I have declared more than a few times that social pressure is a large part of liberalism. I have previously said that the conservative opposite number is not social, but emotional and sentimental appeals.
That sounds nice and tidy, but I have decided I am not satisfied with it. Not all conservatives are motivated by sentimental cues, or displays of flag, prairie, and salt-of-the-earth families. There may be some social pressure aspect to conservatism that I am not crediting appropriately. We, most of us, do move in the direction of those around us. Is there something further that is particular to those on the right?
*******
Vaguely related: There is a long essay Shame and Society at "Hotel Concierge," the new blogsite of The Last Psychiatrist. I didn't finish it, but B S King of "Graph Paper Diaries" did. It has moments of brilliant insight, and I think it might be more than 50% sensible. But it does have some head-scratching sections, so I can't entirely endorse it. He is a liberal who does not really understand conservatives, but is distressed with where some of his own are headed. It is not a superficial treatment of the subject. Some of you might take to it better than I did, and it is thought-provoking.
18 comments:
Assistant Village Idiot: Is there something further that is particular to those on the right?
The right tends to be more culturally homogeneous, but to say they don't use social pressure to induce conformity would be mistaken. Not sure if you are conflating conservatism with the political right, but certainly the extremes on the right are well-known for enforced indoctrination — just as are those on the extreme left. Even in the more moderate cases, conservatives have often wielded social pressure to induce conformity, typically under the guise of religion or morality. If anything, social conformity seems more native to the right than to the left, the left generally being a more disparate grouping.
Zachriel, what were your thoughts on the Shame and Society post? Interested in your take there.
Zachriel: can you give some examples of conservatives enforcing conformity, say in the past 20 or so years?
I couldn't make it through Shame and Society on my cell this morning but I want to try again with a more comfortable reader. What I did read seemed to align with something that's been knocking around in my head for a while, and which I expressed in a comment on Instapundit post yesterday regarding attitudes toward the working and middle classes. American social classes were largely built on economic stratification more than the European/British distinctions based on family and education, and only partially aligned with wealth. Being wealth-based our social classes were more egalitarian and mobile to start with but we've radically democratized markers of economic class over the last fifty years or so, so much that a thirty-something tech CEO billionaire dresses for the office like he just rolled up on his skateboard for a shift at the local mini-mart, and people refer to him putting on a suit and tie as wearing his adult clothes (as an aside, when did 'adult' become a verb?). It's also not a one way street, as various factors have eroded what used to be a fairly reliable congruence between a post-secondary education and attaining a UMC lifestyle via a professional career. We appear to be going through a great dislocation as new social classes sort themselves out in a European fashion with less reference to economic markers, and more emphasis on education and attitude. This does have an economic component, as some of the class distinctions revolve around attitudes and policies that have disparity economic impacts among groups.
Trimegistus: can you give some examples of conservatives enforcing conformity, say in the past 20 or so years?
It depends on where you draw the line on conservative, as opposed to reactionary, but examples abound: Trumpers get angry at people who speak Spanish in public. Socially conservative religious leaders claim Jews or other non-conforming groups are doomed to Hell. Anti-gay bigotry is still common among many segments on the right. Gee whiz, anti-miscegenation was still a majority opinion until about twenty years ago, and, incredibly, can still generate outrage on the right. Not to mention trolling by the President.
GraniteDad: what were your thoughts on the Shame and Society post?
Sorry. It was too long and convoluted to make much sense of it. We're a slow learner perhaps.
--
"What I’m saying is that your ideology was implanted by a microchip."
The article needs an Editorial pruning. He reminds me of Ivy League grad students I encountered during my years after college. That he is filled with bullshit is a given especially his "Capitalism makes people poor." For heaven's sake the lot of humans throughout history is POVERTY. Capitalism, the Free Market, wherever permitted generates such abundance that abysmally stupid concepts such as "Capitalism makes people poor" can actually be believed by "intellectuals" such as the author.
I read the essay and suggest that he is beyond help as he was educated (programmed) by Liberals and there is no cure for his cognitive dissonance. He needs God to supply him with a St. Paul experience, a miracle, to reprogram his world view. Hopeless.
Dan Kurt
The article has, as you suggest, some moments of insight, but tangled in so much private language, and haring off on so many tangents, that it is hard to recall them among the weeds. Perhaps if I'd taken notes while reading...
I'd bet he could edit that down by a factor of 2.
Zachriel: expressing an opinion is not enforcing conformity. Show me an example of a non-conservative who had to stop doing something, or was forced to do something, because of pressure from conservatives.
Trimegistus: expressing an opinion is not enforcing conformity. Show me an example of a non-conservative who had to stop doing something, or was forced to do something, because of pressure from conservatives.
Notably, you didn't actually respond to any of the examples. provided.
---
Z: Trumpers get angry at people who speak Spanish in public.
Public anger is certainly more than expressing an opinion, but an attempt to intimidate others into conformity.
Z: Socially conservative religious leaders claim Jews or other non-conforming groups are doomed to Hell.
Marginalizing others with different beliefs, threatening fire and brimstone, is more than expressing an opinion, but an attempt to exclude others in order to enforce conformity.
Z: Anti-gay bigotry is still common among many segments on the right.
Ostracizing and bullying of minorities is more than expressing an opinion, but an attempt to intimidate others into conformity.
Z: anti-miscegenation was still a majority opinion until about twenty years ago, and, incredibly, can still generate outrage on the right.
Ostracizing and bullying people for mixing with the wrong kind is more than expressing an opinion. It's an attempt to intimidate others into conformity.
Z: Not to mention trolling by the President.
Trump bragged about using the power of the presidency to marginalize someone for expressing a contrary opinion. Threatening to use the power of the presidency is more than expressing an opinion. It's an abuse of power meant to intimidate or marginalize others.
I have declared more than a few times that social pressure is a large part of liberalism. I have previously said that the conservative opposite number is not social, but emotional and sentimental appeals.
I think you’re largely correct, though the use of the term ‘social pressure’ leads to misinterpretation, possibly deliberately. It’s a tautology that all groups induce conformity to certain attitudes, behaviors, and rituals, and it provides an opening to claim that certain groups do this badly.
At a more personal level I think it becomes a matter of having inner or outer motivation. I became more aware of this as I started participating in group exercise classes. Many people find the competitive aspect such doing as many or more pushups as a peer to be very motivating. While accountability and participation are important factors to me in the group I’m more focused on my own performance goals and less concerned with how my performance relates to others. I think this can be expanded to political choices.
Liberals seem to me to be more outwardly focused individuals. They are concerned with their and others relative social standing. They view others as having significant influence over their day to day lives even when that influence is diffuse or impersonal. They are more sensitive to the existence of out-groups, and how out-groups affect them. Their policy prescriptions are often outward focused and expressed in terms of what other people must do to correct the problems they perceive.
Your choice of emotional and sentimental appeals seems to me to hit the mark of conservatives as more inner-directed since those are more individualized motivations. The general conservative focus on individualism and self-reliance flows from this inner motivation. They are less sensitive to the existence of out-groups, more likely to perceive common denominators among groups, as well as pressing for the institution of common foundational norms and behaviors. They are less likely to view social structures as impediments and more likely to focus on individual accountability.
While I’m personally conservative in temperament I hope I have presented a fairly neutral accounting. In both cases these views can create issues when taken to extremes. Outward focus and sensitivity to out-group influence can build into a desire to create coercive and authoritarian systems while an overemphasis on personal responsibility and common foundational norms can obscure the existence of systematic discrimination, for example.
Christopher B: The general conservative focus on individualism and self-reliance flows from this inner motivation.
You make a neat dichotomy, but it only maps to conservatives if you exclude social, religious, and authoritarian conservatives.
Zachriel... tell me about social, religious, and authoritarian liberals? If we exclude those also, don't we end up with independent, middle of the road, thoughtful undecided?
If I don't think I can be put in a political "box" why should I think anyone else can be? I can lean "conservative" on some issues and lean "liberal" on others.
You make a neat dichotomy, but it only maps to conservatives if you exclude social, religious, and authoritarian conservatives
Like Donna I'm tempted to ask, what's left?
I rather specifically included conservative support for instituting common norms and behaviors which I felt to be representative of religious/social conservatives. Could you explain what I left out?
Donna B: tell me about social, religious, and authoritarian liberals? If we exclude those also, don't we end up with independent, middle of the road, thoughtful undecided?
The history since the Renaissance has been a movement towards greater liberty and equality. Liberalism is usually defined as balancing liberty and equality, and favors 'reform' or 'modernity' consistent with this historical trend. Some liberals, but not all, want to use the authority of government to institute social reform. Religious liberals generally want to reform religion and make it less hierarchical. Conservatism is usually defined as a desire to preserve traditional social structures, which tend to hierarchy.
The political left is conventionally defined as advocating equality, while the political right is defined as advocating hierarchy; hence liberals, socialists, and communists are placed on the political left, while conservatives, military dictators, and fascists are placed on the political right.
Donna B: If I don't think I can be put in a political "box" why should I think anyone else can be? I can lean "conservative" on some issues and lean "liberal" on others.
Sets can have chaotic edges and still be useful. We might define a border as a river, and the river may change with the weather, but it doesn't mean that the border has no utility. You are right that people are complex and don't always fit into neat boxes, but we can still draw useful distinctions.
Christopher B: I rather specifically included conservative support for instituting common norms and behaviors which I felt to be representative of religious/social conservatives. Could you explain what I left out?
Christopher B: The general conservative focus on individualism and self-reliance flows from this inner motivation.
But that isn't the case for many conservatives, who are very concerned with the group, whether defined by religion, ethnicity, or nationality. You draw a valid dichotomy, but it doesn't align with conservative-liberal, or left-right. There are conservatives who are very concerned with the group, especially established hierarchies, and defining who belongs in the group and those that should be kept outside the group (e.g. nativism). They also often reject liberty in lieu of enforced standards of behavior.
The dichotomy you draw is closer to that as between libertarian and statist. There are statists on the left and on the right. There are libertarians on the left and on the right.
I surrender to Z's sustained barrage of nuance.
I think The Last Psychiatrist is what I would call a postmodern conservative.
The thing I get from his writings is that starting in the post WWII baby boomer era we gradually became more narcissistic. In this essay - Shame and Society - he definitely sounds like someone that sees a negative trend in society that is getting worse. That sounds like a conservative talking if you ask me. Here's an interesting snip from the essay:
"Samzdat—for my money, the smartest guy in the game today—wrote a superb essay sequence in part about the replacement of metis, defined as “hard to express,” “local,” “accumulated, experiential knowledge,” by episteme, i.e. “top-down,” “abstract, generalized, theoretical knowledge.” Think Soylent in lieu of meals, Brutalist apartment complexes instead of town squares, standardized tests over apprenticeship, nuclear replacing extended family, and the way capitalism selects for profit at the cost of…externalities."
I don't associate conservative much with sentimental cues like the flag. Those cues actually have tended to put me off, and I'm only slowly learning to appreciate them without irony. For me the cue is whether a person takes responsibility for himself or not, and as a corollary, whether he's ready to take responsibility for others as well. The defining characteristic of a modern liberal mindset is a relentless demand to be taken care of, and to make others take care of any third persons who might need help so that the liberal can go on cadging from the privileged (mommy/daddy types) nearby.
Post a Comment