GABOR TAMAS RITTERSPORN tal political decisions, and that even if a great many decisions seem to contradict this logic, it will not be slow to correct « errors ». This convinction along with the necessity of producing proofs of the success of their activities and of defending their particular professional and institutional interests becomes the ground of the potentially dissident behaviour of practically all members of the middle layers. Any specialist can find himself in a situation where he feels constrained to stand up for strategies of use and development of techniques and institutions which differ from those decided on by the ruling class. And his proposals can always be justified by the interna! logic of techniques and institutions as well as by the supposed objectivity of knowledge indispensable to their application, etc. The mere fact of formulating proposals which differ from « official » strategies constitues a challenge to the ruling class monopoly of decision-making. But, very often, certain elements, or even the totality, of the proposals can be backed by competing tendencies in the ruling class and, in the end, integrated into their strategies (4). Even proposals which originally, at times, really threatened the ruling class's monopoly of decision-making can be fitted into a strategy of use and development they have decided on, and thus become factors which strengthen their grip on this monopoly. And as the ensemble of techniques, institutions and the methods of applying them are employed and developed in the service of the imperturbable reproduction of the social and political system, the knowledge and know-how which underpin them reflect the interna! logic of the system and the parties interested in its maintenance rather than the logic of techniques, institutions, etc. independent of them. That is, even the most radical propositions which demand the strictest adherence to the immanent logic of techniques and institutions are press-ganged into a strategy for the maintenance of the system, even though they may challenge its stability and the maintenance of the system, even through they may challenge its stability and the monopoly of decision-making by those who presently constitute its ruling class. (4) Many indus trial, agricultural, or administrative techniques applied today were considered « foreign » to the social and political system of the USSR a relatively short time ago. 34
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==