Reciprocal Movement Of Context Dependent Forms—Raw Material Of Civilization

Preface And Preliminary Remarks--Structuralism Paper Concluded
April 1994

When I started this paper I searched for a theme broad enough to enable me to
discuss structuralism within the context of my own philosophy. After
considerable reading on structuralism I discovered the holism-elementarism
debate as it is described in Don Martindale's book, The Nature and Types of
Sociological Theory. I recognized this theme as doable for me because it allows
for the extrapolation of the structural aspects of the holism/elementarism
debate as it arises in every historical epoch. However, it soon became clear to
me that the dichotomy of holism/elementarism did not suit my needs as well as
the synchronic/diachronic distinction, or the defining characteristic of
structuralism, so, for the most part, I have used the synchronic/diachronic
distinction throughout. However, midway into my paper the synchronic/diachronic
distinction morphs into an even more general distinction. Ultimately, this
morphed version can be identified in the "who participates in what" dichotomy,
or, more specifically, in the "reciprocal movement of context dependent forms."
In either case, however, it all leads to that bridge which, on one level,
connects reason to emotion, while, on another level, separates reason from
emotion. A lot of territory is covered here, so I will begin by letting
Martindale introduce the language of holism/elementarism.

Introduction To The Holism-Elementarism Debate

"Human society places unusual demands on socialization, for without the
continuous manning of its positions as they become vacant through illness,
retirement, and death, it would simply melt away. However, since most societies
only require a fraction of what any given individual could offer, much human
potential is unused. A major problem confronting every human society is to
prevent unused human energy and imagination from being employed against it. All
human societies also place demands on the means of social control. The more
complex the society the more serious its control problem.

"The representatives of every society inevitably seek to strike some kind of
balance between the latitude or freedom permitted to the individual and the
requirements of society. The theoretical limits represented by anarchism and
authoritarian absolutism are rarely approached in practice. Furthermore, the
line between individual and collective requirements is constantly shifting. In
the formative period of a new collectivity considerable scope is usually
permitted the individual. Often when a collective is in danger of falling apart
in the last attempt to retain control authorities may place a virtual
straitjacket of restrictions on the membership. When this fails the result may
be revolution or collapse into anarchism.

"There are few decisions more basic made by students of human social life than
the comparative importance they assign to the individual and to the collective.
Do they take the social system or the individual to be the primary reality? All
students of human social life inevitably recognize both. However, it makes
significant difference whether one treats individual as the primary reality,
considering social life merely as what they do together (elementarism) or
whether one sees the social system as a reality sui generis with laws of its own
viewing the individuals who compose it as the raw materials from which a society
is made. From the time of the origin of the conflict to the present, the tides
of battle have surged back and forth between the holists and elementarists."
[Don Martindale, The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory, 1981, p. 605-606]