[lbo-talk] Adolph Reed on BHO

[Miles Jackson]

Julio Huato wrote:
> Again, it's chicken and egg.
>
> How did political activism in the South come about without people
> changing their minds, without people talking to themselves and others,
> affirming themselves, persuading fence-sitters, intimidating
> opponents, etc. that desegregation was possible and necessary -- thus
> creating a cascade, a chain reaction that at some point translated
> into a critical mass of political mobilization capable of changing the
> political and legal superstructure of the country and unleashing
> further consequences?
>   
We know what came first here; there's no "chicken and egg" problem.  The 
vast majority of Southern whites were opposed to desegregation in the 
50s;  the end of public segregation occurred prior to that vast majority 
"changing their minds" about desegregation.  (Segregation forever!)   
There is no ambiguity in the data here:  The social change--public 
desegregation--came first; the white population's support for 
desegregation came later.

Now, political mobilization is important; but that's not necessarily 
about "changing minds".   The civil rights movement brought together 
people with shared goals and beliefs; it did not create those goals and 
beliefs from nothing.  As andie and I noted, a great deal of the 
variation in political beliefs is due to family background and long 
standing religious affiliation, not "road to Damascus" conversions.  
(Simple example: the liberal Northern college students who participated 
in the freedom marches did not have to have their minds changed to 
participate; given their family and religious backgrounds, they were 
already on board!)  So sure, political mobilization was crucial, but 
that had little to do with changing opponents' minds.


> B is right in pointing that, if we don't work on changing our own
> minds and the minds of those around us, spontaneous changes in the
> social conditions (changes resulting from the combination of natural
> forces and social forces beyond our control) may lead to social
> regression rather than progress.
All this is predicated on the false assumption that changes in attitudes 
can somehow shape social conditions.  Even if people have attitude X or 
have been persuaded to have attitude X, social change can only occur 
through social processes and institutions that are independent of any 
one individual's thoughts and behavior.  Simple example: imagine a very 
greedy person in a hunting and gathering society who wants to be 
wealthy.  Regardless of that person's individual desire, he will never 
be wealthy, because that type of society does not sustain an 
infrastucture that allows immense accumulations of wealth.  --And just 
so with any psychological characteristic: attitude X cannot create 
social facts; only social processes can do that.

 From this perspective, spending a lot of time and energy "changing 
minds" is an ineffective political strategy.  The history of social 
transformations and revolutions is quite clear: a committed and 
well-organized minority can foment significant social changes, even if 
they haven't persuaded the majority.  (The American Revolution is 
another example that comes to mind.  Only about 1/3 of the colonists 
supported the revolutionaries.  According to the "first step is to 
change minds" argument, the revolutionaries had it all wrong to take 
action before they had majority support!)

Miles