> I guess I'm arguing that the various identification processeses that
> start in childhood continue throughout one's life. When you're "grown up"
> you identify with the capitalists instead of identifying with your parents.
> (it's an absurd identification; their interests are completely counter to
> each other but....) . . .
Most humans appear to be quite hierarchical -- I think it is socialization by the early childhood experience of dependency rather than any genetic inheritance. Nonetheless, among the many consequences, two stand out: 1) Judgment of leaders by their perceived inherited and/or cultural status, and by their own commitment to hierarchy. Thus, whatever Carter or Clinton did, many of those most committed to hierarchy felt that they were illegitimately in a place higher than they should have been. Charges of incompetence or dishonesty stuck and created enormous emotional investment for Carter's and Clinton's dismissal. Bush, and Reagan before him, are perceived as legitimate alphas because of their status and their embrace of inequality. What they have to offer is a kind of derived status as they flatter their followers (the nicknames, the regal joshing). As long as this flattery continues, a lot of people will resist criticism of the leaders who so reassure them. 2) Fear/anger at the prospect of losing one's own hierarchical advantages. Being male, belonging to the dominant ethnic group, belonging to the dominant religious group -- these do carry economic, cultural, and personal benefits.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com