This discussion prompts me to try out again a distinction I've been kicking around in my mind. The Wolfnick contention that everything determines everything else is undoubtedly true, though only at a very high level of abstraction. It is also the case as pointed out by others that it doesn't get us very far in explaining social phenomena. On the other hand it is not a strong argument to state that some causes are "more important" than others, since the relative importance of causes will change with time and circumstance. The distinction is not between more and less important causes but between causes which are determinant and those which are contingent. Determinant causes create the underlying dynamic of change in a process. Contingent causes are causes which do not stem from this underlying dynamic but may be conjuncturally important. Causes which are determinant in one context can be contingent in another. Natural selection is a determinant cause in biological evolution. Cometary impact is a contingent cause which may be important in explaining periodic extinctions. In studying planetary formation cometary impact through the force of gravitation may be a determinant cause. The historical explanation of any situation will involve a combination of determinant and contingent causes. In fact, without both kinds of causes historical explanation does not exist. Pure determinacy creates an ultimately static teleology while pure contingency only produces a random sequence of events. The determinacy/contingency distinction allows us to create multicausal explanations while still identifying a particular kind of "essence" to the historical process in question. The Wolfnick error is essentially to collapse the distinction between determinant and contingent causation. Terry McDonough
