Upon returning to my e-mail from my various child minding tasks, hence the delay in
responding, I see that my query to Patrick Bond,
>³While there is little doubt that the use of the term fordism is
>problematic, both in Harvey's and general usage, I am curious to know
>what you find unfortunate about it>³While there is little doubt that the use of the
>term fordism is
>problematic, both in Harvey's and general usage, I am curious to know
>what you find unfortunate about it"
has bought several commendably succinct and well thought out responses that I more or
less disagree with. In response to these replies I would like to offer my position in
respect of the regulation school and the issue of fordism and post-fordism.
1)The Regulation School of political economy is not a fully established monolithic
theoretical system but is rather a diverse group of theorists engaged in a continuing
research program concerned with two broad substantive issues derived from the
traditions of European Marxian historical materialism;
i) Firstly a concern with the political economy of capitalism and the
anatomy of bourgeois society.
ii) Secondly a particular concern with the manner in and through which
the expanded reproduction of capitalism is secured, albeit temporarily,
in the face of the immanent crisis tendencies of capitalism.
The sought of regulation theory which holds my sympathies is that of the parisians,
particularly Boyer and Lipietz, and that of Jessop and the British geographers Tickell
and Peck.
2) One of the main strengths of the regulation approach to me is that it takes
seriously the both the world of the Œinternal relations¹ that determine the dynamic
of capitalism, the esoteric and the manner in which they appear Œon the
surface¹ to economic agents. The exoteric. Traditionally I feel that much marxian
theory fails to give the exoteric its due with the consequence that we are relatively
blind to the fact that reproduction of the esoteric only takes place in and through
the activity of agents in the representational space of the enchanted or exoteric
world. Such a failure would be of no great consequence if there was a relatively
stable correspondence between the determinations of the esoteric and their appearance
in the exoteric world however this is not the case as;
³The way that they appear, their representational space, provides agents
with a degree of freedom in action through which the contradictions of
the relations which enclose them can be expressed.²(Lipietz)
3)I think that the approach to reg theory by regulationists themselves is extremely
healthy. To quote Aglietta.... concepts are not introduced once and for all at a
single level of abstraction. They are transformed by the characteristic interplay
which
constitutes the passage from the abstract to the concrete and enables the
concrete to be absorbed within theory. Theory, for its part, is never final
and complete, it is always in the process of development.²
As Lipietz cautions the point is not the creation of a monolithic theory or dogma
butThe objective then is not the completion of some monolithic theory but the
elaboration of concepts with ever greater precision that must then be
articulated into increasingly adequate explanations of the real concrete.
4) With Tickell and Peck, and to varying degrees Lipietz and Jessop, I do not see that
the crystal ball gazing of the post-fordists is compatible with the central tenets of
the regulation method as I understand it. Most of this stuff is pernicious drivel of
the worst kind. All soughts of crap has been justified by reference to various
non-regulationist variants of fordism/post-fordism and worse still by bastardized
variants of the Reg approach. I personally blame the likes of marxism to day for this
kind of silliness. Down here in sheep country, ie Australia and New Zealand, some of
this has been taken up by the peak union organisations, try reading John Mathews Tools
of Change, for a purile techno determinist variant of this debate.
I do not believe however that the reg approach necessarily implies or leads to a
specific type of politics or practice......
This post is going on way to long so I¹ll stop now. In defence of the length of this
post
blame my childrens lack of interest in political economy, they¹re who I normally rant
to.
Regards
Bill Cochrane
