[lbo-talk] Hofstadter

[Seth Ackerman]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> 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?


I think it really is an a priori assumption, or at least a strong 
predisposition. So if the evidence showed that an out-group conformed, 
this would be acknowledged, but it would be argued with further evidence 
(probably subtle and ambiguous) that the out-group conformed in its own 
way, adapting hegemonic pressures to its own unique traditions and 
needs, thus creating a site of resistance (a key word) within a larger 
field of domination.

If you simply conclude that the out-group submitted, you're denying its 
agency, which is sort of akin to denying its humanity.

Seth