>An exchange of letters between Corey Robin and Mark Lilla in the NYRB:
>http://l.ravi.be/zl30uN. I have no read Robin's book. But from the
>sections quoted critically by Lilla and in Robin's defence by Gourevitch,
>as well as from Robin's own defence (see URL above), I have the inkling
>that Lilla has this one right.
>
> >From Robin's own words in his letter to the NYRB, it is difficult not to
> find that he is in fact of the opinion that there is such a thing as a
> conservative mind and that he is able to peer into it and find its inner
> working
as Lilla puts it w.r.t Robin's words about the conservatism of
> the "lower orders": "Robin believes in false consciousness and in
> intellectuals' ability to see through it".
>
>Or as Robin himself puts it:
>
>"I show that the lower orders often join, and have good reason to join,
>the conservative cause: in fending off a democratic movement from below,
>conservatism gives them a taste of lordly power they otherwise would not
>enjoy."
>
>How "a taste of lordly power" is a *good* reason, is a mystery to me.
>
> —ravi (wishing I had time/energy for a coherent response to
> Gourevitch)
well, I don't care for his approach in so far as examining the work of intellectuals, the great dead white guy approach to history, can really tell you much about the conservative mind. So, yeah, the peering into minds business is off putting for me when I prefer a lot more empirical evidence to make such claims. It doesn't have to be social surveys or interviews or ethnographic field reports. It can be what Ehrenreich does, for instance, which is to examine a range of cultural artifacts: magazines, film, television shows, fashion, academic journals, newspapers, etc.
But it's not off putting to most people. Plus, he simply wanted to play on the title of the infamous screed, The Conservative Mind, so he called it The Reactionary Mind. *shrug*
I've not come across enough of an explanation as to why the "lower orders" want to join conservative movements. I mean, there's a claim, but there's not much evidence - for my taste. But I haven't finished the book.
The claim is something like this: Reactionaries arise in opposition to movements for democracy - but even more specifically he tends to focus on people pushing against systems of stratification (and this is key to the poverty of his analysis if you're a Marxist who will, quite naturally, see a problem with this approach; but that only matters for an external critique of his work which I don't want to do here). These systems of stratification manifest themselves as relations of superordination and subordination. It's not groups of people we want to attend to. Rather, Robin takes pains to communicate in his illustrative lists,that he is talking about _social _roles_: landlord/serf; manager/factory worker; boss/secretary; husband/wife.
He seems to be a student of stratification theory or something b/c his notion of "higher" and "lower" and heavy emphasis on systems of subordination and focus on social roles.
This matters to Robin because he believes that every social struggle, every great rebellion, has been ignited by a personal situation in which an individual became fed up with being treated as a subordinate. He believes that this stuff matters on a personal level - where offenses and hurts are inflicted and suffered and then play themselves out on the battlefields of union struggle, uprisings, the forum, the supreme court, elections.
""One of the reasons the subordinate's exercise of agency so agitates the conservative imagination is that it takes place in an intimate setting. Every great political blast . is set off by a private fuse: the contest for rights and standing in the family, the factory, and the field. Politicans and parties talk of constitution and amendment, natural rights and inherited privileges. But the real subject of their deliberations is the private life of power."
OK. so the reactionary emerges based on this agitation. But, yes, there is this shift back and forth between reactionary and conservative -- where the categories kind of become one. Which is troubling because he takes pains to explain that reactionaries are often disliked by conservatives. So, I would have liked a better explanation.
What he tells you, basicaly, is that these reactionaries - an intellectual tendency that always emerges in response to rebellion against relations of subordination (thus, it's situational and always dependent ON these uprisings) - give voice to this personal affront to the power of the ruling or "upper" orders. They create the arguments then used to solidify their reaction against democratization. But that movement is always assumed as one that has been won, that cannot really be undone.
with me? This "mind" recognizes, deviously, that the push for democratization of social life - e.g., equality of the sexes -- cannot be undone. It must be accepted as a fait accompli. BUT, being devious, this mind knows that it must struggle against this uprsigins anyway and to do that, the Mind must ACT AS IF it could be recaptured anyway. That's the surface rhetoric: a return to the golden olden daze when men were men, bosses were in charge, the kids stayed off your lawn. But the reality is, and the visions they sometimes paint, are often an accomodation to the new more egalitarian social relations. This happens by co-opting hte language of the left.
This sets you up for the claim that conservatives (i don't think he makes distinctions between reactionaries and conservatives here) ALSO do their ideological work by claiming to be the ones who should be pitied. They whine about how they are such a minority, how the usurpers and lower orders are running the show. But, at the same time that they are crying in their champagne about how outnumbered they are, they are also demanding that they be rulers because they are victims.
This victimization rhetoric appeals to the lower orders who really have been victimized, well, by that system of subordination that the conservative mind wants back. They supposedly con the lower orders into supporting them with the idea that they, themselves, could be the ones wielding the power.
So, the "good" reason is the typical one that's fobbed off in our circles: the lower orders *are* victimized and that is their good reason to want to no longer be victimized.
Of course, the problem with that is, if this is a general claim about the human condition, then it doesn't really explain why lots of people *don't* hew and who *don't* support conservative ideas. (and i say conservative as something distinct from mere repulican).
So then we're talking the possibility that it is just *some* folks who find this approach appealing. If so, then it should probably be explained. This wasn't Robin's aim in the book, of course. His aim was to explore the reactionary mind - and the conservative one as well. He just uses these claims about the lower orders b/c he knows it appeals to his audience: liberals who want to know what's the matter with Kansas. It doesn't have to be explained if that's your audience. it just has to be invoked b/c the audience finds it satisfying *already* to believe that they are the smart ones in the room writing the books about what's the matter with kansas. Most people reading aren't going to question this thesis IOW.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)