Thread by @zei_squirrel

the materialist critique of a fixed "human nature" which liberal and conservative hacks employ as their main argument against communism does not stop at social pathologies like racism/misogyny/homophobia. this kind of essentialist idealism is inimical to emancipatory politics

it's also not taken seriously by anyone. that warrenite liberal guy does not actually believe that people are born nazis and will forever remain nazis. otherwise he'd be denouncing people like ex-nazi leader and now anti-nazi educator christian picciolini as some evil monster

saying stuff like "these evil people are born evil and they are destined to remain evil no matter what!" is, in terms of epistemic content, the equivalent of "I *really* don't like these people!", it's empty sloganeering, though it appeals to a fixed conception of human nature

that appeal crumbles under the slightest scrutiny when we're talking about complex social roles and behaviors which require years of being cultivated, from the early family environment to early adulthood, which involves a myriad of factors, structural and contingent

so for example being born into the lower regions of the social hierarchy yields certain structural regularities, when you add the racial hierarchy to it you get another set; gender, yet another, sexuality, etc. etc., hence why there's such a wide variety in roles and behaviors

libs who appeal to human nature keep pointing to these variances as vindication of their position *even though it disproves that there is such a thing as a fixed human nature*. but not only is there variety by adding the other dimensions, there's also variety within one dimension

so let's focus on the case at hand: whites in the lower regions of the social and economic hierarchy. if you just differentiate between regions/countries you already see huge varieties in social roles and behaviors here, let alone when you add additional (social) factors

so for example you have people in that (arbitrarily assembled, as all social categories are by nature) group who are communists/berniecrats to pro-establishment dems and apathetic non-voters (by far the largest group *across* all dimensions re lower regions in the social space)

I know this is boring but key point is this: since there's no fixed, unchangeable human nature which pre-determines social behavior given the wide variety therein, which is conditioned by a huge range of factors, only a detailed analysis of a particular group yields useful info

so scott atran, a renowned anthropologist, decided to do this kind of work re cases of "radicalization" in some muslim communities. because it's not just "lol look at this picture of a house", or "lol but osama bin laden is rich and al-qaeda all have engineering degrees!"

and what did his research yield? well, insights like how something contingent like playing football in the same neighborhood contributed to radicalization along with a whole host of other contingent factors re early home environment, schooling, media consumption, etc. etc.

here's one of his talks where he details some of his research, and I also highly recommend his book "talking to the enemy"

this talk is also very good

and if you want a great first-hand account of how the structural and contingent, or objective and subjective, come together in the making of racists/homophobes (and their opposite) from the same class background, I highly recommend edouard louis' book "the end of eddy".

louis was born into a northern french village, in a poor working class household. his father used to be a communist party voter but then turned to le pen. his parents were viciously racist and homophobic. yet he describes in detail how this all came to be, what its sources are

it's part autobiography and part sociological investigation of a working-class household devastated by neoliberalism. really fascinating book. it also shows how paradoxical things like homophobia was there. I don't want to spoil it but trust me, it's...wild.

here's a talk he did about his book