> Let us accept that the members of an e-group, form some form of peer
> group. Our respective 'peer groups' - accord either respect or abuse
> or tolerance. On this basis, we form our response to the peer group,
> or to members of that peer group. Is this not obvious?
Yes, I understand all this business about peer groups. I have just never been particularly interested, in my political work over the last 40 years or so, in these personality conflicts among miniscule leftist grouplets. In fact, I think an awful lot of energy has been wasted in pursuing these conflicts (some of which have gone on for more than 40 years, passed down from one generation to the next) that could have been devoted to having some effect on the world at large.
> Thus a charge of 'traitor' - may be considered by bystanders as
> innocent hyperbole. But it may be in reality quite wounding.
> Especially if it's charge are aiimed at stripping the legitimacy of
> the target's future interventions/comments in discussions on political
> matters with the 'peer group'. What is so difficult to see about that?
It may have the effect of "stripping legitimacy" if in fact members of the group take such "charges" seriously. I've never been too concerned about this insult-hurling, which is one of the principal indoor sports of small political groups. It's just not a sport that I find particularly entertaining, or productive. To me, it's just evidence that the temperature of a particular quarrel has risen to the point that it might be a good idea to take the fight out to the alley and settle it with some good old fisticuffs. Then we can get back to work.
Trouble is, of course, there isn't any alley for the Internet (except taking a quarrel off-list).
> I think it relates to an earlier strand here that discussed how
> members of the left behave pretty brutally to each other on this peer
> group e-list & others.
Not just e-lists, but leftist groups in general. The same thing was going on 40 years ago (and much longer back, if I know the history of the Left), when we didn't have computers, much less e-lists. I think this hot temper relates, to a large extent, to the fact that we all recognize that our groups are pitifully small and ineffective, and we can take out our frustrations on each other more easily than we can attack the institutions of society.
The sad thing is that this excessive internecine conflict is one of the causes of the fact, as Carrol often reminds us, that there isn't any Left, just discoordinated, unorganized "leftists."
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.