68 SOCIAL SCIENTIST correspond. "Kinship, custom, the invisible and visible rules of social regulation, hegemony and difference, symbolic forms of domination and of resistance, religious faith and millenarial impulses, manners and ideologies - all of which, in their sum, comprise the genetics of the whole historical process, all of them joined at a certain point in common human experience which itself (as distinctive class experiences) exerts its pressure on the sum."10 Thus, EPT opened the search for the micro-foundations of Marxist theory. He argued that individual and his needs and cherished concerns (cultural, sexual, normative, etc) are as important, to comprehend both 'correspondence' and 'motion' in historical process, as the study of over-arching structures (such as mode of production). It is only in their constitute and dialectical relation that clues to comprehend the 'integrated social reality* reside. It is only within this dialectical relation that concepts such as 'relative autonomy* and 'determination' should be defined and made sense of. 'Relative autonomy' of structures, therefore, is nothing but the dynamic and conscious human practice that operates in an open ended process. While, on the other hand 'determination' refers to 'setting of limits'. Economic determination sets the limits within which social process operates - specificities of this process are as aforesaid, determined by conscious human practice. But did Thompson in reinvigorating micro-foundations connect them to the over-arching structural mutations? In other words, could he explain howthis micro-leveled human practice is linked to the shifting modes of production? Marxist scholars and historians of his period strongly believed that EPT failed in this. This failure of Thompson looms large in his foremost historical work, The Making of English Working Class. "In the absence of any objective framework laying down the overall pattern of capital accumulation in these years, there is a little way of assessing howthese processes are linked to human practice. Thus, "it is not the structural transformations - economic, political-which Thompson invokes but rather their precipitates in the subjective experience of those who lived through these terrible years."11 It is this unfinished project, of explaining the motion in the 'object' vis-a-vis the motion in the 'subject', within a totality or a systematic whole, that has opened new vistas for contemporary Marxist studies by Thompson' s Marxism. It is only in the study of dynamic processes, events, phenomenon in their own right, in a 'newset of terms' that we can justify the generic pronouncements of Marx, and establish socialism