Re: Red Baiting Labor Studies

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

This may help:

"Any cognitive scientist who seeks to describe the conservative and liberal
worldviews is constrained by at least two adequacy conditions. First, the
worldviews must makle the collection of political stands on each side into
two natural categories. For example, the liberal worldview analysis must
explain why environmentalism, feminism, support for social programs, and
progressive taxation, naturally fit together for liberals, while the
conservative worldview analysis must explain why their opposites fit
together naturally for conservatives. Second, any adequate descriptions of
these two worldviews must show why the puzzles for liberals are not puzzles
for conservatives, and conversely... But there is a third, far more
demanding, adequacy condition on the characterization of conservative and
liberal worldviews. Those worldviews must additionally explain the topic
choice, word choice, and discourse forms of conservatives and liberals. In
short, those worldviews must explain just how conservatibve forms of
reasoning make sense to conservatives, and the same for liberals." (George
Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2nd edtion, p.
27-28).

This mode of analysis is in some ways similar to rationally reconstructing a
Lakatosian "research programme", except that the rationality is limited to
behavioural inferences made from a set of social and personal values.

Regards

J.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Red Baiting Labor Studies


> what is a "conservative" anyway? it seems very subjective. aren't
environmentalists "conservatives" because they want to conserve the earth?
arent't democratically-oriented Marxists "conservatives" because they want
to conserve humanity in the face of the capitalist juggernaut?
>
> how about if we define "conservative" in terms of defending established
societal privilege? that makes more
> sense. Those who defend racial and gender privileges would then be clear
conservatives. And so-called "libertarians" (free marketeers) are
conservatives  because they want the power of money wealth to run the
world -- while covering up the implication of their theory with rhetoric of
"freedom".
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eubulides [mailto:paraconsistent@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Fri 7/25/2003 1:42 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Red Baiting Labor Studies
>
>
>
>
>