Agency, functionalism, and all that. A Sraffian view

Former contributions examined the approach to institutions and economic history that can be derived from the classical and Marxian ‘surplus approach’. The present paper deals with the allegation levelled against historical materialism of organicism or functionalism. Organicism is said to look at individuals as passive vectors functionally serving in various capabilities the reproduction and destiny of society as a whole. In this way human agency in the operation and change of society is excluded or at least restrained. Methodological individualism is the traditional alternative supported both by neoclassical and by (some) Marxist schools. The literature over the ‘agency versus structure’ determination of human behaviour in social and human sciences is immense. Therefore, I limited myself to some authors that I deemed more appropriate in relation to the application of the classical surplus approach to institutions and economic history. I shall defend a functionalist view of society while giving space to individual intentional action and aspirations, albeit informed by historical conditioning circumstances. Historical reconstruction of the objective and subjective features of the economic formations under examination, rather than the empty and a-historical study of individual choices, unrelated to the social context, looks like the way to go. Agency must be historically contextualised.