durkheim argued that it was out of these rituals producing experiences of collective effervescence that religions emerged. for the secular sociologist, of course, everything is religion so the study of collective effervescence is secularized in the study of political formation and political change, social movements, and collective behavior.
as i recall the snarky comments about how icky such a vision of social change was had to do with some sort of complaint about how silly it was that people's ideas changed. sort of like, "eeeeuuuuw. we have to get involved in street protests and consensus democracy and all that silly stuff so that we'll have some sort of transformative experience? icky!"
the issue wasn't the lastingness of the change but that it was even of importance.
i take it that, for those who want things to change rationally, smoothly, bloodlessly, ideas move from text or lectern to brain and, whoomp, there it is: changed ideas. it is kind of icky to think that it might involve emotions.
At 06:54 AM 2/25/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>This is very good; one slight qualification. The change is not
>"effervescent": that is true. But neither is it necessarily permanent; it
>has to be reinforced by further "advance" into and 'stabilization' of direct
>democracy. Otherwise it can fade. But Joanna is completely correct that it
>is not the mere excitement of the moment. From the beginning it is more than
>that.
>
>Another related matter. When, as in the'430s, in the Chrtist movment, and in
>the '60s, the movement does not 'go over the top' as it were, it encounters
>both heavy repression (e.g., the Panthers) and overwhelming ideological
>attack from the whole might of bourgeois culture (e.g., the women's
>movement: by the mid-70s students who _were_ femiwre beginning their
>statements with, "I'm not a feminist, but..." And recognition that cannot
>name itself begins to weaken rapidly. "Human Nature" does change; it can
>change rapidly. That change can also be reversed rapidly if new conditions
>are not established that tht lead to the daily reaffirmation of the change.
>
>Carol
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>On Behalf Of 123hop at comcast.net
>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:24 PM
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] (The 23%...)
>
>" Someone
>here, a few months ago, poo pooed the idea that it matters, for example,
>that people felt transformed by the experience of direct democracy. they
>saw it as crazy and cultish that rational human beings might get caught up
>in something as silly as the effervescent excitement what was going on
>around them. This does make little sense to the manly man approach to
>politics as one where individuals make rational decisions about
>self-interest and public interest."
>
>If you read John Reed's "Ten Days that Shook the World"; if you read
>Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia"; if you read Olsen's interviews about her
>political work in the thirties, for which she abandoned a brilliant writing
>career; if you read Traven's account of the Mexican revolution (in the
>Jungle novels): they all bear witness to the metamorphosis of consciousness
>for people engaged in mass action and direct democracy. This was thoroughly
>villified by all and sundry as "mob" mentality (Hugo through Shirley
>Jackson). Ehrenreich has a good account of this in "Dancing in the Streets."
>
>The main point is that it is not effervescent excitement; it is the great
>inner illumnation that can take place when people make history consciously
>and for the common good.
>
>Joanna
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)