Conflict Sociology Explains It

by Tom Kando

The latest mass shootings have resulted in a vehement discussion of the white supremacist domestic terrorism emerging in the US at this time. Experts are interviewed on all the channels, analyses are offered in countless articles, as to what motivates this upsurge of racist violence that is committed largely by young white men. 

Much blame is attributed to Donald Trump’s rhetoric. And it is true that this vile man is a facilitator for this emerging trend.

The ridiculous ease with which automatic firearms can be obtained in this country is rightly identified as an important factor, if not in the existence of white male rage, at least in the lethality of their rampages.

On the stupid side are all those who desperately focus on ANY issue in order to avoid talking about guns: Mental illness (as if the US had a monopoly on this), video games (don’t the Japanese have even more video games, and practically zero homicides?). You even hear that if we outlaw guns, we might as well outlaw fertilizer, as that can also be used to kill people.

But there is an obvious factor which I have not heard mentioned. One of Sociology’s major approaches is so-called Conflict Sociology. It provides what is, in my view, the most obvious explanation of the rise of what we can now begin to call neo-fascism in America:

White male privilege has been the rule throughout history, at least for most of Western history. But ever since the cultural revolution, the Civil Rights movement, and the rise of feminism of the past fifty years or so, white male privilege has been increasingly questioned by a growing segment of the population.

It has not been eliminated, but it has been challenged, and it is being challenged every day as we speak.

So what do you expect? When underprivileged groups begin to contest their domination, isn’t it obvious that this will be resisted by the elite? Is the Pope Catholic?

Whether male privilege has been opposed successfully or not is immaterial. The resistance results in fear, anxiety, rage in any event, on the part of those who are most comfortable with the status quo. The Tea Party antedates Trump. The reaction to the progressive movement was well under way by the time Reagan got elected.

You might say, “but hey, white male dominance is just as much a fact in Europe and in other Western countries (not to mention non-white male dominance, which is far worse everywhere else, from the Muslim world to macho Latin America, and from Africa to Asia, including Japan and India).” Correct. And the fact that the epidemic of mass shootings is by and large an American phenomenon proves that the key problem is guns.

It is the COMBINATION of white male rage AND the proliferation of guns which makes for a uniquely combustible situation in this country. America has no monopoly on reactionary bigotry and racism. The rhetoric of Hungary’s Orban is as inflammatory as Trump’s. Brexit was largely motivated by racist xenophobia. Australia’s history of racism and genocide is comparable to ours. The rightward reaction is worldwide.

This trend has not been as lethal elsewhere in the Western world as in the US because people there are not as heavily armed. So yes, guns are the crucial variable. However, the current explosion of white male rage is a response to the threat being posed to that group’s privileged position.

Am I blaming progressives for the rise of neo-fascism? Am I saying, “it’s your own damn fault, you shouldn’t complain”? Don’t be ridiculous.

What I am saying is that conflict is an inevitable part of human life and history, as Conflict Sociology recognizes. The quest for justice is arduous. There can be no turning back from this quest. In time, white men will come to their senses, one way or another. They will stop blaming innocent categories of imaginary enemies, and accept a more just world. It will be done.

© Tom Kando 2019;All Rights Reserved

. leave comment here