[lbo-talk] Re: W_ and America

[Gar Lipow]

On: Wed, 7 May 2003 23:55:00 -0700 (PDT)  Mike Ballard 
<swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> said
> 
> This has a familiar ring--even the 'hoity-toity'
> bashing.  Yes, it's good to hear and know these
> things.  I've been talking to working (as opposed to
> employing) people for years AND I do think that
> talking to them has some impact.  However, as I've
> said before, I agree with Zizek: there is an active
> embrace of ignorance going on and it occurs not only
> in the USA but all over the planet.  It seems to trump
> reason--at least in the short term.  You can tell
> people the truth and even if it conflicts with the
> dominant ideological feeling of the time, they can
> even accept it for awhile, if they are the least bit
> sophisticated.  But then, they quickly put it in the
> back of their minds.  It's what I'd term, the 'natural
> conservatism' of the human race--even the oppressed
> sections.
> 
> To get some distance on the issue, look at what is
> going on now in Kirkuk.  Kurds are coming back--with a
> vengence.  They had been ousted from their homes by
> the Hussein regime and their homes had been given to
> loyal Arabs.  Now, the Kurds are throwing their
> political weight around, up to and including property
> spats with the Arabs and Turkmen who live in the area.
>   
> 
> Why?
> 
> They are now the victors.  The oppressed become the
> oppresssors.  When people think that they have power,
> they to support 'their power'.  Never mind that they
> are 'only pawns in the game'.  It's always easierier
> to be a cheerleader when 'your' team is ahead.
> 
> The core question, IMO, is *why* does the working
> class NOT respond to the many and varied messages
> which it has received over the years to revolt and
> establish their own rule?
> 
> And further, HOW do we break through this
> psychological armour?
> 
> Lenin was attempting to deal with this issue in 1902
> when he wrote: WHAT IS TO BE DONE?.  AS we have seen,
> his answer was not totally satisfactory.  That's not
> just because Bolshevik revolutionary thrust was never
> been able to establish a communist society, it also
> has a lot to do with the proles own ability to set up
> their councils by themselves back in 1905, without
> Party approval.
> 
> Best,
> Mike B)

OK - but Zizek is not merely observing the commonplace (people tend to 
identify with their ruling elites - especially when the ruling elites 
appear to be winning). He claims an explanation - that people think 
dirty work on their behalf is necessary and tend to support those they 
think will do it, and then repress this. I think this is, to put it 
mildly, open to dispute.

I think there is a simpler explanation. Humans are social animals. But 
we are peculiarly social animals in that we take our social nature to 
such an extreme that the social structures we identify with are 
themselves socially rather than genetically constructed. (yes another 
commonplace).  But our identification with social groups which we 
perceive ourselves to be members of tends to be particularly strong when 
we think them under threats. To take the example back to the recent 
invasion of Iraq - the majority of American people, even with all the 
lies they were told opposed an IMMEDIATE invasion right up to the point 
where they saw it as inevitable - and then public support took a sharp 
upwards turn. That is because whether one is invader or invaded war is 
perceived as a time of shared peril. Similarly, after  a war is won, 
there is still the remnant of that feeling, the feeling of having shared 
and survived peril, that also strengthens these bonds.  To understand 
cases like the ones you raise, I think you need to see them as 
perversions of our tendency to cooperate rather than as arising from 
atomism and repression. Psychological repression may be a result; it is 
not a cause. Once you have this identification with the group, and the 
joy that kind of identification can bring, there likely is a tendency to 
repress knowledge that threatens that identification and solidarity.