John Kulig wrote: >That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two >incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because >everyone should be able to pull themselves up by >their bootstraps , and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. >are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting >it too crudely perhaps).
There are, of course, massive differences in the political landscape in the States and the UK (and indeed the rest of Western Europe). No right-wingers outside a lunatic fringe over here would argue in anything like those terms (even allowing for, as John writes, it having been put too crudely). The Welfare State (which is what we call it!) has long been a "given" in West European countries – the debate is about what and where and how much, etc. (From a Western European point of view, one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when one reads all that stuff about how Obama is a socialist, and is scheming to set up a dreaded socialist state. I think it can be truly said that that kind of thinking, which seems to be getting close to the Republican mainstream, is literally delusional. Most of us over here who follow those aspects of the United States political scene can only watch and marvel. :-) ) >The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising >and falling through the socio-economic ladder >based on genetics. As I previously indicated (or at least implied), I haven't got beyond a perusal of *The Bell Curve* in a bookstore (though I've read plenty of pro and contra articles), but I have read other stuff by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, and I think this is an oversimplification of their views. What they argue is that genetics is a big *factor* in social mobility, and in some cases overwhelmingly so, but they don't argue that other factors don't play some role, and of course more in the case of some people than others, according to their social/environmental circumstances. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ---------------------- From: John Kulig <ku...@mail.plymouth.edu> Subject: Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Getting caught up on email, so only briefly scanned these posts, but two things come to mind about the gene/environment/left/right wing issue. While in my personal experience left wingers seem to favor environmental explanations for individual differences, I have to point out that Marx (Karl,not Groucho) was a fan of Darwinism (I am lumping evolution with genes, big jump I know, but both imply biological determinism), and wanted to dedicate portions of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined partly because of his unfamiliarity with the topic, and also I believe Marx' opposition to religion. My readings of the original communists/socialists was that they saw parallels between biological and cultural evolution (Though what happened in history didn't quite fit the theory. England and Germany, being more advanced in the Industrial Revolution, were supposed to be where workers united. In Russia, it was reversed, communism was used as a means to industrial growth). Second, when one follows the logic of Herrnstein & Murray's Bell Curve, you can see how genetics and left-wing can be easily combined. That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting it too crudely perhaps). The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising and falling through the socio-economic ladder based on genetics. IF people gravitate toward the bottom of society because of genetics, one can more easily make the case for charity and welfare imo, echoing the famous phrase "from each according to their ability" and "to each according to their need". Though, some conservatives opt for family, friends, churches being the source of charity rather than "big government." Interestingly, the authors are an odd couple, with Herrnstein being the liberal and Murray from the conservative Heritage Institute. ========================== John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 ======================== --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5762 or send a blank email to leave-5762-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
