> 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