And when someone says, here recently, that we need to put capitalists' heads on pikes and in baskets you don't think that this process of punishing those who are, we think, objectively deserving of such a fate doesn't perform the same functions?
What about the criticisms and normative punishment (shunning) of views that are sexist? Racist? Etc.? Were someone here to start spewing such views, do you think they wouldn't be punished--shunned, criticized? Who would object, besides the most libertarian anything-goes-members of this list --who themselves would be criticizing and attempting to shame the rest of us for not adhering to the ideal of freedom in discourse?
You see, we all do it. I do it. You have just done it by denouncing the views you think are implicit in the paper--because you don't like its language, because you think they are conservative. Etc.
Although not well-developed in this article, I imagine that the ideas Herb Gintis (of Bowles and Gintis fame) and others are working with have to do with a sociological claim: communal solidarity requires rituals in which the community punishes people who break the rules, violate norms, etc. The argument among some is that the process is inevitable.
You see it happens here on this list when someone violates the norms of participating on a left list. For instance, were someone to jump in and start castigating everyone for their leftist views, clearly indicating that they were hostile to them, many of us would have a grand ole time ripping the arguments of that person apart. (Recent example: Paul, a new member of this list, and his exchanges with Carrol, JAnnuzzi, and ??).
We argue all the time, among ourselves. It seems like we agree on very little. But, when someone from "outside" criticizes us, the ritual of argument makes explicit what is often implicit about what binds the left together, in all its diversity.
It also demands that we make those shared assumptions about "what is left" explicit. In this way, we question those assumptions. We ask ourselves and each other: "is this really left? Should this be the left? Why? Who does it benefit? Who does it hurt?" Etc.
The process--ritual--builds social cohesion among a group. Take it too far, and it is punitively exclusionary. But all groups exclude. That's unavoidable. To say, I am an anarchist is to always implicitly say that someone else is not. The process is inevitable. The point is to build into our interactions ways in which we can proceed judiciously, equitably, etc.
Furthermore, the argument is that all societies need "deviants", rebels, dissenters, etc. Societies cannot function without them.
Examples of ethnographies that show how this process works are found in the work of Kai Ericson