> [WS:] The problem is that people like Duncan, maybe Rhee, and other
> "reformers" [is that t]hey are are well-meaning do gooders who want
"help the kids" but instead put a "human face" on on evil fascist game....
SNIP... It is not what these bleeding hearts intended - most of them
genuinely wanted to help, they just did not know, or perhaps did not want
toknow, that they were just played the role of useful idiots in the
right wing scheme of defunding and downsizing the public sector.... SNIP
>
> ... While it is true that systemic forces make certain courses of action
more difficult and other easier, it does not explain why specific
> individuals
follow a particular course of action.... Functionalist arguments about
"systemic forces" do no explain that - they sweep it under the rug, so
to speak....From that pov, the bleeding heart do gooders
> are similar to "prison guards" in the Stanford Prison Study or
> subjects in Milgram's experiments - they play the reform game and
> internalize their role in that game.
>
>
But, um, W... weren't you the guy defending the Dems - who you now assert
are Progressive do-gooders as useful idiots for "fascism" unaware of the
"unintended consequences" of "internalizing their role in the game" -
against us leftists over the last two plus years?
And, uh, also... there's a difference between structuralist, determinist and functionalist arguments. These categories of analysis have been developed in a variety of permutations and combinations - and with various and sundry mediations - if you're seeking to tar folks, it might be good to use the right terms.
Last, if you think the kinds of work done by Milgram and Arendt aren't every bit as structuralist in its social psychology as the approaches you mislabel - and misunderstand - as functionalist, I'd love to see you make that argument. How is the logic of capital any different than the logic of role internalization - beyond the fact that they operate at different levels of abstraction (and, in fact, both leave room for constrained agency when properly understood)?