 One of the almost defining features of conservatism is a personality trait of toughness or indifference to the suffering of others. We all fall somewhere on this spectrum of concern. I might show my daughter “tough love” by not giving in when she cries for a cookie. I might support giving the government money to provide aid to a foreign country. There are complex reasons for any given attitude in a specific situation. But overall, conservatives have a more callous sensibility about what is necessary to do for others. There are many caveats, one being how close they feel towards the person. If they are kin, or of an affiliate class (culture, religion, etc.), they are more willing to extend grace. But in general, much in what they do and say (or do not say), and especially in contrast with more liberal responses. There are many cliches, nicknames and stereotypes about this. Conservatives literally made a push to brand something called “compassionate conservatism” in the early oughts. When they sometimes refer to liberals as “bleeding hearts”, “pinkos”, or supporters of a “nanny state”, they are speaking to a general tendency on the left to want to do things for other people, and a tendency of those on the right to leave people to fend for themselves. Of course, there could be very thoughtful arguments given the context. There is a vague sense of behavioral conditioning often underlying attitudes about action in which a theory of learning is being applied. If I give my daughter a cookie when she cries, it will reward her crying behavior. If we give people food stamps, it will reward their behavior. However, it is often used imprecisely (certainly from a behaviorist point of view, which I won’t go into here), showing a lack of understanding about how operant conditioning actually works. It's difficult to tease out whether these attitudes are based on assumptions and ideas, or from some deeper, genetically programmed disposition. Researchers have studied this and found general tendencies that appear detached from political leaning. The classic example is the finding that conservatives seem to generally register disgust with more speed and intensity, while liberals tend to be more open minded and tolerant, when provided a variety of stimuli. However, other research argues that while true for certain elicitors, political orientation is not biased toward elicitors in general. 
But regardless of where it is coming from, it’s pretty clear that merely from what they say and do, conservatism is not known for its empathy and kindness towards others, and liberalism is not known for its hard-nosed emotional toughness. We might note here that gendering seems to be going on. The traditional view of gender norms is of women, especially as mothers, being extra sensitive, empathetic, and nurturing, while men, especially as fathers, being less sensitive, empathetic and nurturing. Mom holds you and kisses you while you cry. Dad tells you to get up and try again. Conservatives – obviously long supporting more patriarchal social systems – will explicitly argue for limited participation by woman in consequential roles because of assuming in them a femininity that is not “tough enough” to take charge of important matters. Liberals do not argue for discrimination against men based on inherent characteristics. However, they will argue that specific traits of traditional masculinity are “toxic”, in the sense that they are ineffective and harmful for pro-social outcomes. Conservatives may indeed see this as discrimination to the extent that they not only view these supposedly toxic traits as pro-social, but also as inherent traits. For example, if speaking over others in a conversation, or otherwise engaging in behaviors that establish or seek to establish dominance, a liberal might argue this is learned behavior that reifies a patriarchy based not on inherent merit, but on arbitrary social control, and that it stifles productive participation from other members who would otherwise add to the conversation. A conservative, on the other hand, might argue that men are inherently stronger, or more intelligent or wise, and that to ask a man to not talk over others is discriminating against him based on his sex. They might also argue that talking over and dominating others is good because it benefits his group more, as well as a sort of sense that the behavior is justified because might makes right. Now, zooming out a bit from the example of a conversation, you see how the basic shapes of conservatism and liberalism are coming into view. On most issues, the conservative/right side is ultimately arguing in some way for traditional cultural hierarchies, while the liberal/left side is arguing against them. This is a fundamental element of cultural propagation; as people interact, we develop behaviors and traditions that at any time are becoming more or less salient. The right and left can in some sense be defined by nothing more than how much they want things to change and how much they want things to remain the same. This can be difficult though, because depending on where cultural and social power lies at any given moment in history, current norms and traditions will be valued differently according to the right and left. For instance, in 2025, the current mainstream tradition is that women and men, and people of any skin color, ought to be allowed to participate fully in society. But some on the right explicitly want to take away the vote from women and limit minority immigration to the US, which would mark an extreme social change. One could argue then that they are opposed to cultural tradition. However, when you examine their own stated rationale, it is deeply rooted in a concept of a culture that is hyper-traditional, that of decades or centuries in the past. Studies of fascism will point out that a “longing for ancient traditions” is one of its hallmarks. It may be interesting here to examine the competing epistemologies of conservatism and liberalism. When one seeks to make a case for their ideas, they must show that they are true, or real. There is an evidentiary standard that must be met in order to convince others. When a fact is not self-evident, it needs to be supported by some authority. This could be the lived experience of a relevant subject, or trust in an expert opinion based in research or study, or the truth of a religious dogma taken on faith. Or, it could simply be a sort of dogmatic righteousness based on an appeal to tradition. The right, invested in “traditional” (I’m adding quotes now per our note about the contextual nature of tradition) culture, tends to rely on either the argument from religious text or from tradition. One should do X “because the bible says so” or “ because we have always done it that way”. Neither of these arguments are logical because they are not based in any truth deeper than what one might feel in their gut, and cannot be proved or disproved. The authority provides no evidence or reasoning, and cannot change by new information. It is tautologically in that the premise is proved by acceptance of the premise. If the bible says homosexuality is wrong, than it is true because the bible is true, and the bible is true because it says it is true. If tradition holds heliocentrism, then it is true because tradition is true, and tradition is true because it says it is true. And so on. Liberalism, invested in reforming or changing culture, uses neither religious dogma or tradition to make its arguments. Instead, it relies on what came to be known centuries ago as enlightenment ideals: reason, logic, empiricism and above all else inquiry. Religion and tradition are not sufficient authorities, and must be at least tempered, if not subsumed by deeper critical analysis. The right will of course often engage in critical analysis, but it is weak and underdeveloped. It may use evidence, but be cherry-picked. It may use expert authority, but only that of those who are not representative of the consensus in their field. It may engage in rhetorical techniques designed not to edify but to obfuscate or distract. It is no wonder that the great institutions of fact finding – academia and journalism – have always tilted left. This is because a competitive rigor exists in which arguments and evidence are currency. One cannot do research, write a theoretical paper or journalism that is serious and truthful by quoting scripture or producing pictures and quotes only from proponents of traditional culture. This explains why right wing universities or news outlets tend to be unserious and lack sophistication, lacking any real purpose other than to reify what its students and consumers already believe. This epistemological schism can be tied directly to the gendered nature of the right and left paradigm. For one to show the “feminine” trait of empathy, reflection, listening, etc., they must rely on a “slow” developing epistemology that embraces some degree of authority beyond religion or tradition. It is an epistemology of practical objectivity that allows for an openness and trust that one does not have all the answers, that the answers aren’t always easy, and that perspective is always subjective. This is a picture in which the ego is subservient to the environment, where new information is welcomed, and an egalitarian trust exists in which one must rely on and support others, even if the immediate benefit to the self is unclear and there are shades of gray. It is about solidarity, community, and fellow man. Alternatively, for one to show the “masculine” trait of stoicism, strength, individualism, toughness, etc., they must rely on a “fast” epistemology in which authority is immediately designated by religion or tradition. It is an epistemology of hyper-subjectivity that is closed and distrusting in the answers of others that may conflict with one’s own understanding, that understanding is simple, and that subjectivity is irrelevant because one is already correct. In contrast to the left/”feminine” epistemology, the environment is subservient to one’s ego, where new information is unnecessary, where one should not need to rely on others, especially when there is no benefit to the self and the truth is usually black and white. It is about rugged individualism, establishing dominance, holding the line, defending the ego’s honor. In a folding back on itself, our assumptions about gender and what associated traits we value in it can reinforce the very epistemological process by which we attempt to access truth. If we value traditional masculine traits as superior to feminine traits, we end up valuing a process that leads to a specific way of learning about truth in the world that reifies the very act of valuing those traits. Likewise, if we value a sort of gender-egalitarianism, we end up reifying those preferences. There are many institutions and ideologies devoted to shoring up the ideologies of the right and left. There may be some kernel of innate disposition to being on the right or left, however this is clearly overpowered by environmental learning, as demographic patterns of political belief show that one’s environment is far more determinative. But it is important to understand how and why we come to the assumptions we do, and that move us either left or right politically.
0 Comments
|
RSS Feed
