Political spectrum

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different

axes that represent independent political dimensions.[1] The expressions political compass and political map are used to refer to the political spectrum as well, especially to popular two-dimensional models of it.[2][3][4][5]

Most long-standing spectra include the

hierarchy which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799), with radicals on the left and aristocrats on the right.[1][6] While communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, conservatism and reactionism are generally regarded as being on the right.[1] Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, being sometimes on the left (social liberalism) and other times on the right (conservative liberalism or classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is often known as syncretic politics.[7][8]
This form of politics has been criticized as tending to mischaracterize positions that have a logical location on a two-axis spectrum because they seem randomly brought together on a one-axis left–right spectrum.

Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and include other axes to compensate for this problem.[1][9] Although the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are usually split between economic issues (on a left–right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority–liberty dimension).[1][10] Simultaneously, many have criticized the multi-axis spectrums on the basis that those on the political left and right have differing philosophical conceptions regarding what constitutes liberty or authoritarianism, rendering the second axis meaningless.

Historical origin of the terms

The terms right and left refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France.[6] As seen from the Speaker's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics.[6]

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the

capitalist class, with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist François-Noël Babeuf. Support for laissez-faire commerce and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy, but outside parliamentary politics these views are often characterized as being on the Right.[citation needed
]

The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that those to the left of the parliamentary left, outside official parliamentary structures (such as the sans-culottes of the French Revolution), typically represent much of the working class, poor peasantry and the unemployed. Their political interests in the French Revolution lay with opposition to the aristocracy and so they found themselves allied with the early capitalists; however, this did not mean that their economic interests lay with the laissez-faire policies of those representing them politically.[citation needed]

As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were mostly replaced by capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded and began to find expression partly through trade unionist, socialist, anarchist, and communist politics rather than being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original Left. This evolution has often pulled parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has happened to different degrees in different countries, especially those with a history of issues with more authoritarian-left countries, such as the Soviet Union or China under Mao Zedong.[citation needed] Thus, the word "Left" in American political parlance may refer to "liberalism" and be identified with the Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as relatively more right-wing, or centrist overall, and "left" is more likely to refer to "socialist" or "social-democratic" positioned rather than "liberal" ones.[citation needed]

Academic investigation

For almost a century, social scientists have considered the problem of how to best describe political variation.

Leonard W. Ferguson

In 1950, Leonard W. Ferguson analyzed political values using ten scales measuring attitudes toward:

religionism, humanitarianism and nationalism. He defined religionism as belief in God and negative attitudes toward evolution and birth control; humanitarianism as being related to attitudes opposing war, capital punishment and harsh treatment of criminals
; and nationalism as describing variation in opinions on censorship, law, patriotism and communism.

This system was derived empirically, as rather than devising a political model on purely theoretical grounds and testing it, Ferguson's research was exploratory. As a result of this method, care must be taken in the interpretation of Ferguson's three factors, as factor analysis will output an abstract factor whether an objectively real factor exists or not.[11] Although replication of the nationalism factor was inconsistent, the finding of religionism and humanitarianism had a number of replications by Ferguson and others.[12][13]

Hans Eysenck

Shortly afterward,

left–right axis. As Hans Eysenck described in his 1956 book Sense and Nonsense in Psychology,[14] Eysenck compiled a list of political statements found in newspapers and political tracts and asked subjects to rate their agreement or disagreement with each. Submitting this value questionnaire to the same process of factor analysis
used by Ferguson, Eysenck drew out two factors, which he named "Radicalism" (R-factor) and "Tender-Mindedness" (T-factor).

Such analysis produces a factor whether or not it corresponds to a real-world phenomenon and so caution must be exercised in its interpretation. While Eysenck's R-factor is easily identified as the classical "left–right" dimension, the T-factor (representing a factor drawn at right angles to the R-factor) is less intuitive, as high-scorers favored pacifism, racial equality, religious education and restrictions on abortion, while low-scorers had attitudes more friendly to militarism, harsh punishment, easier divorce laws and companionate marriage.

According to social scientist Bojan Todosijevic, radicalism was defined as positively viewing evolution theory, strikes, welfare state, mixed marriages, student protests, law reform, women's liberation, United Nations, nudist camps, pop-music, modern art, immigration, abolishing private property, and rejection of patriotism. Conservatism was defined as positively viewing white superiority, birching, death penalty, anti-Semitism, opposition to nationalization of property, and birth control. Tender-mindedness was defined by moral training, inborn conscience, Bible truth, chastity, self-denial, pacifism, anti-discrimination, being against the death penalty, and harsh treatment of criminals. Tough-mindedness was defined by compulsory sterilization, euthanasia, easier divorce laws, racism, anti-Semitism, compulsory military training, wife swapping, casual living, death penalty, and harsh treatment of criminals. [15]

Despite the difference in

location and theory, the results attained by Eysenck and Ferguson matched. Simply rotating Eysenck's two factors 45 degrees renders the same factors of religionism and humanitarianism identified by Ferguson in America.[16]

Eysenck's dimensions of R and T were found by factor analyses of values in Germany and Sweden,[17] France[16] and Japan.[18]

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the

conservative continuum".[16]

Relationship between Eysenck's political views and political research

Eysenck's political views related to his research: Eysenck was an outspoken opponent of what he perceived as the

aggressive and authoritarian, a claim that is open to political criticism. In this context, Eysenck carried out studies on Nazism and communist groups, claiming to find members of both groups to be more "dominant" and more "aggressive" than control groups.[16]

Eysenck left

Hitlerite Nazism, and was interviewed in the first issue of their journal The Beacon in relation to his controversial views on relative intelligence between different races.[20][21] At one point during the interview, Eysenck was asked whether or not he was of Jewish origin before the interviewer proceeded.[22] His political allegiances were called into question by other researchers, notably Steven Rose, who alleged that his scientific research was used for political purposes.[23][24]

Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research

Eysenck's conception of tough-mindedness has been criticized for a number of reasons.

Milton Rokeach

Dissatisfied with Hans J. Eysenck's work,

freedom and equality, which he described in his book, The Nature of Human Values.[31]

Rokeach claimed that the defining difference between the left and right was that the left stressed the importance of equality more than the right. Despite his criticisms of Eysenck's tough–tender axis, Rokeach also postulated a basic similarity between communism and Nazism, claiming that these groups would not value freedom as greatly as more conventional social democrats, democratic socialists and capitalists would and he wrote that "the two value model presented here most resembles Eysenck's hypothesis".[31]

To test this model, Rokeach and his colleagues used content analysis on works exemplifying Nazism (written by Adolf Hitler), communism (written by Vladimir Lenin), capitalism (by Barry Goldwater) and socialism (written by various authors). This method has been criticized for its reliance on the experimenter's familiarity with the content under analysis and its dependence on the researcher's particular political outlooks.

Multiple raters made frequency counts of sentences containing

synonyms
for a number of values identified by Rokeach—including freedom and equality—and Rokeach analyzed these results by comparing the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the four texts:

  • Socialists (socialism) — freedom ranked 1st, equality ranked 2nd
  • Hitler (Nazism) – freedom ranked 16th, equality ranked 17th
  • Goldwater (capitalism) — freedom ranked 1st, equality ranked 16th
  • Lenin (communism) — freedom ranked 17th, equality ranked 1st

Later studies using samples of

ideologues[32] and American presidential inaugural addresses attempted to apply this model.[33]

Later research

In further research,[34] Eysenck refined his methodology to include more questions on economic issues. Doing this, he revealed a split in the left–right axis between social policy and economic policy, with a previously undiscovered dimension of socialism-capitalism (S-factor).

While factorially distinct from Eysenck's previous R factor, the S-factor did positively

economic values, although S tapped more into items discussing economic inequality and big business, while R relates more to the treatment of criminals and to sexual issues and military
issues.

Most research and

replicated the factors shown above.[citation needed
]

Another replication came from

lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism, as well as willingness to engage in political activism. See[35]
for Inglehart's national chart.

Though not directly related to Eysenck's research, evidence suggests there may be as many as 6 dimensions of political opinions in the United States and 10 dimensions in the United Kingdom. This conclusion was based on two large datasets and uses a Bayesian approach rather than the traditional factor analysis method.[36]

Other double-axis models

Greenberg and Jonas: left–right, ideological rigidity

In a 2003 Psychological Bulletin paper,[37] Jeff Greenberg and Eva Jonas posit a model comprising the standard left–right axis and an axis representing ideological rigidity. For Greenberg and Jonas, ideological rigidity has "much in common with the related concepts of dogmatism and authoritarianism" and is characterized by "believing in strong leaders and submission, preferring one’s own in-group, ethnocentrism and nationalism, aggression against dissidents, and control with the help of police and military". Greenberg and Jonas posit that high ideological rigidity can be motivated by "particularly strong needs to reduce fear and uncertainty" and is a primary shared characteristic of "people who subscribe to any extreme government or ideology, whether it is right-wing or left-wing".

Inglehart: traditionalist–secular and self expressionist–survivalist

A recreation of the InglehartWelzel cultural map of the world based on the World Values Survey

In its 4 January 2003 issue,

self-expressionist
position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left and ex-Communist countries on the top left.

Pournelle: liberty–control, irrationalism–rationalism

This very distinct two-axis model was created by

norm enforcement (farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil"). The other axis is rationalism
, defined here as the belief in planned social progress, with those higher up believing that there are problems with society that can be rationally solved and those lower down skeptical of such approaches.

Mitchell: Eight Ways to Run the Country

archē or "archy" (defined as the recognition of rank).[38]
Mitchell grounded the distinction of archy and kratos in the West's historical experience of church and state, crediting the collapse of the Christian consensus on church and state with the appearance of four main divergent traditions in Western political thought:

Mitchell charts these traditions graphically using a vertical axis as a scale of kratos/

, whom Mitchell renames "akratists" for their opposition to the government's use of force.

From the four main political traditions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct political perspectives diverging from a populist center. Four of these perspectives (Progressive, Individualist, Paleoconservative, and Neoconservative) fit squarely within the four traditions; four others (Paleolibertarian, Theoconservative, Communitarian, and Radical) fit between the traditions, being defined by their singular focus on rank or force.

Nolan: economic freedom, personal freedom

The

drug legalization, abortion and the draft) on the vertical axis. This puts left-wingers in the left quadrant, libertarians in the top, centrists in the middle, right-wingers in the right and what Nolan originally named populists in the bottom. Several popular online tests, where individuals can self-identify their political values, utilize the same two axes as the Nolan Chart, including The Political Compass
, iSideWith.com and MapMyPolitics.org.

Spatial model

The spatial model of voting plots voters and candidates in a multi-dimensional space where each dimension represents a single political issue[39][40] sub-component of an issue,[41] or candidate attribute.[42] Voters are then modeled as having an "ideal point" in this space and voting for the nearest candidates to that point. The dimensions of this model can also be assigned to non-political properties of the candidates, such as perceived corruption, health, etc.[39]

Most of the other spectra in this article can then be considered projections of this multi-dimensional space onto a smaller number of dimensions.[43] For example, a study of German voters found that at least four dimensions were required to adequately represent all political parties.[43]

Other proposed dimensions

Two-axis political compass chart with a horizontal socio-economic axis and a vertical socio-cultural axis and ideologically representative political colours, an example for a frequently used model of the political spectrum[1][2][3][9][10]
An economic group diagram based on The Political Compass

In 1998, political author

utopian classic-liberal theorist Karl Popper. It could also be seen as simply another name for conservatism versus progressivism.[citation needed
]

Other proposed axes include:

Political-spectrum-based forecasts

As shown by Russian political scientist Stepan S. Sulakshin,[49] political spectra can be used as a forecasting tool. Sulakshin offered mathematical evidence that stable development (positive dynamics of the vast number of statistic indices) depends on the width of the political spectrum: if it is too narrow or too wide, stagnation or political disasters will result. Sulakshin also showed that in the short run the political spectrum determines the statistic indices dynamic and not vice versa.

Biological variables

A number of studies have found that biology can be linked with political orientation.[50] Many of the studies linking biology to politics remain controversial and unreplicated, although the overall body of evidence is growing.[51]

Studies have found that subjects with

conservative political views have larger amygdalae and are more prone to feeling disgust.[52][53] Liberals have larger volume of grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and are better at detecting errors in recurring patterns. The anterior cingulate cortex is used when dealing with conflicting information. A study done by researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and New York University (NYU) had participants sort through a deck of cards. The letter M was 4x more likely to be in the deck than the letter W. Participants had to press a button every time an M came up in the deck. Liberals were shown to make fewer errors in mistaking the W for the M. This behavioral study supported the notion that liberals are better with dealing with conflicting information.[52][54] Conservatives have a stronger sympathetic nervous system response to threatening images and are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as threatening.[50][55] In general, conservatives are more likely to report larger social networks, more happiness and better self-esteem than liberals. Liberals are more likely to report greater emotional distress, relationship dissatisfaction and experiential hardship and are more open to experience and tolerate uncertainty and disorder better.[55][56][57]

Genetic factors account for at least some of the variation of political views.

redistribution of wealth may have been common in the ancestral environment and humans may have developed psychological mechanisms for judging their own chances of succeeding in such conflicts. These mechanisms affect political views.[60]

See also

References

  1. ^ .
  2. ^ on 22 June 2019. Retrieved 27 June 2019.
  3. ^ .
  4. .
  5. .
  6. ^
    ISBN 978-0-203-40260-3. France invented the terms Left and Right early in the great Revolution of 1789– 94 which first limited the powers of, and then overthrew, the Bourbon monarchy.[dead link
    ]
  7. .
  8. .
  9. ^ .
  10. ^ .
  11. ^ SAS(R) 3.11 Users Guide, Multivariate Analysis: Factor Analysis
  12. .
  13. .
  14. ^ "politics". Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  15. ^ Todosijevic, Bojan (2013). Political Attitudes and Mentalities. Eastern European Political Cultures: Modeling Studies. ArsDocendi-Bucharet University Press. pp. 23–52.
  16. ^ a b c d Eysenck, H.J. (1956). Sense and nonsense in psychology. London: Penguin Books.
  17. PMID 13108438
    .
  18. .
  19. ^ Eysenck, H.J. (1981). "Left-Wing Authoritarianism: Myth or Reality?, by Hans J. Eysenck" Political Psychology
  20. ^ "An Interview with Prof. Hans Eysenck", Beacon February 1977
  21. ^ Stephen Rose, "Racism" Nature 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86
  22. ^ Billig, Micheal. (1979) "Psychology, Racism and Fascism", Chapter 6, footnote #70. Published by A.F. & R. Publications.
  23. ^ Stephen Rose, "Racism Refuted", Nature 24 August 1978, volume 274, page 738
  24. ^ Stephen Rose, "Racism", Nature 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86
  25. JSTOR 3790998
    .
  26. .
  27. .
  28. ^ Wiggins, J.S. (1973) Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Addison-Wesley
  29. ^ Lykken, D. T. (1971) Multiple factor analysis and personality research. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 5: 161–170.
  30. ^ Ray JJ (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 9(3):11–12.
  31. ^ a b Rokeach, Milton (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
  32. .
  33. S2CID 145103089. Archived from the original
    on 14 May 2013.
  34. S2CID 145323731. Archived from the original
    on 14 May 2013.
  35. ^ a b Inglehart, Ronald; Welzel, Christian. "The WVS Cultural Map of the World". World Values Survey. Archived from the original on 31 October 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
  36. ^ Lewenberg, Yoad (June 2016). "Political dimensionality estimation using a probabilistic graphic model". Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: 447–456.
  37. PMID 12784935. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 7 April 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
  38. .
  39. ^ . Since our model is multi-dimensional, we can incorporate all criteria which we normally associate with a citizen's voting decision process — issues, style, partisan identification, and the like.
  40. . The spatial model of voting is the work horse for theories and empirical models in many fields of political science research, such as the equilibrium analysis in mass elections ... the estimation of legislators’ ideal points ... and the study of voting behavior. ... Its generalization to the multidimensional policy space, the Weighted Euclidean Distance (WED) model ... forms the stable theoretical foundation upon which nearly all present variations, extensions, and applications of multidimensional spatial voting rest.
  41. ^ If voter preferences have more than one peak along a dimension, it needs to be decomposed into multiple dimensions that each only have a single peak. "We can satisfy our assumption about the form of the loss function if we increase the dimensionality of the analysis — by decomposing one dimension into two or more"
  42. ^ Tideman, T; Plassmann, Florenz (June 2008). "The Source of Election Results: An Empirical Analysis of Statistical Models of Voter Behavior". Assume that voters care about the “attributes” of candidates. These attributes form a multi-dimensional “attribute space.” {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  43. ^ . The analysis reveals that the underlying political landscapes ... are inherently multidimensional and cannot be reduced to a single left-right dimension, or even to a two-dimensional space. ... From this representation, lower-dimensional projections can be considered which help with the visualization of the political space as resulting from an aggregation of voters' preferences. ... Even though the method aims to obtain a representation with as few dimensions as possible, we still obtain representations with four dimensions or more.
  44. .
  45. .
  46. ^ Diamond, Stanley, In Search Of The Primitive: A Critique Of Civilization, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 1.
  47. ^ "The new political divide". The Economist. 30 July 2016. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
  48. ^ Pethokoukis, James (1 July 2016). "The Closed Party vs. the Open Party". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
  49. on 18 August 2011. Retrieved 4 May 2011.
  50. ^ .
  51. .
  52. ^ .
  53. .
  54. ^ "Brains of Liberals, Conservatives May Work Differently". Psych Central. 20 October 2007. Archived from the original on 13 October 2016.
  55. ^
    S2CID 59571553
    .
  56. .
  57. .
  58. ^ Carey, Benedict (21 June 2005). "Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  59. S2CID 3820911
    .
  60. .

External links