론적인 기초를 따져보지 않았기 때문이라고 말하던 하이데거가 생각난다. 기든스가 하려는 일도 사회과학의 논의는 존재론 즉 사회란 존재자에 대한 이론이 성립되어야 생산적이라 주장한다고 볼 수 있다. 파슨스 이후 사회이론은 백가쟁명의 시대였다. 개인적으로 기든스의 이론이 가장 유력한 이론이 아닐까 생각된다. 그러나 기든스는 어렵다. 그의 철학적 백그라운드를 따라잡기는 정말 힘들다.

다음은 내가 아마존에 섰던 리뷰이다.

I think Giddens' structuration theory is the most promising theory since collapse of Parsons' framework.I read this book at undergraduate for the first time. while I studied Husserl and Heidegger at the same time. this help me understand Giddens with ease. I recommend to read Heidegger's Sein und Zeit to see the motive under Giddens' theory. this is not hidden fact. Giddens himself noted it several times. without philosopical background knowledge, it's impossible to access him properly. u will see my point if u read the first page of his 'Central Problem of Social Theory'. I agree to Turner's point that Giddens' theoretical framework is vague at best sencitising for actual research. concepts are clearly defined but how those concepts are related to each other is not that clear. reader himself should fill the gaps. one should make up for this difficulty with grasping Giddens' deep motive under framework. to do so, u should know well the tradition of Sociology and modern philosophy.

사회과학과 철학

Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis (Paperback)
Giddens, Anthony / Univ of California Pr / 1979년 11월

기든스의 저작은 사회과학도에게 결코 쉽지 않다. 소쉬르, 레비스트로스, 하이데거, 훗설, 데리다, 비트겐슈타인 등 철학도들에게도 어려운 이름들이 시도 때도 없이 등장한다. 단지 이름만이 아니라 그들의 이론과 개념을 동원해 기든스 자신의 이론을 전개하기 때문에 적어도 인용된 이름의 이론이 어떤 것인지는 알고 있어야 한다. 나름대로 철학공부를 했다고 자부하는데도 어려웠다. 물론 이책이 쓰여진 70년대 프랑스 구조주의가 유행앴던 유럽의 학계분위기를 반영하는 것이기도 하다. 그러나 그런 이름들이 등장하는 것은 그 이론들을 반기기 때문이 아니라 사회과학적으로 논박하면서 자신의 이론을 세우는 작업을 하기 때문이다. 기든스를 이해하려면 이책보다는 'The Constitution of Society'를 읽을 것을 권한다. 그러나 'The Constitution of Society' 자체도 읽기 쉽지 않다. 그런 면에서 'The Constitution of Society'을 읽고 그 시작이 어떠했는지를 이해하려면 이책을 보라. 그러면 더 쉽게 이해가 될 것이다.

다음은 내가 아마존에 썼던 리뷰이다.

It seems unneccessarily complicated riddle to solve to us, sociologists. actually Giddens's writing style in this title is not that easy to grasp judging from sociological convention. and worse he cited too many names like Saussure, Hegel, Levi-Strauss, Heidegger, Husserl and even Derrida and Wittgenstein! those that makes readers wandering around jargons from philosophy. because this book stem from the controversial atmosphere of 70s when French Structuralism prevailed over intellectural map. Giddens wanted to conter their assertions. we can see he was right at 80s when structurism collapsed into trendy postmodernist jargons. Anyway I recommend to read this title if u read 'The Constitution of Society'. which title is not that hostile to reader like this title. but something lacks on it. You can find what miss in later masterpiece. This title is somewhat earlier endeavor to clarify his theory of structuration. so theorems were not that clearly founded. it makes it the way to hostility to readers but sometimes this kind of imperfection is more valuable to portray one's image of theory.

무임승차의 문제

The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, with a New Preface and Appendix (Paperback)
Olson, Mancur, Jr. / Harvard Univ Pr / 1971년 1월

게임이론의 코스트/베너핏 논리를 집단행동 즉 정치에 응용한 것이다. 이 분석틀에서 문제가 되는 것은 이득을 보려면 비용이 들게 마련인데 이 비용이 공평하게 떨어지지 않는다는 것이다. 여기서 프리라이더의 문제가 생긴다. 공공재와 세금부담이 이 논리에 따라 분석될 때 상당한 강점이 있다. 상당히 전형적인 게임이론이다. 이 책의 논리는 그다지 새로울 것은 없다. 정치학에서도 상당히 비슷하게 말하는 저작이 많다. 쉽고 명료하게 서술되었다는 것이 장점이다. 자세한 것은 내가 영어로 쓴 아래의 리뷰를 보라.

다음은 내가 아마존에 포스팅한 리뷰이다.

Cost/Benefit When we look at cases of organizations like labor union, pressure group or firm, Even if members share the common interest, it doesn't guarantee they will act on that interest. To achieve the purpose, one should pay the cost. But 'a goal or purpose is common to a group means that no one in the group is excluded from the benefit or satisfaction brought about by it achievement.' So if one could get the benefit without cost, he would let others bear the burden.
Public Good/Taxing: Everybody's business is nobody's business let's take example. The state provides public good like the defense, police protection, law system, which 'must be available to everyone if they are available to anyone'. It can't be free to provide those services. The burden is charged as tax. But tax evasion is as old as human history. It's the reason why the tax has been defined as 'compulsory payment'. Likewise 'collective good' of organizations cause the same free rider problem.
Size matters: Individual acts on the function of cost and benefit: The lower cost to get the collective good, the more willing to bear the cost. The smaller is the size of group, the larger is the share of collective good one gets in relation to total cost. Even though only one member with greatest interest pays all the cost, he will do so as long as benefit exceeds cost. This kind of group can provide collective good without relying on coercion or incentive apart from the collective good itself. But without arranging the share of burden (group-oriented act), the amount of collective good can't be optimized (exploitation). 'Accordingly, the larger the group, the farther it will fall short of providing an optimal amount of a collective good.' Moreover, the larger is the group, the less likely noticeable is the effect of individual's contribution. So here the leviathan comes in: Coercion and incentive. Once there is the formal organizing, the larger the better, for it leads to lower cost to each. But organizing itself should be obtained at cost. 'These are the costs of 'communication among group members, the costs of any bargaining among them, and the costs of creating, staffing, and maintaining any formal group organization.' These costs put on the total cost of getting collective good. And it makes the supply of collective not optimized. This reinforces the need of coercion/incentive.
Inclusive/Exclusive Group: If the nature of collective good is fixed (scarce) in supply, members doesn't resist to newcomers. In this case, members become competitor or rival to each other, for the availability of collective good is exclusive to each member. 'The firms in an industry would be an exclusive group when they sought a higher price in their industry by restricting output.' Here the monopoly is the ideal to participant. But in nonmarket situation, the opposite is true, for collective good is not fixed in supply. In other word, it's inclusive. In such a case, if permitted, the group tends to expand upto the point that benefit equals cost. When seeking lower taxes, or tariff, firms would make 'an inclusive group, and would enlist all the support they could get.
Privileged/Intermediate/latent Group: Privileged group refers to the small group providing collective good for sure without organizing or coordinating. Intermediate group refers to the small group where nobody gets the benefit sufficient to motivate him to provide the good himself but it's not big enough to demotivate completely. Latent group refers to the large group where the problem of free riders is salient.
Case Study-Unions are for collective bargaining: We take it for granted that labor union is by nature big organization. But contrary to common guess, the first labor unions in Britain and States began not as large, impersonal, metropolitan organizations (latent group) but as small, committed, local organizations (privileged group). It was better to be the privileged group with member's devotion and sacrifice (noncollective good cf. Owen), for it launched in hostile environment. But once a local union exists, a few factors drive it to organize the whole industry and to be large, national union.
1. In market economy, employers should compete each other, so they can't survive with higher wage.
2. Employers could find source of strikebreakers, were industry-wide organization.
But when it comes to large, national union, there should be the problem of free rider. Workers can't hate collective good like wage raising, better work condition, job security. But the strike, weapon to get it, means the cost, and that, strikebreakers are legally free to cross picket line and would enjoy better paying than ever. And bargaining with employer cannot help being collective not individual or restricted to union member. So here comes the compulsory membership i.e., closed shop or union shop. 'Compulsory membership and picket lines are therefore of the essence of unionism'. This explains away why the early history of union was flooded with violence between/among workers and employers. The decline of labor union in States could be illuminated in the same way; 'No Closed Shop'. Without coerced participation, there is no means to support the union. For individual efforts wont change the whole picture. To attract members, unions relied on noncollective benefit such as insurance, welfare benefit, seniority rights. But the advent of welfare state deprived them of incentive to offer.

The manifesto of world system theory

Modern World-System I (Paperback, Student) - Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of European World-Economy in the 16th Century
Wallerstein, Immanuel / Emerald Group Pub Ltd / 1974년 6월

월러스타인은 참으로 신기한 글쓰기 재주를 가졌다. 그의 이론은 아주 간단하게 요약된다. 그러나 그 주장은 글의 논리전개와는 무관하게 명료하다. 무슨말인가? 그가 참고하고 있는 논거는 거의 The Cambridge Economic History of Europe에서 발췌한 인용이다. 이 50년대에 발간이 시작된 이 시리즈는 대단한 권위를 가지고 있고 캠브리지에서 나온 역사 시리즈(Cambridge Histories)들 처럼 읽기에 어렵지도 않다. 그러나 월러스타인의 글쓰기는 참으로 요령부득이다. 인용을 아주 장문으로 집어넣고 자신의 주장은 그 인용에 대한 부연설명처럼 따라붙는다. 다시 말하자면 인용문을 제대로 소화하지도 못하고 있다는 말이다. 경제사에 대한 자신의 연구가 없이 그냥 브로델의 이론을 남의 글을 근거로 재생산하다보니 읽고 나서 아무 내용도 기억이 나지 않는 신기한 글을 쓰게 된 것이다. 차라리 월러스타인 이론의 근거가 되고 있는 브로델의 '물질문명과 자본주의'를 읽는 것이 휠씬 생산적이고 얻는 것이 많다. 이론 자체도 브로델이 휠씬 구체적이고 생생하다.

다음은 내가 아마존에 썼던 리뷰이다.

This book is the manifesto of world system theory. and that it was awarded by American association of sociology. Previously, the capitalism begin with the 1st industrial revolution. but Wallerstein questioned this common sense. he asserted it should be dated back to 16th century when Italian city-state prospered with Mediterrean trade. The book begins with how the feudalism fell and capitalism emerged. Volume 1 covers the shift of hegemoney in European world system from Italian city-states, Spain to Holland. The gist of his theorizing is the worldwide division of labor.
By the way, Overall points are easy to grasp. but the devils lies in the details. the book is flooded with bulks of long quotations. This distracts the attention of reader, so that lose the line of argument. Reading goes through between quotation to quotation. it even seems Wallerstein has no point of himself. I read twice to catch the logic of each chapter. but no avail. Dose Wallerstein has no ability to abbridge those quotations to his own word?
If you are interested in world system theory, I recommend to read Braudel's 'Civilization and Capitalism' instead. it's easy to follow and more systematic. and that much fun to read. Below I try to compare Braudel with Wallerstein
Power organizes the space. Organized space is the world where our perspective domiciles. There were always several worlds at the same time. For example, the premodern Chinese recognized other peoples than them. But they were outside their world. So they were barbarians who were much the same with beast. Only the one in the world which had meaning to them could be called human being. But now there is only one world on the globe. If we define it as the globalization, the history of capitalism is the process globalization over centuries since the 16th C. This is the grand image Braudel depicts before us in ¡®Civilization and Capitalism¡¯. If so, capitalism is not merely the system of exchange (or production), but the way to organize the world, in other word, the system of power. With no doubt, capitalism is the system of capitals. But capital is the power to control the flow of resources. Capital, in Marx¡¯s word, is the power to control the resources allocation in society. But the resource entails not only physical material but also human labor. No goods can be presented before us without human labor. Then trade of goods must reflect the relation of spaces where human beings dwell, whether it is done with coercion or contract. Trade could be carried out between the urban and the regional. The world Wallerstein depicts is the magnified image into global scale of such an order. The unit in that order is the nation-state. but in Braudel¡¯s image, The unit of space is not the state but the city. Capitalism is the network (or hierarchy) of cities, Braudel argues. Each has its own pros and cones. But these days Braudle¡¯s image has gained popularity over Wallerstein¡¯s, since Braudel¡¯s ¡®point-to-point¡¯ perspective fits better into the aspects of globalization. For instance, the global financial market could be better captured with Braudel¡¯s. It exists on the network of cities like New York, London, and Tokyo, not on the hierarchy of nation-states. According to Braudel, the capital and the state have its own interest and dynamic different from each other. In Wallerstein¡¯s framework, we can¡¯t spot such a distinction. But it¡¯s the point where we should begin to explain the current affair, globalization.