a classical phase on VIDEO, black and white and everybody smoking! – http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/ssrc/ssrc1977.html
Bloch
Godelier
Goody
EP Thompson
Leach
Session 1: Historical and Anthropological approaches
Dr Sally Humphreys (Univ. College, London) ‘Models of social change with particular references to Greek history’
Prof. Ernest Gellner (L.S.E., London) : Introductory comments
Raphael Samuel (Oxford) : Further comments
Session 2: Anthropological and Marxist Models
Prof. Maurice Godelier (Paris) Ideology
Dr. Maurice Bloch (L.S.E.) Introductory comments
Session 3: Models of change in economy, social structure and ideology.
Comments on preceding papers by
Prof. Arnaldo Momiliagno (Warburg)
Prof. Keith Hopkins (Brunel)
E.P. Thompson
Session 4: Models of social change
Comments on preceding papers by:
Prof. Edmund Leach (Cambridge)
Prof. Jack Goody (Cambridge)
Prof. Tom Bottomore (Sussex)
This is what social science presumably looked like before the postmodern turn. The field of questions are still very interesting and largely unresoved:
- what is the difference, if any, of ideological and scientific knowledge, and what are the problems of relying on abstract Truth? (Godelier and Bottomore debate)
-What is the hierachy of causes for the for the function and evolution of socieity (as Godelier and Gellner debated, class, economy, coercion or ideology), is there a prime mover (such as elite values, whether Obamaism or ideas of the Demos, or the means of production and the means of violence) or just different analytical entry points into understand a layered generative social totality?
- how are the limits to the variations of social life set (Bottomore), Leach’s topographical ideas of system and how does the new emerge has interesting links to both Badiou and Bhaskar… what causes the cracks for a reevaulation of the system? Blochs response was that there are available concepts to the antagonistic group in societies that do not serve to reproduce the dominant order, i.e. are non-ideological. Leach responded that new is an unpredictable burst out of existing social order, but the new cannot be integrated back into it (also Kuhn).
- E.P Thompson debates Godelier on Ideology ” As Marxist Anthropologst i have to understand thew way relationships are organized, the way people think of themselves, the way they act on themsevles because of the way they think of themselves, THAT IS THE DIALCEIC OF SOCIAL LIFE, but the way they think of themsleves is part of social structure too… the role of representation in the dialectic of change”
- Godelier on Marxism “An Ancient Greek does not produce to produce material goods, he is producing to reproduce himself as a citizen.. there is no such thing as maximizing material goods… Even Capitalists deal in profits, in money, and what is money? Power… MATERIAL INTERST AS SUCH DOES NOT EXISTS…..”people dont live to produce, but they produce to live” as Marx said .. people not only produce goods, they produce to produce status, to reproduce the society (( sounds like Graeber, 2006 Turning Modes of Production inside out, or why Capitalism is a transformation of slavery) –
Most of these issues are explicitly addressed in Session 4: Models of social change… the most rivetting, exhilarating session of them all, where formal presentation is dropped for an all out ruuuuuuuumble. Atleast for polite academic society, except Godelier, he’s unabashedly bashing
VIDEO to stream or Download!!! (Alan Macfarlane’s webpage is very good, contains Cambridge Anthropology video lectures (recommend the course The Symbolic and the Real: Culture, Ritual, Time, Food, Animals, The House, The Body, Cognition and Culture). and other Goodyies, including interviews with the ancestors,- retiring and renowed academics
Posted by bricolagee 
