Rick Froman wrote: > I am not a political scientist but I have friends who are political > scientists and I just wonder if anyone else has had the not-so-brilliant > thought that the whole left-wing/right-wing dichotomy in political science > is way too oversimplified?
Even within psychology, this thought dates back at least to Hans Eysenck in the who published in _Sense and Nonsense in Psychology_ (1958, p. 281) a scale that measured political positions in terms of two dimensions: radical-conservative and toughminded-tenderminded (borrowing and realigning -- or misusing, depending on your point of view -- a couple of terms from William James). Socialists and conservatives are both at about the 0-point in the t-t scale but, as one would expect, are somwehat (though not extremely) on the radical and conservative sides of the r-c dimension, respectively. Traditional liberals (not to be confused with the pejorative way that term is used in U.S. political dicourse) are at about the 0-point on r-c, but somwhat more tenderminded than either socialist or conservatives. Communists and fascists are, as would be expected, toward the ends of the r-c scale, respectively, but both are highly toughminded, making them as close to each other in "political space" as they are to any of the other positions. (Indeed, as I recall, Eysneck suggests that this is where the action is in French politics, at least of the 1950s, which is supposed to explain why fascists are more likely to convert to communism, and vice versa, than sliding along the "obvious" dimension of fascism to conservatism to liberalism to socialism to communism.) I'll scan the plot he gives and post it at http://www.yorku.ca/christo/eysenck.gif in a few of minutes. No doubt there has been a great deal of development of this kind of multidimensional modeling of politica space since then. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================= > I just had such a thought today when I read > someone referring to privacy as a liberal issue. It may be but there are a > lot of right-wing groups that don't want the government involved in their > business either. > > There are many problems with a simple left/right dichotomy and I can't > believe political scientists haven't figured this out yet. If they have, > they are keeping it a secret from the rest of us (including the > psychologists who study political motivations). To start with, there are, of > course, economic conservatives and liberals and social conservatives and > liberals so, at least, there are two axes with four quadrants: the two > well-known ones, Libertarians (who are basically social liberals and > economic conservatives) and a fourth group of social conservatives and > economic liberals (which, if they actually exist, seem to be about as > numerous as Kohlberg's Stage 6 reasoners). To consider fascists or > communists to be either extremely to the left or to the right of the > American political spectrum is ludicrous. They seem to be pretty closely > related (at least in their real life manifestations) to one another. I think > there may be almost as many dimensions to political thought as there are > political issues. To tie in another thread, I think such a one-dimensional > dichotomy is even less likely to shine light on a person's motivations than > the gender dichotomy or racial distinctions. > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman > Associate Professor of Psychology > John Brown University > Siloam Springs, AR 72761 > (479) 524-7295 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/rfroman.asp > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aubyn Fulton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:46 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: RE: George Will's Washinton Post Column. > > Louis_Schmier wrote: > Any of you tipsters read George Will in the Washington Post this morning? > I suggest you do. I won't tell you what he says. I've got my take on it. > I'd like to hear yours. > > PAUL K. BRANDON wrote. > The Psych Bull article that Will is referring to is a meta-analysis, with > all the limitations of its breed. Since it's based on a wide variety of > verbal reports of what individuals apparently mostly politicians) say that > they would do or say in a specified situation, it is of limited value. > > And Will of course has selectively abstracted parts of the report that > suit his politics. > > All in all, I'm more disappointed in Psych Bull in publishing the article > in the first place. > > Aubyn writes. > Aside from sharing his staunch conservative opposition to the Designated > Hitter (a position all right thinking baseball fans adopt) I long ago > stopped taking Mr. Will seriously, but I don't begrudge him responding to, > and even being a little insulted by, the thesis put forward by Jost and > others (including Frank Sulloway) that political conservatives are more > likely to be rigid than liberals. Will is essentially an entertainer these > days, so I also don't really expect him to give a fair reading of the > article. > > If one were to take Will seriously, I think the main dispute I would have > with him is his distortion of Jost's position on the psychological > determinants of all beliefs. Will fills much of his column with assertions > like the following: "Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other > people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological > explanations for their beliefs" and " The professors have ideas; the rest > of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses" and ".the > professors, who do not say that their judgments arise from social > situations or emotional needs rather than reason". While Jost et. al. do > argue that conservatives are more likely to be rigid and uncomfortable > with ambiguity, they specifically are not arguing what Will attributes to > them repeatedly, that only conservative beliefs are motivated by > non-rational processes. Note this passage, only partially quoted by Will: > "Our first assumption, too, is that conservative ideologies-like virtually > all other belief systems-are adopted in part because they satisfy some > psychological needs. This does not mean that conservatism is pathological > or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or > unprincipled." Will chops the quote up, and exaggerates the emphasis on > the phrase "necessarily false" to make it [inaccurately] seem that Jost is > really exempting liberal beliefs from non-rational motivation. > > I don't understand Dr. Brandon's disappointment with Psych Bull for > publishing the article - unless he is disappointed with all published > reports of meta-analysis (which would make him one disappointed > psychologist indeed). There is a long and broad literature on the > psychology of political ideology, and it seems appropriate for Psych Bull > to publish a review of this literature from time to time. Jost and company > state up front that whether or not conservative ideology is uniquely > linked to the set of psychological needs and motives they suggest is an > empirical question, and they use acceptable empirical methods to support > their answer. Psych Bull also published a response to Jost et. al. that > argues in the alternative - that the rigid avoidance of ambiguity is not > uniquely associated with conservatives, but is an attribute of ideological > extremists of all kinds. Jost then replies with their explanation of why > they think this is not true, and that conservatives really are uniquely > rigid. I don't know that these articles will be the last word on this > topic, and it is certainly possible to disagree with elements of both, but > from what I can tell they seem to be of a type and quality that is > consistent with the scope and mission of Psych Bull. Maybe next time they > will publish a review of research on the motivations of liberal ideology. > > What would really be disappointing is if Psych Bull were to allow > political and popular pressures and criticisms discourage them from > publishing potentially controversial articles. > > Here are the full citations for anyone interested in reading the articles > for themselves: > > Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. By Jost, John T.; > Glaser, Jack; Kruglanski, Arie W.; Sulloway, Frank J. Psychological > Bulletin. 2003 May Vol 129(3) 339-375 > > Psychological and political orientation--The left, the right, and the > rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). By Greenberg, Jeff; Jonas, Eva > Psychological Bulletin. 2003 May Vol 129(3) 376-382 > > Exceptions that prove the rule--Using a theory of motivated social > cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political > anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003). By Jost, John T.; Glaser, > Jack; Kruglanski, Arie W.; Sulloway, Frank J. Psychological Bulletin. 2003 > May Vol 129(3) 383-393 > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
