>On Hofstadter, the whole idea of saying, for example, that there's a
>'paranoid style' in 'American politics' would elicit the response
>that this is an attempt at identifying 'national character,' which
>is essentialist, and effaces out-groups (who are often assumed a
>priori to take an oppositional stance) and generally a no-no.
Except that he doesn't define a unitary national character - he describes a significant tendency in American politics over the long sweep. And it's amazing how much examples from 50 and 80 years ago sound like today.
The idea that "out groups" are assumed to take an oppositional stance is pretty delusional. Very often they're aching to become part of the in crowd, which means urgent pressures to conform. Do people offer evidence for this stuff, or is it really the a priori assumption you describe?
Doug