Thoughts on Mein Kampf and Simmels Law

"Simmels Law" (formulated by sociologist George Simmel) argues that a groupes inner cohesion or solidarity is dependent on external pressures. If, for example, a new law was created that prohibited fat people from walking the streets after a certain hour at night, we would quickly see a solidaric interest group for fat people emerging. People that find themselves in the same place and situation are often drawn together. Having to make war against people who are either relatives, businesspartners or groupmembers (e.g., the fat solidarity group) would be seen as a conflict of loyalty and hence a situation where it would be hard to make war. This conflict of loyality as seen within a country or state was something that Adolf Hitler in his text Mein Kampf seeked to avoid when he wrote: The true national leaders effectivness consists in the ability of preventing the division of interest among the people, and to always direct its peoples attention towards one single enemy.

If you do the opposit of Mein Kampfs teachings(sic!) you'll get what the Romans found as an effective method of weaking their enemies. Their expression divide et impera (divide and conquer) is a good formulation for this line of thought.

Colonial powers have used the same strategy in their attempts to control people. Supporting ideologies of ethnic division has been an effective means for colonial administrators to weaken a country. If you weaken loyalties between groupes they are more likely to disagree and hence be less effective in gathering against you.

Questions concerning ethnicity, identity and the cultural divide are all elements of the political rethorics related to hegemony in terms of class dominance (refering to Antonio Gramsci). If we look at Simmels claim of external pressures contributing to the emergence of a group it becomes apparent how class groups are formed - the same line of work, salary, consumption behaviour etc.

When treating ethnicity we find a losely and fluid mode of identification that has been replacing our views on class differences. It is now common to use ´ethnic conflicts´ as an explanation for domestic war or crisis - without really understanding the social and political reality of the country or territory under question.

'Cultural terrorism' is found in the attemps of labeling a person by his/her ethnicity wether in media or whatever. Minority members in a country are usually refered to as 'unique' or 'exotic' and thus are separated from the rest. It is interesting to see how this "relativistic" view may have an adverse effect. Creating boundaries for a citizens place in society depending on these criterias may have an weakening effect, but it is seen as correct in so far as it is culturally relativistic. An opposit atempt may be seen in nationalism (the modern states ideology). It is based on its peoples shared values, mainly with referens to symbols and practices that unite its people.

It is interesting to see that there is some kind of an "off and on" switch for the state in terms of creating participation. If it wants to weaken a country and abuse its resources (e.g., colonialist fashion) it may switch off its sense of membership - people are separated, excluded and identified by ethnic or particular elements. In contrast, if the state wants to unite its members it may do so with the help of nationalism, where people are united around symbols and rituals that are fabricated and artificial.

We saw how Adolf Hitler united Germany with his dramatic speaches. I would argue that we see the opposite today - how boundaries are set up within the country, and between its members.

A possible solution? See things as they are. If the truth lies in class conflicts and social and political inequalities dont misslabel them as ethnic conflicts or lack of nationalism. See them as they are and hence treat them as such.

My race began as the sea began,
with no nouns, and with no horizon,
with pebbles under my tongue,
with a different fix on the stars.

I began with no memory,
I began with no future,
but I looked for that moment
when the mind was halfed by a horizon.

- Derek Walcott,
Nobel Prize winner in literature 1992