A larger point to be made in this context is that collective (or even personal) interests are not encapsulated chunks of objective reality, but instead are constructed through social interaction, and thus molded by whatever social forces are a part to that process. For example, in the end of the 19th and a big part of the 20th century both socialists and the Catholic Church (and other conservative forces) competed for defining what working class interests were. Both sides scored partial victories in different places and different times. Based on those different definitions of "working class interests," different institutional alliances were formed (e.g. catholic labor unions in the Netherlands, Spain or Italy, and the political alliance leading to the passage of the welfare state in Sweden.)
One may question what working conditions have to do with the Catholic doctrine, but the fact remains that significant portion of the working class in Europe (and Latin America) not only saw a connection, but also bet their money on it. Call it false consciousness or whatever, but the fact remains that Catholic operatives were able to successfully convince (or bamboozle, if you asked me) a nontrivial segment of the working class to align their interest with that of the Catholic hierarchy.
Wojtek
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> In social movement literature it is called "frame bridging." What it
>> means is that movement activists try to link their cause to those of other
>> participants. Gay marriage may have nothing to do with capital, but if
>> you
>> "bridge" their cause to a an anti-capitalist agenda and thus broaden your
>> anti-capitalist movement.
>>
>
> But that's just not true. Aside from the fact that it looks opportunistic -
> and, as Shag says, the assumption is that no leftists are gay and want to
> get married, or know people who are, is off base - same-sexers who want to
> get married don't necessarily have a beef with the broader society. They
> just want to be a fuller part of it. Of course, GLBTers are, on average, to
> the left of straight society, but I don't see the marriage movement as
> speaking to that. And there's a sex radical critique of the focus on
> marriage too.
>
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>