" Very interesting piece, indeed. However, I find a slight problem with your argument - how does one define who are the oppressed and the oppressors? For example: a Latin American immigrant working menial jobs in the US and vilified by anti-immigrant vigilantes comes home and finds that his wife is taking a class at a community college instead of waiting for him with the dinner. When she comes home, he gives her a thorough beating to teach her that her role is to serve her husband. Is this immigrant on the oppressed or the oppressor side?
More generally, I do not think that "taking sides" is a mater of personal choice. I think this choice is predetermined by person's cognitive disposition, i.e. his/her brain's hardware.
One way to argue this position is my personal observation. As an immigrant from the "other side" of the Iron Curtain I observed a baffling phenomenon among fellow FOBs. Many of them were former Communist Party members, while others were in the opposition, which by definition was anti-Communist. However, upon arriving on this side of the pond, a very peculiar switchover took place: the ex-Communists became raging Republicans, whereas the ex-anti-Communists became liberals and lefties. Obviously the relationship was not perfect, it probably explained no more that 50% of variance - but in social science that is a big chunk of variance.
I was baffled by it for a while, but then I figured that these people had some internal compass telling them which side to choose. That compass told them where the authoritarian or the anti-authoritarian sides were in any particular part of the globe, and based on these readings, their set their bearings.
I think that some people have naturally low tolerance for ambiguity or uncertainty - which has probably something to do with the functioning of amygdala and the chemistry of their brains - while others naturally thrive in ambiguous and uncertain situations. There are probably many other that are in between. The former naturally seek social environment that - like a crutch - helps them deal with their fears of ambiguity and uncertainty. This draws them toward authoritarian ideologies, religious doctrines, and social settings. The latter, by contrast, avoid such setting like a plague and seek ambiguous wishy-washy social environment (the arts, left wing politics in the US, schmoozing, etc.) This is the "internal compass" that helps them choosing sides as they go through their lives.
So the bottom line is that for most people the choice which side to take is already made when they are born: they will go to either the authoritarian or anti-authoritarian side. Of course, each side may take different ideational contents, depending on the social settings - and that will give each sides many flavors, right wing, left wing, religious, nationalist, etc. - but the core characteristic will remain relatively constant, either based on authoritarian or liberal human relations and values."
Wojtek
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Chuck Grimes <c123grimes at att.net> wrote:
> Sometime last year, I decided to go back to school, but do so on the web. So
> whenever I come across some page or video that interests me, I post it.
>
> Doug had Robert Paul Wolff on his show Saturday and had a good interview, so
> I tracked RPW down. His web page is here:
>
> http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/
>
> At the moment he is writing on the historical background of his field which
> is social studies or sociology or the philosophy of sociology. Go down a way
> to The Study of Society Part One, then read Part Two.
>
> CG
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>