David Shemano wrote: > My use of "conservatives" and "liberals" probably does a disservice to > Haidt's analysis, because the words mean different things to different people > and are very nation/place specific.<
I can't criticize Haidt's research, because I haven't read it, but fact that the meanings of the terms vary over time and between places pose a real problem. "Conservative" and "liberal" don't have meanings simply based on individual psychology or biology but have different meanings depending on the socioeconomic context. "Conservative" typically means defense of the current structure of power and privilege -- or support for a return to a previously-existing structure (the "ancien régime"). Worse, it's multidimensional: "conservative" can mean defense of the power of a socially dominant ethnic group, the establishment of a religion, "traditional" ideals concerning family and sex/gender relations, a "muscular" and expansionist military foreign policy, and/or the power of the wealthy. Also, "conservative" could also mean defense of the interpretation of the US constitution's 2nd amendment as the right for any adult to carry weapons anywhere or of the right to make moonshine or meth in one's backyard. Even worse, in the U.S. context, on the concrete level, there seem to be two meanings of "conservative" which potentially put their adherents in conflict. One the one hand, there's the traditionalist conservatives who defend an American version of Kinder, Küche, Kirche (e.g., many followers of Santorum). On the other hand, there's the money-libertarians whose main defense is of the power of the rich (Ron Paul's legions). Alas for those who try to belong to both of these camps, "free markets" tend to erode traditional social relationships and power inequalities (except the power of those with a lot of money). My focus here is on conservatives, but a lot of the same kinds of things can be said about "liberals." -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac. Social science is in the middle.... and usually in a muddle. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
