----- Original Message ----- From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:14 AM Subject: RE: Ace on The Jews
> I love it when you talk sociology to me.
>
> Nathan has it nailed down tight, here, at least when it comes to
the
> difference between political analysis of power structures versus
insensitive
> stereotyping of ethno-identity groups. But I am adrift in my own
puddle of
> murky thinking on this issue, so let me throw some mud around to
see if
> anything recognizable splashes out.
===============
Well the big mess is that we have power stuctures that are constituted by ethnic-religious identities [SA, Israel etc.] where we can't make nice clean separation of issues that sociologists like.
>
> The problem with Ace is that he has slid into language that
stereotypes Jews
> in a mild way for many years. This is the root of the battle I
had with him
> over criticism of ADL. I want to make very sure that my
criticism of ADL on
> certain matters does not give aid and comfort to antisemites and
neonazis
> who use a criticism of ADL to promote bigotry against Jews. Ace
interprets
> this as me being an apologist for ADL. Well, sometimes I agree
with ADL on
> matters such as the danger of racist skinheads; and sometimes I
disagree
> with them, primarily over issues involving government
surveillance and their
> leadership's habit of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
===============
How to short-circuit the proclivities to stereotype without falling into the mudhole of MI?
>
> Daniel Pipes, in his book on Conspiracy Theory, argues that
Marxism is a
> conspiracy theory that scapegoats the wealthy and powerful in a
society.
> This argument is flawed for the very reason Nathan lays out.
Accurately
> identifying a group of people such as capitalists or Power
Elites who play a
> functional role in a society is not the same as concocting a
claim that Jews
> or Freemasons or the New World Order secretly runs the world.
>
> But some leftists do create phantoms to scapegoat--just usually
not
> ethno-identified ones. That is still a problem. When leftists
start to use
> the language of scapegoating and conspiracism, (talking about
the world run
> by a handful of secret elites or the CIA using radio control to
fly planes
> into the twin towers), in their criticism of elite power and
corporate
> globalization, it opens the door to scapegoating of ethnic
groups by
> denizens of the fascist right.
>
> Ace on the Jews is an example of how this process begins.
Instead of
> pointing to institutions and structures of power, there will be
those who
> read his column as proof that THE JEWS are secretly running
things. And when
> they go looking for further proof, there is a plethora of
antisemitic
> conspiracy crap on the Web to lead them down that ugly path. I
know that is
> not the intent of Ace, but insensitive language has
consequences.
>
> But I think Ian has a point, too. And it may need more teasing
out.
>
> When we raise a criticism of "Capitalists" or "Power Elites,"
are we truly
> identifying groups based on their interchangeable function as
part of a set
> of institutions or structures of power and domination? Or are
some critics
> creating a chimeric scapegoat?
===============
Well that's the politics of storytelling and how cultures and subcultures and subsubcultures are partly constituted by rivalrous explanations for why individuals and groups do what they do. Conspiracism is misplaced and misidentified ascription of intentionality run amok, the hallmark of bad storytelling. The best response is to continue facilitating and sustaining literacy regarding the dynamic interplay of agency/institution/function/role/identity. Hell there are economists who've asserted that Michael Perelman's "The Invention of Capitalism" is a conspiracy theory book.
>
> And did the Ace column do both? Creating a chimeric scapegoat
that both
> mis-identified the functional power relationships and
stereotyped an ethnic
> group?
>
> Nathan...Ian...bail out my puddle...please.
>
> -Chip Berlet
===============
Nathan's distinction between the active and passive notions of capital's power is helpful but we need better elucidations of agency within political economies so that the tendency towards conspiracist narratives are nipped in the bud precisely because we have better understanding of roles and functions that are part and parcel of what we call classes. To that extent, conspiracist accounts are a ridiculous backlash against analyses and explanations of history that leave out the agency and intentionality of the participants and how and why they have the intentionalities/identities/functions/roles they do. At the same time we have to deal honestly with something Wojtek asserted a few months ago when he wondered whether capitalism still serves as a useful signifier in understanding the complexity of what's going on for the sake of generating and sustaining the forms of collective action that would actually be of some help in alleviating poverty, multitudinous inequalities of wealth, income etc. It's damn tough thinking systemically while avoiding the pitfalls of the abstract/concrete divide.
Ian