Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

develop more empathy for them (and vice-versa). Building movements of resistance and
building tolerance seems to be vital in this regards. Further, efforts at multi-cultural
education and unity indicate the value that solidarity can play in minority group
protection. Take, for instance, the threats that people of Muslim or Arab descent faced in
the US following the attacks on September 11, 2001. Years of multi-culturalism helped
non-Muslims and non-Arabs to realize that those facing attacks in the US were their
brothers and sisters, and they should stand with them against racist and xenophobic
behaviors. Thus, the country saw wide-spread solidarity with Muslims and Arabs,
including anarchists standing guard outside of Mosques and neighbor visiting neighbor
telling them to come to them if they felt unsafe. Yet Hartung (1983) states that:
Homan's human exchange theory, offer[s] barely concealed
rationales for the continuation of things-as-they-are in an
exercise of politicalization by omission... [T]he competition
of the marketplace, and the notion of profit maximization,
lie at the base of human relations according to Homans...
social order is contingent upon either the distribution of
goods and services based on a paucity of talented and
trained individuals hierarchically channeled; or upon a tacit
social contract between “buyer” and “seller”. (Hartung
1983, pp. 85 & 87)
Thus, although at a basic level the ideas of solidarity seem to flow from Homans—people
interacting increasingly in a pleasurable and positive way—anarchists would argue that
the commodification of humans deeply insults the needs and vision of a free people.
Peter Blau developed exchange theory to explain society in general. He said that social
structure is based upon exchange and had three components: 1) behavior is determined by
expected reward, 2) norm of reciprocity, and 3) the norm of fair exchange. The third point
has been an interesting one to anarchists recently, whether in terms of supporting
campaigns of “fair exchange” goods and services, or in the theory of “participatory
economics” (aka “ParEcon”) developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Albert
writes (2000) that a fair remuneration (in a workplace, at least) should be based upon
effort and sacrifice of the worker.
But, why don't the poor rebel? Marx thought it was because the methods of repression
were arrayed against them (anarchists would agree with this thought). Yet, Brian
DellaFare wrote in “The Meek Shall Not Inherit the Earth” (BOOK or ARTICLE?)
(1980) that socialization processes devalued the work of the working class, thus
convincing them that they earned what they deserved. He saw evidence of this
socialization in schools, in families, and in workplaces. Lower-class schools tend to be
more oriented towards discipline and place less emphasis on creative thinking and
exploration. Working class families tend to be more patriarchal and order giving and
taking oriented, where as middle and upper class families deviate from patriarchy in many
respects. Finally, at workplaces, there are always people giving orders to the workers,
while the managerial class is giving the orders (thus finding a more fulfilling existence).
Thus, if people who receive the fewest rewards for their efforts believe they deserve it,
[ Williams 25 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]