Andreas Pickel

Explaining, and explaining with, economic nationalism

. This article rejects the widely held view that economic nationalism is an anachronistic economic doctrine in the age of globalisation. Rather than being the opposite of economic liberalism, as the conventional view maintains, economic nationalism is better understood as a generic phenomenon that can accommodate almost any doctrinal content, including economic liberalism. Economic nationalism is not so much about the economy as it is about the nation, as illustrated by literature on economic nations and national economic cultures. Such a broader conception of economic nationalism is then placed in the context of a larger ‘nationalising mechanism’ that sheds new light on a variety of phenomena discussed in the globalisation debate, such as economic performance, state disintegration, or cultural conflict, and success or failure in post-communist systemic change.

Systems and Mechanisms A Symposium on Mario Bunge’s Philosophy of Social Science

Do the social sciences in the early-21st-century need a fresh injection of philosophy? Why and of what kind? Answers to these questions can be found in every new issue of this journal. It is fair to say, however, that the interest among practicing social scientists in questions of ontology, epistemology, and methodology has sharply declined over the past two decades. The confrontations of the 1960s and 1970s between positivists and antipositivists have exhausted themselves as well as most social scientists who followed these debates. “Paradigms” (Kuhn) and “research programs” (Popper, Lakatos), it was soon discovered, could be used to immunize one’s own approach from fundamental critique. Thus, one could avoid having to deal with the fundamental questions raised by the same philosophers of social science who had invented and popularized these concepts—and to get on with the concrete tasks of scientific explanation in one’s discipline. Those more deeply disillusioned with

Rethinking Systems Theory A Programmatic Introduction

Does systems theory need rethinking? Most social scientists would probably say no. It had its run, was debated critically, and found wanting. If at all, it should be treated historically. Why then might systems theory need rethinking, as the title of this symposium claims? The reason is that, unlike in the natural and biosocial sciences, any conception of system in the social sciences has remained suspect in the wake of problematic Parsonian and cybernetic systems theories. The premise of this special issue is that abandoning conceptions of systems has imposed a high price on the social sciences: a lack of ontologies and methodologies that are both philosophically profound and scientifically defensible. It has left social scientists who choose to ignore ontology in their theoretical and empirical work defenseless against enterprising settlers from a variety of humanities and social science disciplines who attack mainstream work with—often simplistic and naïve, but nevertheless fundamental—philosophical arguments, whether anti-scientific postmodernists or pseudo-scientific rational choice theorists. The goal of this special issue is to showcase new and original work that contributes to a rethinking of systems theory by taking the conception of systems seriously. This introduction offers a programmatic statement of a systemic ontology and methodology as well as a brief general outline and examples of what a systems-based approach in the social sciences entails.

Transformation theory: scientific or political?

Abstract This essay argues that the search for a scientific theory of transformation is ill-conceived. Postcommunist transformation is not a scientific project but a political project. It therefore requires a political theory rather than a scientific theory of transformation. The distinction is important because social scientists as political actors have played a significant role in the transformation process. Several examples are provided to illustrate the relationship between social science and transformation. In political theories of transformation, social science knowledge is subordinated and instrumental. This does not reduce the significance of social science, but rather reconceptualizes it. The legitimate functions of social science in transformation theory have critical, constructive and applied dimensions.

Is Cuba Different? Regime Stability, Social Change, and the Problem of Reform Strategy

Abstract The survival of socialism in Cuba eight years after the collapse of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe has come as a surprise to many observers. This analysis surveys Cubas current economic, political and social conditions, discusses regime stability and reform pressures in light of the Eastern European experience, and identifies the major processes and sources of social change. The same factors that account for the survival of the regime—charismatic leadership and the fusion of nationalism and socialism, reinforced by a confrontationist US foreign policy—open a window of opportunity for an approach to fundamental reform that could avoid the costs of both neoliberal radicalism and political immobilism. The analysis concludes by sketching the main elements of such an alternative reform strategy.

Homo Nationis: The Psychosocial Infrastructure of the Nation-State Order

Discussions of the “modern problem of order” have as their implicit or explicit historical reference point the theorists of sovereignty we encountered in chapter 2—the early modern political philosophers whose thinking set the terms of the modern debate on order. However, what is usually of primary concern in discussions of this kind is not the theory of sovereignty, which is taken for granted, but the “image of man,” that is, the philosophical conceptions of human beings that these political theorists proposed or presupposed. The previous chapter tried to demonstrate that the propositions of theorists like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, or Locke are easily misinterpreted if they are not placed in their own historical problem context. Thus Popper, as we have seen, misrepresented and misinterpreted the theory of sovereignty because he imposed his own problem context (Nazism, Stalinism) rather than trying to reconstruct the very different contexts of the authors he criticizes. But Popper’s critique of sovereignty has not been influential.1 His own problem-oriented approach, on the other hand, introduced in the previous chapter, deserves more attention. It is utilized throughout the remainder of this book.

Between Social Science and Social Technology: Toward a Philosophical Foundation for Post-Communist Transformation Studies

This analysis examines fundamental questions at the intersection of social science and social technology as well as problems of disciplinary divisions and the challenge of cross-disciplinary cooperation. Its theoretical-empirical context is provided by post-communist transformations, a set of profound societal changes in which institutional design plays a central role. The article critically reappraises the contribution of Karl Popper’s philosophy to this problem context, examines neoliberalism as social science and social technology, and examines the role of experts and disciplinary divisions in the reform process. Building on Mario Bunge’s social philosophy, it sketches basic elements of a cross-disciplinary approach to “social change by design.”

Never Ask Who Should Rule: Karl Popper and Political Theory*

The philosophy of Karl Popper has rarely been examined with respect to its fruitfulness and relevance for political theory. While his contributions to the philosophy of science may appear to be of only marginal significance for the fundamental concerns of political theory, his own forays into the field, particularly in The Open Society and Its Enemies , have been polemical in tone and explicitly political in motivation. This article re-examines Poppers critique of the theory of sovereignty and his own approach to political theory by employing a largely neglected element of his critical approach, namely his problem-oriented method.

The Jump-Started Economy and the Ready-Made State A Theoretical Reconsideration of the East German Case

For obvious reasons, the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) is widely seen as a unique and exceptional case of postcommunist transformation. As a result of its swift and complete incorporation into the Federal Republic of Germany, it is generally not included in comparative transformation studies. This article proposes a reinterpretation of the East German experience that stresses its character as an experiment in radical social engineering under almost ideal conditions—and as such is of considerable relevance for the general problem of controlled social change. After reviewing East Germanys first 5 years of transformation, the article argues that it is precisely some of its unique and exceptional characteristics that make East Germany into a paradigmatic case of “shock therapy” and holistic reform strategy. The conclusion suggests a number of general implications that can be derived from the East German case thus reinterpreted—concerning knowledge, irreversibility, technocratic power, and democracy.

La cultura como sistema semiótico: una redefinición de la idea de cultura desde la perspectiva sistemista

This paper incorporates a broad understanding of culture into Mario Bunge’s systemic philosophy. Cultures are viewed as semiotic systems. Semiotic systems are symbolic systems which include their users and view each culture as a semiotic system. This approach makes it possible to relate immaterial symbolic systems to real material social systems via semiotic systems, which are neither purely material nor purely ideal but combine elements of both. The goal is to sketch an ontology of culture that is consistent with emergentist materialism as well as being useful for the integration of culture into social science analysis.