Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - I. The Approach - 3. Facets of the Negro Problem - 5. Relationships between Lower Class Groups
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
68 An American Dilemma
exaggeratedly ^^typical” case—the Negro—we may hope to reach some
suggestions toward a more satisfactory general theory about this social
power structure in general. Our hypothesis is that in a society where there
are broad social classes and, in addition, more minute distinctions and
splits in the lower strata, the lower class group will, to a great extent^
take
care of keepng each other subdued^ thus relieving, to that extent, the
higher classes of this otherwise painful task necessary to the monopolization
of the power and the advantages.
It will be observed that this hypothesis is contrary to the Marxian theory
of class society, which in the period between the two World Wars has been
so powerful, directly and indirectly, consciously and unconsciously, in
American social science thinking generally. The Marxian scheme assumes
that there is an actual solidarity between the several lower class groups
against the higher classes, or, in any case, a potential solidarity which as a
matter of natural development is bound to emerge. The inevitable result
is a ‘^class struggle” where all poor and disadvantaged groups are united
behind the barricades.
Such a construction has had a considerable vogue in all discussions on
the American Negro problem since the First World War. We are not here
taking issue with the political desirability of a common front between the
poorer classes of whites and the Negro people who, for the most part,
belong to the proletariat. In fact, we can well see that such a practical
judgment is motivated as a conclusion from certain value premises in line
with the American Creed. But the thesis has also been given a theoretical
content as describing actual trends in reality and not only political
desiderata, A solidarity between poor whites and Negroes has been said
to be ‘‘natural” and the conflicts to be due to “illusions.” This thesis,
which will be discussed in some detail in Chapter 38, has been a leading
one in the field and much has been made of even the faintest demonstration
of such solidarity.
In partial anticipation of what is to follow later in this volume, we might
be permitted to make a few general, and perhaps rather dogmatic, remarks
in criticism of this theory. Everything we know about human frustration
and aggression, and the displacement of aggression, speaks against It. For
an individual to feel interest solidarity with a group assumes his psycho-
logical identification with the group. This Identification must be of con-
siderable strength, as the very meaning of solidarity is that he is pre-
pared to set aside and even sacrifice his own short-range private interests
for the long-range interests of his group. Every vertical split within the
lower class aggregate will stand as an obstacle to the feeling of solidarity.
Even within the white working class itself, as within the entire American
nation, the feeling of solidarity and loyalty is relatively low.*’ Despite the
• See Chapter 33.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
