As I read and think more about Lakoff ‘s work, I’m beginning to discern a further schism between conservatives and liberals: Conservatives’ worldview is essentially morally-based , framing everything in terms of good & bad, right & wrong. Liberals’ worldview on the other hand is essentially rationally-based, framing everything in terms of logical & illogical, reasonable & unreasonable. It’s no wonder they can’t talk to each other. Conservatives attack liberals using moral negatives (disloyal, treasonous, cowardly). Liberals attack conservatives using rational negatives (illegitimate, irrational, unwarranted by the facts). Conservatives justify ‘dirty tricks’ as necessary to circumvent liberals’ moral ambivalence and agnosticism. Liberals justify condescension and legal machinations as an appropriate response to cope with and rein in conservatives’ emotional overzealousness. Conservatives scream “shut up” when they’re out-argued, and liberals shout “foul” when they’re outmaneuvered.
Lakoff argues that a dialogue, a mutual understanding of the legitimacy of each others’ ideology and worldview, is critical to avoid extremism or standoff, but such a dialogue is impossible when the two groups aren’t even speaking in the same plane of language. How long has this been going on? And what are we going to do when the survival of our planet depends on everyone working and acting together, and setting ideology aside? |
Navigation
Collapsniks
Albert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Brutus (US)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dougald & Paul (IE/SE)*
Erik Michaels (US)
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Honest Sorcerer
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (UK)
Mari Werner
Michael Dowd (US)*
Nate Hagens (US)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Resilience (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Tim Morgan (UK)
Tim Watkins (UK)
Umair Haque (UK)
William Rees (CA)
XrayMike (AU)
Radical Non-Duality
Essential Reading
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature Posts
About the Author (2023)
My Circles
E-mail me
--- My Best 200 Posts, 2003-22 by category, from newest to oldest ---
Collapse Watch:
Hope — On the Balance of Probabilities
The Caste War for the Dregs
Recuperation, Accommodation, Resilience
How Do We Teach the Critical Skills
Collapse Not Apocalypse
Effective Activism
'Making Sense of the World' Reading List
Notes From the Rising Dark
What is Exponential Decay
Collapse: Slowly Then Suddenly
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Making Sense of Who We Are
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Post Collapse with Michael Dowd (video)
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Beyond Belief
Complexity and Collapse
Requiem for a Species
Civilization Disease
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
If We Had a Better Story...
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Hard Part is Finding People Who Care
Going Vegan
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
A Short History of Progress
The Boiling Frog
Our Culture / Ourselves:
A CoVid-19 Recap
What It Means to be Human
A Culture Built on Wrong Models
Understanding Conservatives
Our Unique Capacity for Hatred
Not Meant to Govern Each Other
The Humanist Trap
Credulous
Amazing What People Get Used To
My Reluctant Misanthropy
The Dawn of Everything
Species Shame
Why Misinformation Doesn't Work
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
The Right to Die
CoVid-19: Go for Zero
Pollard's Laws
On Caste
The Process of Self-Organization
The Tragic Spread of Misinformation
A Better Way to Work
The Needs of the Moment
Ask Yourself This
What to Believe Now?
Rogue Primate
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
True Story
May I Ask a Question?
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Useless Advice
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
Learning From Nature
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
Making Sense of Scents
An Age of Wonder
The Truth About Ukraine
Navigating Complexity
The Supply Chain Problem
The Promise of Dialogue
Too Dumb to Take Care of Ourselves
Extinction Capitalism
Homeless
Republicans Slide Into Fascism
All the Things I Was Wrong About
Several Short Sentences About Sharks
How Change Happens
What's the Best Possible Outcome?
The Perpetual Growth Machine
We Make Zero
How Long We've Been Around (graphic)
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
Loren Eiseley, in Verse
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self, and Free Will:
No Free Will, No Freedom
The Other Side of 'No Me'
This Body Takes Me For a Walk
The Only One Who Really Knew Me
No Free Will — Fightin' Words
The Paradox of the Self
A Radical Non-Duality FAQ
What We Think We Know
Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark
Healing From Ourselves
The Entanglement Hypothesis
Nothing Needs to Happen
Nothing to Say About This
What I Wanted to Believe
A Continuous Reassemblage of Meaning
No Choice But to Misbehave
What's Apparently Happening
A Different Kind of Animal
Happy Now?
This Creature
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
Glimpses
How Our Bodies Sense the World
Fragments
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
Creative Works:
Mindful Wanderings (Reflections) (Archive)
A Prayer to No One
Frogs' Hollow (Short Story)
We Do What We Do (Poem)
Negative Assertions (Poem)
Reminder (Short Story)
A Canadian Sorry (Satire)
Under No Illusions (Short Story)
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Improv (Poem)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Rune (Poem)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Invisible (Poem)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Enough (Lament)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
Conjurer (Satire)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
Classic Spiral Dynamics and Gravesian psychology. My take: Conservatives=Red/Blue/Orange Memes; Liberals=Green/Yellow/Turquoise Memes, in general. It can be done, but it will be a challenge to get these groups to find common ground.
Never seen Spiral Dynamics before. Like everything in psychology, this seems horribly overly-simplistic to me. My worldview corresponds to none of the ‘colours’ in Beck’s article. Not even close. Square pegs in round holes. Interesting reading, however, if not as useful as Lakoff’s theories. Thanks, Rayne, your breadth of reading continues to astound and inspire me.
I’ve made some comments on how these two solitudes seem similar to others–holistic, reductionist; formal, informal–in a mailing list posting linked from here:http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/mt/archives/000146.html#nid00000OSThe same posting also seems quite relevant to your most recent posting on storytelling. I’ve enjoyed the feeling of synchronicity between some of the things you have to say and some of the things I have to say.PS: when will radio get trackback?
Don’t think this hypothesis flies. Way, way too many sharp conservatives out there with precise, logical minds and rational arguments. What is Objectivism, after all, except ruthless rationality? Liberals, on the other hand, generally strike me as being almost totally morally driven. The left hews closely to ideas of fairness, for example, which you see in concepts like “economic disparity.” Thinking of as many cases on each side as I can, I can’t pin either one with such simplistic labeling. Seems a lot more complex than that. Regards, – R.
Chris: Thanks. BTW, I confess I’m still one of those that “doesn’t get” the little purple things on your blog. There’s clearly more to it than simply parsing long entries and comment threads. Looking forward to your layman’s explanation. As for Radio getting trackback, the last I heard from Dave W was that it was implemented for Manila and would be implemented ‘soon’ for Radio. I check every day and I’ll be blogging about it as soon as it’s up.
R.: Good point, I agree I was oversimplifying. There was an article recently on the difference between ‘metropolitan’ and ‘provincial’ conservatives. I’ll try to find the link and post it. With that distinction I would say the ‘metropolitan’ conservatives à la Buckley are rationalists while the ‘provincial’ conservatives who rule the roost now are moralists. Liberals are trickier to bifurcate this way: ‘fairness’ is I think very much a rational argument at root, not a moral one. Many liberals use ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’ interchangeably, with more of a logical undercurrent than a moral one. The abortion debate is a perfect example of the disconnection between conservative “killing unborn babies is wrong” purely moral-based argument and the liberal “rights of the mother need to be reasonably balanced with the rights of the fetus” rational argument. I suspect that many ‘metropolitan’ conservatives would probably sound remarkable liberal on this issue for that reason. So I think my argument makes sense, if you clarify that by ‘conservative’ I mean the Bushian provincial neo-conservatives, not the coastal metropolitan variety, who I agree don’t fit the rational vs moral mold. Cheers and thanks for the comment.
Conservatives’ world view is morally based? Wow, that’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. In my opinion, conservatives are practical to the extreme–they create or perpetuate “morality”-based systems as a way to dominate other people and gain advantage. I see no actual concern for right or wrong in most cultural conservatives–just a healthy awareness that using those terms gets them what they want and silences opposition.
I think there’s some truth to the hypothesis. Both terms –“liberal” and “conservative” — are loose-fitting descriptors encompassing a range of viewpoints, so yes, there is a risk of oversimplification. But I’d argue, nevertheless, that most conservatives share a belief that some sort of imposed public morality system should be used to keep modernity, which they distrust, from spinning out of control. The Christian right has scripture; the neo-cons look to the 19th century for examples of “equipoise”. Liberals have a greater confidence in reason, science and social policy, view morality — in the sense of “virtues and vices”, not as ethical inquiry — as a clerical anachronism, and harbor less nostalgia for a lost cultural unity based on strictly enforced norms.Is Objectivism “conservative”? That seems doubtful. Most self-described conservatives I’ve met are happy enough with the Almighty Dollar aspect of Ayn Rand’s philosophizing — Horatio Alger on speed, so to speak — but they balk at the atheism and amorality. Not much about “family values” in Atlas Shrugged, if I remember correctly.
Susan: Conservative morality, according to Lakoff in the article I cite here, is ends-justify-the-means morality. Maybe we know different conservatives, but the ones I know (and I know a lot of conservatives) really believe in the morality of what Bush is doing, really believe that we’re locked in a good-versus-evil struggle that must be won at any cost. They’re genuinely shocked at the idea that the Bush regime is just cynically manipulating public opinion out of greed.
Adrian: Well put, especially the distrust of modernity, which conservatives tend to view as amoral which to them is even more troubling than immoral. If you’re immoral at least you can be ‘saved’.
Sound’s like you’ve been fooled. It’s all an act. And that’s one of the few things I’m sure of these days.
Well it’s good to know there’s someone even more cynical than I am these days. How does that song go that’s been coopted by the CSI Miami TV show?: We’ll be fighting in the streetsWith our children at our feetAnd the morals that they worship will be goneAnd the men who spurred us onSit in judgement of all wrongThey decide and the shotgun sings the songI’ll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the change all aroundPick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayThen I’ll get on my knees and prayWe won’t get fooled again.
Concerning stereotypes – e.g. Good Americans/Bad Americans, Good Christians/Bad Christians etc etc, Augustine has invented a game with masks to sort these out. See the May 15th post at:http://www.nataliedarbeloff.com/blaugustine.html
ironically, it seems that many of the online right-wingers and libertarians like to say that liberals are ruled by their emotions and that conservatives make their judgements based on cold, hard facts. go figure.
I agree that both are simplistic. Both sides have fairly wide umbrellas, imo.To the right, the amoral neocons gather with the more libertarian paleocons and religious conservatives. I think the first two groups simply crafts their messages to manipulate the third group, which is the largest. The only issues that all three seem to agree on are ‘Taxes are bad, and violence must be met with greater violence.’Among liberals, the umbrella holds those that think government can resolve most problems, some that think white males create most of the problems to everyone else’s disadvantage, and some that believe all big business and/or all consumerism is bad. The places they seem to converge is in a faith in activist government and group or communitarian action.The principal arena where liberals can be accused of immorality or amorality is typically in matters of sexuality and mating. Yet most of the liberals I know have strong moral positions on such things as treating folks equally, conserving resources, sharing with others and more.In both groups and subgroups, I’d say there’s times when part of their mantras offer good solutions, but each has its drawbacks as well, at times.Reducing it to rationality vs. morality is absurd. A better yin-yang would be a preference for govt/spiritual authoritarianism and elitism and economic individualism vs. a preference for govt/spiritual social activism and consensual communitarianism elsewhere.
Maybe both liberals and conservatives are morally motivated, but they have a different type of morality. Professor John Haidt’s theory is that there are what he calls five foundations of intuitive ethics: suffering, reciprocity, ingroup, hierachy and purity. He thinks that liberals’ morality relates solely to the the suffering (kindness/compassion) and reciprocity (justice/fairness) foundations — what he calls “think morality”. Conservative morality hits all 5 foundations, so also includes ingroup (belongness, patriotism), hierarchy (self-explanatory) and purity (chastity, etc.) (“thick morality”). He has a great powerpoint presentation on this, link below. I think he is really on to something. Haidt’s home page is at http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/. The powerpoint is at http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.moral-politics.ppt
“think” morality in the above comment should have been “thin” morality.