In today’s post, I will present a general theory of liberalism and conservatism which integrates modern research into social sciences. I will start with examples of liberal and conservative attitudes in the fields of life beyond policy.
Liberalism and conservatism are not limited to politics. Liberal and conservative impulses and sensitivities are present in science and religion, in music and art, in the way we raise our children and in each organization or institution.
Beyond politics: language
Liberalism and conservatism are present even in languages. Languages that have few native speakers (and are therefore in danger of embarking) become “conservative” and “xenophobic” – they do not easily admit foreign words in their vocabulary. Words or expressions of foreign languages are perceived as an existential threat – a threat to the survival of the language as a distinct entity.
On the other hand, languages spoken by many people (for example English) generally use words from foreign sources. In English, we have little difficulty admitting foreign words in our lexicon because English is not an endangered language. English speakers will talk about an appointment, a tsunami, or emotion of Schadenfreude. These have become English words. Our existential security allows us to be more open; We can afford to be more liberal. This example can be extended to other aspects of culture and offers an exact parallel to politics.
Preserve our identity
This broader perspective on liberal and conservative opinions suggests that liberalism and conservatism represent a fundamental tension in our emotional life, present in each of us.
At the most general level, liberalism and conservatism reflect a tension inherent in human nature between the instincts of empathy (compassion) and self-preservation (security) and reflect feelings, concerns, values and social priorities led by these different human instincts. This hypothesis preserves a role for both genetic And personal experience, and for emotion and reason in our political convictions.
The liberals and the conservatives differ in the quantity openingChange and assimilation suit us and to what extent change is considered an existential threat. We are often confronted with conflicts and dilemmas of this kind in many aspects of our life, especially as members of institutions and social groups. The specific concerns and problems are different in all cases, but the theme is the same, present in many variations: how much can we change and always preserve the distinctive character of our institutions and our culture? To what extent can we be open to new ideas and practices while preserving our identify?
The essence of liberalism
Liberalism, in all areas of life, is characterized by openness. In social and political life, liberalism is animated by a particular type of openness – empathy, our openness to the feelings of others, in particular the perception of suffering and injustice. When we are liberal, we allow others to embark on our concern. More our circle of concern larger and more inclusive, the more liberal we become.
The essence of conservatism
On the other hand, conservatism – in politics, science and the arts, in religion and in all institutions – is animated by a threat perceived for something valued. We become conservatives when we believe that something essential in our way of life – our status, our values, our culture, our identity – is threatened. We are conservatives insofar as we find a meaning and security in existing traditions and institutions and believe that these traditions or institutions are in danger.
There is an inherent tension between these two cognitive-emotional systems. We have evolved emotional and cognitive biases for both empathetic concern and perception of danger. The threat that we perhaps perceive, or it can be real, or it can be real but exaggerated. The threat erodes empathy and increases our capacity for cruelty. Empathy softens the harshness of our judgments and our actions. In threatening circumstances, we draw a larger limit between us and the others. We build a wall, emotionally or physically.
It is about the “primary antagonism” of Emerson – the conflict which “agitates the breast of each man (sic) with opposite advantages every hour … (with a) seat depth in the human constitution … The appearance in the trifle of the two poles of nature.”
👑 #MR_HEKA 👑
