What is left and what is right? Whatever these two poles of the political spectrum represent it is beyond doubt that there exists a chasm that divides. This was touched upon in ‘of left and right‘. As chasms widened so too did the two sides find less to relate upon. They grew more aggressive towards each other. The leftists were commies and the rightists were nazis, in each others’ lingo. Wars were fought and people died.
However as time goes by so too do changes occur. Entire parties can shift in position, as their membership bases change so too does the leadership, remaining the same only in name and the minds of a few old die-hards. More importantly, the very definitions of left and right take a battering as while they may be iconic in their symbolic representation of the political spectrum they do are not actually representative of such.
Yet what if we were to attempt to make the terms left and right redundant in favour of other, more definitive and hence representative terms? While such might not actually bring groups on each side closer together it might at least provide an insight into what the seemingly irreconcilable differences actually are and therefore provide a more tangible platform for any future communications to base upon.
When making any attempt to further define categories there will always be individuals or groups who would wish to object and while this may be understandable, it also needs to be done sooner or later - so I may as well take a stab at it.
The left, as I perceive it, has a tendency to be collectivistic in nature. There is a tendency to speak of terms as ‘the common good’ and within such quarters one finds groups that mostly believe in some degree of empowerment of a central entity. Communists, socialists and liberals are often identified as being left wing in nature.
The right, on the other hand, has a tendency to be individualistic in nature. Rather than empowering any central entity the right tends to focus more upon the empowerment of the individual. Where the left may mention ‘protection’ the right may respond ‘interference’. National Socialists (”Nazis”), Capitalists and Conservatives tend to be identified as examples of right wing entities or concepts.
While one could leave this at a substitution of collectivist (for left) and individualist (for right) conclusion, it has been mentioned in the past by others than myself that the left-right spectrum leaves categorization a little wanting in accuracy. It has hence been suggested that a further axis, liberal-authoritarian, be introduced to better quantify ideologies. This shift is itself an improvement over left and right as the terms liberal and authoritarian are actually somewhat self-explanatory.
Still, for as long as there remains some confusion over which patch of the political or ideological spectrum one belongs to, there remains plenty of room for further attempts to refine the tools of definition and description at our disposal.
Entries (RSS)
April 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I think you’re relying far too much on a rigid definition of left and right, a definition which Norman holds to.
But James, the Nazis and the Fascists were right-wingers (some would contest that) and were collectivists. Most leftist-liberals today are, at least, superficially individualist. There is a sense in which “individualism”, because it has taken on a set meaning and a set of beliefs are associated with it, has also become a kind of collectivism.
So, in short, the picture is quite more complex than you’re drawing it.
The primary basis, which still allows for a wide margin of variation, is that the left is generally universalist and humanist, that is, it believes in universal solutions for all humans, and is progressive (what that means should produce a whole essay on its own, because like “individualism” it has taken on a set meaning), whereas the right-wing is primarily concerned either with the preservation of a race or a culture, or with the rebirth and regeneration of a race or a culture.
In my experience, despite stereotypes to the opposite I find a myriad of variations within the right-wing.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:15 am
(took me long enough… Too distracted!)
Thank you for that insight into the way that you perceive both left and right. It ir certainly true that I am attempting to see these two poles of this axis of the political spectrum in simpler fashion to what may be the case. The reason that I do so is because it is easier to place definitions in comparison to an existing paradigm rather than to expect persons to envision them without some kind of comparison to exist. I’m not saying that I’m succeeding at this but I am (or was) trying. ^_~
You are right in pointing out that both National Socialism and Fascism functioned in a collectivist fashion. This further highlights the desirability for political/ ideological orientations to be considered independently of existing parties. To equate any political orientation to a particular party ties that orientation to the wellbeing of that party. One has only to consider how greatly the collapse of the economy of the USSR afflicted the left-oriented ideology of communism to see.
I’d lastly have to agree that stereotypes do not do justice to existing variants but would add that constructive stereotyping is every bit as useful as a grid upon a map.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Dear James,
I’d like to remind you that at 8:00 pm this Friday the 13th of June 2008 at San Remo’s the meal organized for bloggers, their families and friends shall be held.
Details about the menu, location and a lot of other details can be found on my web-site: http://www.sandrovella.org .
Please check your booking and your order. If you want to change your order, please contact me.
Feel free to bring any family or friends but please let me know about it beforehand. You can call me on 79460527 or send me an e-mail at info@sandrovella.org.
Thank you for booking. I am sure that we will have a great time and am looking forward to seeing you there.
Kind regards,
Sandro Vella