While I generally agree with Louis' argument, I also believe that his
argument would have gained from making a distinction between spontaneous and
institutionalised behaviour. In essence, the bourgeois pundits argue that
bourgeois social institutions originate in the law of human nature.
Ehrenreich follows the suit, but adds: "let's change human nature (as if it
were a yuppie life style) to get rid of the institution.
Of course, similar arguments are raised re. any other institution. Property
relations, we are told, originate in the "natural" desire to acquire useful
materila goods. Racism originates in our "natural" propensity to stereotype
or fear people who are different than ourselves. And so on, and so forth.
The appeal of this mythology is that the antecedent asserting that "people
tend to engage in conflicting, hoarding, or stereotypong behaviour" is
essentially true. But despite that, the argument is a nonsequitur, because
it was constructed in a flawed manner. In essence, it is a logical fallacy
known as confirming the antecedent; e.g. "if people are bellicose by nature,
then wars are frequent; "wars are freguent; ergo: people are bellicose in
nature." According to the same logic "if Richard M. Nixon was assassinated,
then Richard M. Nixon is dead; Richard M. Nixon is dead, ergo: Richard M.
Nixon was assassinated."
Distinguishing between spontaneous and institutionalised behaviour, the
former falls on a continuum ranging between "good" and "bad", "selfish" and
"selfless" "rational" and irrational" and so forth. In short, we are
capable of any sort of behaviour. The role of social instituions is to
encourage some of those behaviours while discouraging others. It is like a
bullhorn -- it amplifies only certain sounds (namely the speech of the
person who holds it), but it does not pick up (or even drowns) other sounds.
With that in mind, it is easy to see that social institutions, like war,
private property, division of labour, or racism, are maintained by those in
a position to do so, namely -- the ruling classes who also control the means
of mental production.
There is another question, however, how these institutions are being
established and maintained. Louis suggests that they are being simply
imposed by the ruling class -- but such a view simply does not hold water.
A more useful view is that while social institutions do serve the interests
of the elite, they also serve, in various ways (that may or may not
correspond with the interests of the elites), various interests and needs of
the ruled. In other words, the ruled collaborate, willingly and
unadvertently, with the elites in the creation and maintenance of social
institutions.
Examples are abundant. Michael Burawoy (_Manufacturing Consent_) shows how
workers in Chicago manufacturing plants use capitalist institutions
(competition) for their own purposes that have little to do with the
preservation of capitalism. In the same vein, part of the Blach population
in South Africa (the Bantu-stan elites) were staunch supporters of the
appertheid, because it gave them a relatively privileged position over other
Blacks (something that they would not be able to maintain under a democratic
rule). In the same vein, the nazis coopeted the women liberation movement
in Germany (see Klaudia Koontz, _Mothers in the Fatherland_).
I think a common mistake of the old day socialists is a belief that the
masses would revolt againts their rulers as soon as an opportunity arises
and, even more importantly, the revolutionary vanguard will give a signal.
I am afraid it ain't so.
One of the most frightening powers of the state and social institutions
(modern and ancient alike) is its capacity tor organize people against their
own interests, and even for their own destruction. Diatribes denouncing
these institutions as a ploy serving the elite interests do little to help
us understand how they extert their influence on common people. In the same
vein, the modern military and its weaponry is obviously a tool of the ruling
class to maintain their hegemony and keep the lower classes in line. But
that fact does not yet explain why and how the lower classes are fascinated
with the military and weapons (cf. the militias) despite the fact that these
are the proverbial Damocles' sword hanging over their heads.
In that respect, Echrenreich's bourgeois morality play can offer more
insights into the process, than a conventional class analysis.
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
****** REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS! ******
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|There is no such thing as society, only the individuals |
|who constitute it. -Margaret Thatcher |
| |
| |
|There is no such thing as government or corporations,|
|only the individuals who lust for power and money.|
| -no apologies to Margaret Thatcher |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
*********DROGI KURWA BUDUJA, A NIE MA DOKAD ISC************
