> The bottom line is that "objective material interests" - while indeed
> being "objective" (i.e. not illusory or ex post facto rationalization)
> -
> do not exist in isolation (one "interest" independent of another
> "interests) but rather form a cluster that is constructed by cognitive
> processes of lumping together certain interests and splitting apart and
> filtering out other interests.
[snip rest for space reasons, not because it is not worth reading]
The theory of interests you outline here is one I would broadly agree with. The only amendment I would suggest (which is why I made the cryptic comment about depressions) is that, while what people consider their vital interests is a "cognitive construct," and therefore rather fluid (another way of saying this may be that what people consider most important to them varies a lot in various circumstances and at various times), being in real economic trouble, which nearly all of the working class is during very hard economic times, tends to "concentrate the mind wonderfully," as Dr. Johnson said of the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight.
But this cuts two or more ways. If you are in danger of your home being foreclosed, you or your children not getting enough to eat or medical care for serious illnesses, you may find your concept of your interests suddenly dropping out dressing in the latest fashions, having the latest home theater gimcracks, the newest car, etc. So it might shift in the direction of what a more "brass-knuckles" Marxist, shall we say, would consider "real" material interests. But some people in that situation will move in a selfish direction, fighting only for themselves and their families, while others will suddenly find a feeling of solidarity for their class in themselves that would never have occurred to them before. Other people in hard times, of course, prefer to hang on to what outside observers would consider "frivolous luxuries" in preference to food and shelter.
On the other hand, being economically more stable (as a certain part of the working class was in the '60s) might enable many people to consider broader "collective goods, such as clean and healthy environment, justice, peace, etc." as part of their interests, as you suggest. So it may turn out that the "limousine liberals," "aristocrats of the working class," etc., often show up as further on the left of the political scale than their poorer compatriots, who, on a strictly "materialist" model, would be expected to be more radical. Hence, also, there are all sorts of "radicalisms," not just one, as a lot of radicals would prefer to assume, and all sorts of political connections and alliances between groups that are forever surprising and disconcerting these radicals.
The result is that anyone who wants to understand how people behave politically in a completely realistic way needs to develop more and more complex concepts, to account for the fact that no simple categorization of people according to income, wealth, race, nationality, etc., etc., empirically accounts for the reality. But the more complex your theory gets, the less it is useful for political purposes, because decisive political action usually requires a simple-to-understand, easily communicated package of ideas which will sound inspirational on the stump or the barricades. So you get the typical divide between mindless activists and thoughtful theorists that the "Activistism" paper tries to bridge (a noble endeavor!), and the facile disparagement of "navel-gazing" by red-blooded advocates of action that has popped up on the "Dr. Fraud" thread.
I guess the only possible solution is to keep on trying to aim for the channel between Scylla and Charybdis, as the Activistism paper activists are trying to do.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile