Page - 57 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

thematerialist view of history 57 interceptionbetweentheworldofnatureandtheworldofhumans,nordidhe disregardthequalitativedifferencesthatseparatenaturalandsocial realities. Bauer clearly stressed theelements thatdistinguishhumankind innature: ourabilitytogainknowledgeaboutourselvesandourinnermostneedtosubor- dinatenature.LikeMaxAdler–andlaterLukácsandGramsci,whocontinued this line – hewas looking for intrinsic connections linking both spheres of realitythatconstitutedaunityandawholewithoutconcealingtheimmanent differences.Thus,Bauerconcludedthat therewasanontologicaldependency betweenthelawsofnatureandsocial laws.Hefoundthelinkbetweenthetwo in theuniversal validity of the causality principle,which allowedone todis- coverconsistent lawsofnaturalandsocial life.Assumingthatsocialphenom- enawerecausallydetermined,Bauer suggested thatadeterministic causality principle reigned in the sphereofhumanaction.However,wemustnot infer that he eliminatedobjectives andvalues from thehistorical process. To sub- stantiate his perspective, he referred to the category of ‘social causality’ first introducedbyAdler.27MuchlikeAdler,hefollowedaKantianapproachwhen deducingsocialcausalityfromtheformalpsychologicalcharacteristicsofcon- sciousness.Heassumedapriori socialisationof individualconsciousness, yet, unlikeAdler,hedidnotdevelopthisapproachanyfurther.28Truetohisunder- survival as a basis for social theory (seeWeikart 1993, p. 469). In its early stages, Social Darwinismemphasisedindividualcompetition,yetfromthe1860sonwards, itsadvocates stressedthecollectivestruggle inordertojustifyracism,eugenicsandimperialism.Since the 1870s,Darwinismwashugelypopular in liberalacademicscientist circles, i.e. among philosophers,sociologists,theologians,economistsandhistorians.Bauerwasnottheonly SocialDemocrat fascinatedbyDarwin’s theory of evolution. Itwas also echoed inKarl Kautsky’sandLudwigWoltmann’sideas.Weshouldalsorememberthatthetwofounders ofMarxism,KarlMarxandFrederickEngels, approvedofDarwin’s teachings.SeeEngels 1983,p.551,andMarx1985,p.232. 27 I dealt with this category more extensively in Czerwińska 1991, pp. 160–1. Guided by methodological assumptions close toMax Adler’s,WilhelmDilthey’s successor at the University ofBerlin,AloisRiehl, challenged theBadenSchool’s differentiationbetween nomothetic and idiographic sciences. This differentiationwasbasedon theopposition between generalising and individualistic understanding, as well as the opposition betweencausalandteleologicalmodesofexplanation.Riehlassumedthattheindividual wasamanifestationofthegeneral,andthattherearegeneralcausalrelationshipsinboth typesofscience.Atthesametime,AdlerandRiehlagreedwiththeneo-Kantiansthatthe notionofgenerallawswasafeatureofconsciousnesssuperimposedonnatureandhistory. 28 According toMaxAdler, causality in nature differs fromcausality in society insofar as the formerhas amechanical character,whereas according to the latter, the assessment process isanintegralcomponentofthecausalprocess.