> Can you be more specific about where exactly I'm misrepresenting your
> argument? I have avoided economics jargon. I don't know your
> background, but we've used standard terms. I admit though that it is
> possible that I'm not really understanding your point.
I will do my best to bridge the disciplinary chasm.
> Social conditions, existing social structures, what economists would
> call "constraints" (e.g. the initial distribution of wealth, the state
> of technology, existing relative prices, laws, political conditions,
> social customs and norms, etc.) change us, but they don't bend to
> conscious human action. The true, only proselytizers are the existing
> social structures. Individual persuasion is impossible or sterile.
> That was the argument implicit in what you wrote. Or so I believe.
I suppose you could infer that from what I wrote, but that's not my position. I agree that people have motives and attitudes, and those individual characteristics can affect the interactions they have with others. What I'm challenging is the common-sense belief that all social interactions, social conditions, and political action are the product of the free choices of individual agents.
>
> In one of your posts, you invoked "political action," leading to
> changes in legislation (in the U.S. South). But you disconnect the
> action from the individuals involved in the action. It seems as if,
> in your world, individuals can take action in combination with other
> individuals, but that this is all just some sort of automatic response
> to social conditions in place. It's all unconscious, since minds are
> not required to change.
Well, I'm a pragmatic guy. What matters are the results, not what was in the minds of the people who engaged in the political action. One person participates in political action because of a conscious individual decision; another because she's conforming to family expectations; another because he has a crush on a political activist. So what? The important thing is the political work, not the content of people's minds.
>
> In another post, you referred to changing individual minds as a
> "political strategy." But changing minds is not a particular
> political strategy. *Every* political strategy requires that those
> who take the political initiative (an individual, several individuals,
> small groups, large groups, classes, or class alliances) set out to
> consciously change the minds of the others.
I fundamentally disagree with this. The ultimate goal is not to create some change in people's minds; it is to implement some extra-psychological political initiative. I know you claim that "changing minds" is a crucial step in that process; however, history doesn't support your claim. As a general rule, social change is the product of a dedicated minority of activists in the right place at the right time. They do not typically have the support of the majority and do not achieve their political goal by changing the minds of the majority. Examples abound: American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, and (as WK pointed out) the Christian Right. When I noted this earlier, you insisted that the political activists still need to "change minds" to create their dedicated cadre. That's just not true. Some true believers have always supported the cause; no mind change there. Some join because of conformity pressure from family/friends/ministers; no mind change there (although participation in the movement may eventually lead to attitude change). --And this doesn't really matter: as long as the political work gets done, whether or not anyone's mind is truly changed is irrelevant.
> I don't make the claim that social conditions *only* change as a
> result of deliberate actions. What I do claim is that, partly and
> increasingly, they change as a result of deliberate actions. In
> Marx's tradition at least, no claim is made that social life is 100%
> pre-ordained, pre-programmed in the existing conditions. If it were,
> then purposefully building an association of *free* individuals in
> full and transparent control of their social products, social
> processes, and social relations (i.e. communism) would be precluded ab
> initio. How can individuals be *free* if they are always toys of
> social forces beyond their control?
For me, this is exactly backwards. According to Marx, it is the social conditions of a socialist society that make possible the "full development" and "many-sidedness" of individuals (cue Ted here). The fully developed people of Marx's communist society are not free of social constraints and social forces; rather, the ensemble of social forces in a communist society facilitate the creation of fully developed people. We are always and inescapably the product of social relations.
> Thus, as we set out to change the world via our deliberate conscious
> effort, we also change ourselves, our minds, our behavior, and what
> results from it. Basically, we are in the business of expanding our
> power to objectify our highest aspirations as humans in the whole
> spectrum of our social conditions.
I agree with the spirit of this; I just think it's helpful to keep in mind that deliberate conscious effort is not the only catalyst for political action.
Miles