It seems that people tend to be turned off by the displays of activist cultural identity which they found unacceptable on aesthetic grounds. This in turn tends to divert attention from the problem itself.
The role of aesthetic and cultural tastes in class distinctions is equal if not greater than that of economics (cf. Bourdieu, "Distinctions"). This creates an almost impossible situation for many radical activists - they claim to fight for the interests of the subordinate classes, yet the subordinate classes reject them as "upper class brats" based on their cultural appearances. But if they give up their activist culture to gain acceptance, they basically sell out their souls to the devil of the mainstream society. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Wojtek
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, exactly my point. The use of straw men like "mother earth"
>> (presumed to be high priority for NASA, various national academies,
>> and scientists at large) and invoking pampered greenies at the expense
>> of ignoring direct bread-and-butter threats to production like dought,
>> flooding and sea level rise can all be invoked from a leftist stand
>> just as much from a rightist.
>>
>> Why don't we see more of it?
>
> Or rather, why the discrepancy?
>
>
> --
> Andy
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/