Political spectrum

Last updated

A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another upon one or more geometric 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]

Politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to members of a group.

Geometry Branch of mathematics that studies the shape, size and position of objects

Geometry is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space. A mathematician who works in the field of geometry is called a geometer.

Contents

Most long-standing spectra include the left–right dimension, 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 fascism are regarded internationally as being on the right. [1] Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts: sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes on the right (classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists. That said, liberals and neoliberals are often called centrists too. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is often known as syncretic politics, [7] [8] though the label tends 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.

French Revolution Revolution in France, 1789 to 1798

The French Revolution was a period of far-reaching social and political upheaval in France and its colonies beginning in 1789. The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond. Inspired by liberal and radical ideas, the Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Through the Revolutionary Wars, it unleashed a wave of global conflicts that extended from the Caribbean to the Middle East. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.

In political and social sciences, communism is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.

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 included other axes. [1] [9] Though 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 a authority–liberty dimension). [1] [10]

Political science is a social science which deals with systems of governance, and the analysis of political activities, political thoughts, and political behavior.

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]

France Republic with majority of territory in Europe and numerous oversea territories around the world

France, officially the French Republic, is a sovereign state whose territory consists of metropolitan France in Western Europe and several overseas regions and territories. The metropolitan area of France extends from the Mediterranean Sea to the English Channel and the North Sea, and from the Rhine to the Atlantic Ocean. It is bordered by Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany to the northeast, Switzerland and Italy to the east, and Andorra and Spain to the south. The overseas territories include French Guiana in South America and several islands in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. The country's 18 integral regions span a combined area of 643,801 square kilometres (248,573 sq mi) and a total population of 67.02 million. France is a unitary semi-presidential republic with its capital in Paris, the country's largest city and main cultural and commercial centre. Other major urban areas include Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Lille and Nice.

Speaker (politics) presiding officer of a deliberative assembly, especially a legislative body

The speaker of a deliberative assembly, especially a legislative body, is its presiding officer, or the chair. The title was first used in 1377 in England.

Aristocracy is a form of government that places strength in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class. The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning 'rule of the best-born'.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the Ancien Régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties. [6] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus 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.

Ancien Régime Monarchic, aristocratic, social and political system established in the Kingdom of France from approximately the 15th century until the later 18th century

The Ancien Régime was the political and social system of the Kingdom of France from the Late Middle Ages until 1789, when hereditary monarchy and the feudal system of French nobility were abolished by the French Revolution. The Ancien Régime was ruled by the late Valois and Bourbon dynasties. The term is occasionally used to refer to the similar feudal systems of the time elsewhere in Europe. The administrative and social structures of the Ancien Régime were the result of years of state-building, legislative acts, internal conflicts, and civil wars, but they remained and the Valois Dynasty's attempts at re-establishing control over the scattered political centres of the country were hindered by the Huguenot Wars. Much of the reigns of Henry IV and Louis XIII and the early years of Louis XIV were focused on administrative centralization. Despite, however, the notion of "absolute monarchy" and the efforts by the kings to create a centralized state, the Kingdom of France retained its irregularities: authority regularly overlapped and nobles struggled to retain autonomy.

Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. It is a political ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it ranges from the rule of a representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty. It has had different definitions and interpretations which vary significantly based on historical context and methodological approach.

Secularism, as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the "indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations." In certain context, the word can refer to anticlericalism, atheism, desire to exclude religion from social activities or civic affairs, banishment of religious symbols from the public sphere, state neutrality toward religion, the separation of religion from state, or disestablishment.

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.

<i>Sans-culottes</i> radical left-wing partisans of the lower classes during French Revolution

The sans-culottes were the common people of the lower classes in late 18th century France, a great many of whom became radical and militant partisans of the French Revolution in response to their poor quality of life under the Ancien Régime. The word sans-culotte, which is opposed to that of the aristocrat, came in vogue in 1792, during the demonstration of 20 June 1792. The name sans-culottes refers to their clothing, and through that to their lower-class status: culottes were the fashionable silk knee-breeches of the 18th-century nobility and bourgeoisie, and the working class sans-culottes wore pantaloons, or trousers, instead. The sans-culottes, most of them urban labourers, served as the driving popular force behind the revolution. They were judged by the other revolutionaries as "radicals" because they advocated a direct democracy, that is to say, without intermediaries such as members of parliament. Though ill-clad people and ill-equipped, with little or no support from the upper class, they made up the bulk of the Revolutionary army during the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars.

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. 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" positions rather than "liberal" ones.

Academic investigation

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

Leonard W. Ferguson

In 1950, Leonard W. Ferguson analyzed political values using ten scales measuring attitudes toward: birth control, capital punishment, censorship, communism, evolution, law, patriotism, theism, treatment of criminals and war. Submitting the results to factor analysis, he was able to identify three factors, which he named 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

Diagram of the political spectrum according to Hans Eysenck Political spectrum Eysenck.png
Diagram of the political spectrum according to Hans Eysenck

Shortly afterward, Hans Eysenck began researching political attitudes in Great Britain. He believed that there was something essentially similar about the National Socialists (Nazis) on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the 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-Mindedess" (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.

Despite the difference in methodology, 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. [15]

Eysenck's dimensions of R and T were found by factor analyses of values in Germany and Sweden, [16] France [15] and Japan. [17]

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the United States and Great Britain, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the Middle East the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: "Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the radical-conservative continuum". [15]

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 authoritarian abuses of the left and right and accordingly he believed that with this T axis he had found the link between nazism and communism. According to Eysenck, members of both ideologies were tough-minded. Central to Eysenck's thesis was the claim that tender-minded ideologies were democratic and friendly to human freedoms, while tough-minded ideologies were 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. [15]

Eysenck left Nazi Germany to live in Britain and was not shy in attacking Stalinism, noting the anti-Semitic prejudices of the Russian government, the luxurious lifestyles of the Soviet Union leadership and the Orwellian "doublethink" of East Germany's naming itself the German Democratic Republic despite being "one of the most undemocratic regimes in the world today". [18] While Eysenck was an opponent of Nazism, his relationship with fascist organizations was more complex. Eysenck himself lent theoretical support to the English National Party (which also opposed "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. [19] [20] At one point during the interview, Eysenck was asked whether or not he was of Jewish origin before the interviewer proceeded. [21] His political allegiances were called into question by other researchers, notably Steven Rose, who alleged that his scientific research was used for political purposes. [22] [23]

Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research

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

  • Virtually no values were found to load only on the tough/tender dimension.
  • The interpretation of tough-mindedness as a manifestation of "authoritarian" versus tender-minded "democratic" values was incompatible with the Frankfurt School's single-axis model, which conceptualized authoritarianism as being a fundamental manifestation of conservatism and many researchers took issue with the idea of "left-wing authoritarianism". [24]
  • The theory which Eysenck developed to explain individual variation in the observed dimensions, relating tough-mindedness to extroversion and psychoticism, returned ambiguous research results. [25]
  • Eysenck's finding that Nazis and communists were more tough-minded than members of mainstream political movements was criticised on technical grounds by Milton Rokeach. [26]
  • Eysenck's method of analysis involves the finding of an abstract dimension (a factor) that explains the spread of a given set of data (in this case, scores on a political survey). This abstract dimension may or may not correspond to a real material phenomenon and obvious problems arise when it is applied to human psychology. The second factor in such an analysis (such as Eysenck's T-factor) is the second best explanation for the spread of the data, which is by definition drawn at right angles to the first factor. While the first factor, which describes the bulk of the variation in a set of data, is more likely to represent something objectively real, subsequent factors become more and more abstract. Thus one would expect to find a factor that roughly corresponds to "left" and "right", as this is the dominant framing for politics in our society, but the basis of Eysenck's "tough/tender-minded" thesis (the second, T-factor) may well represent nothing beyond an abstract mathematical construct. Such a construct would be expected to appear in factor analysis whether or not it corresponded to something real, thus rendering Eysenck's thesis unfalsifiable through factor analysis. [27] [28] [29]

Milton Rokeach

Dissatisfied with Hans J. Eysenck's work, Milton Rokeach developed his own two-axis model of political values in 1973, basing this on the ideas of freedom and equality, which he described in his book, The Nature of Human Values. [30]

Milton 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 democratics, democratic socialists and capitalists would and he wrote that "the two value model presented here most resembles Eysenck's hypothesis". [30]

To test this model, Milton 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 socialist 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:

Later studies using samples of American ideologues [31] and American presidential inaugural addresses attempted to apply this model. [32]

Later research

In further research, [33] Hans J. 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 correlate with the R-factor, indicating that a basic left–right or right–left tendency underlies both social values and 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 political theory since this time has replicated the factors shown above.[ citation needed ]

Another replication came from Ronald Inglehart's research into national opinions based on the World Values Survey, although Inglehart's research described the values of countries rather than individuals or groups of individuals within nations. Inglehart's two-factor solution took the form of Ferguson's original religionism and humanitarianism dimensions; Inglehart labelled them "secularism–traditionalism", which covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures, and "survivalism – self expression", which measured issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism, as well as willingness to engage in political activism. See [34] for Inglehart's national chart.

Other double-axis models

Greenberg and Jonas: left–right, ideological rigidity

In a 2003 Psychological Bulletin paper, [35] 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 Inglehart-Welzel cultural map of the world based on the World Values Survey Inglehart Values Map.svg
A recreation of the InglehartWelzel cultural map of the world based on the World Values Survey

In its 4 January 2003 issue, The Economist discussed a chart, [34] proposed by Ronald Inglehart and supported by the World Values Survey (associated with the University of Michigan), to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as vegetarianism, as well as willingness to engage in political activism. At the right of the chart is the open 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 Jerry Pournelle in 1963 for his doctoral dissertation in political science. The Pournelle chart has liberty on one axis, with those on the left seeking freedom from control or protections for social deviance and those on the right emphasizing state authority or protections for 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

Mitchell's Eight Political Americans Mitchell's Eight Political Americans.png
Mitchell's Eight Political Americans
Mitchell's Eight Ways Mitchell's Eight Ways.png
Mitchell's Eight Ways

In 2006, Brian Patrick Mitchell identified four main political traditions in Anglo-American history based on their regard for kratos (defined as the use of force) and archē or "archy" (defined as the recognition of rank). [36] 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/akrateia and a horizontal axis as a scale of archy/anarchy. He places democratic progressivism in the lower left, plutocratic nationalism in the lower right, republican constitutionalism in the upper right, and libertarian individualism in the upper left. The political left is therefore distinguished by its rejection of archy, while the political right is distinguished by its acceptance of archy. For Mitchell, anarchy is not the absence of government but the rejection of rank. Thus there can be both anti-government anarchists (Mitchell’s "libertarian individualists") and pro-government anarchists (Mitchell's "democratic progressives", who favor the use of government force against social hierarchies such as patriarchy). Mitchell also distinguishes between left-wing anarchists and right-wing anarchists, 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. Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute credits Mitchell with "the best explanation of the political spectrum", saying he "makes sense of all the major mysteries". [37]

Nolan: economic freedom, personal freedom

Nolan chart Nolan chart normal.png
Nolan chart

The Nolan chart was created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as "economic freedom" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the horizontal axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the draft) on the vertical axis. This puts left-wingers in the left quadrant, libertarians in the top, right-wingers in the right and what Nolan originally named populists in the bottom.

Three-axis models

Vosem chart, a three-axis version of the Nolan chart Revised NPOV political chart.jpg
Vosem chart, a three-axis version of the Nolan chart

One alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal [38] accounts for only the "degree of government control" without consideration for any other social or political variable and thus places "fascism" (totalitarianism) at one extreme and "anarchism" (no government at all) at the other extreme.

The Vosem Chart, or Vosem Cube, is based on the Nolan Chart and adds a third axis for corporate issues, depicted three dimensionally, with eight discrete categories representing eight different political ideologies. Vosem is the Russian word for "eight."[ citation needed ]

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 Political Compass yellow LibRight.svg
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
Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies 3-axis-model-of-political-ideologies-with-both-moderate-and-radical-versions-and-policies-goals.png
Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies
An economic group diagram based on The Political Compass Ideomap3b-sm.jpg
An economic group diagram based on The Political Compass

In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies , offered another single-axis spectrum that measures views of the future, contrasting stasists, who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, and dynamists, who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control. The distinction corresponds to the utopian versus dystopian spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism and the book's title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian classic-liberal theorist Karl Popper.

Other proposed axes include:

Political-spectrum-based forecasts

As shown by Russian political scientist Stepan S. Sulakshin, [52] 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

See also

Related Research Articles

An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons. In other words, these rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis. The term is especially used to describe systems of ideas and ideals which form the basis of economic or political theories and resultant policies. In these there are tenuous causal links between policies and outcomes owing to the large numbers of variables available, so that many key assumptions have to be made. In political science the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems

The Political Compass is a website, which uses responses to a set of 62 propositions to rate political ideology in a political spectrum with two axes: economic (left–right) and social (authoritarian–libertarian).

Hans Eysenck British psychologist

Hans Jürgen Eysenck, PhD, DSc was a German-born English psychologist who spent his professional career in Great Britain. He is best remembered for his work on intelligence and personality, although he worked in a wide range of areas within psychology. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature.

World Values Survey organization

The World Values Survey (WVS), a global research project, explores people's values and beliefs, how they change over time and what social and political impact they have. Since 1981 a worldwide network of social scientists have conducted representative national surveys as part of WVS in almost 100 countries.

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart is a political spectrum diagram created by American libertarian activist David Nolan in 1969. The chart places political views along two axes, representing degrees of economic freedom and personal freedom. It expands political view analysis beyond the traditional one-dimensional left–right/progressive-conservative line scale onto which modern libertarianism does not fit, and independently measures personal and economic liberty.

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, from equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another; and some stances may overlap and be considered either left- or right-wing depending on the ideology. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order". The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate or centrist.

In psychology, trait theory is an approach to the study of human personality. Trait theorists are primarily interested in the measurement of traits, which can be defined as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion. According to this perspective, traits are aspects of personality that are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals, are relatively consistent over situations, and influence behavior. Traits are in contrast to states, which are more transitory dispositions.

Pournelle chart

The Pournelle chart, developed by Jerry Pournelle in his 1963 political science Ph.D. dissertation, is a two-dimensional coordinate system which can be used to distinguish political ideologies. It is similar to the political compass and the Nolan Chart in that it is a two-dimensional chart, but the axes of the Pournelle chart are different from those of other systems. The two axes are as follows:

In sociology, postmaterialism is the transformation of individual values from materialist, physical, and economic to new individual values of autonomy and self-expression.

Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude characterized by belief in absolute obedience or submission to someone else’s authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one's subordinates. It usually applies to individuals who are known or viewed as having an authoritarian, strict, or oppressive personality towards subordinates.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait which predicts social and political attitudes, and is a widely used social psychological scale. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups. The concept of SDO as a measurable individual difference is a product of social dominance theory.

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

Ronald Inglehart American political scientist

Ronald F. Inglehart is a political scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan. He is director of the World Values Survey, a global network of social scientists who have carried out representative national surveys of the publics of over 80 societies on all six inhabited continents, containing 90 percent of the world's population. The first wave of surveys for this project was carried out in 1981 and the latest wave was completed in 2014. Since 2010 Inglehart has also been co-director of the Laboratory for Comparative Social Research at the National Research University - Higher School of Economics in Moscow and St Petersburg. This laboratory has carried out surveys in Russia and eight ex-Soviet countries and is training PhD-level students in quantitative cross-national research methods.

<i>The Authoritarian Personality</i> 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford

The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II.

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) is a values classification instrument. Developed by social psychologist Milton Rokeach, the instrument is designed for rank-order scaling of 36 values, including 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values. The task for participants in the survey is to arrange the 18 terminal values, followed by the 18 instrumental values, into an order "of importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life".

Self-expression values are part of a core value dimension in the modernization process. Self-expression is a cluster of values that include social toleration, life satisfaction, public expression and an aspiration to liberty. Ronald Inglehart, the University of Michigan professor who developed the theory of post-materialism, has worked extensively with this concept. On the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map self-expression values are contrasted with survival values, illustrating the changes in values across countries and generations. The idea that the world is moving towards self-expression values was discussed at length in an article in the Economist. Self expression is to say something that you truly believe is important in a form of communication, such as art, speech and dance. It is to reveal yourself in a way that is special to yourself.

Brian Patrick Mitchell is an American writer, political theorist, and blogger, known for his theory of political difference, theology of interpersonal relations, and critical analysis of gender integration of the American armed forces.

Hofstedes cultural dimensions theory framework for cross-cultural communication

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.

NOMINATE (scaling method)

NOMINATE is a multidimensional scaling application developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress."

Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world

The Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world is a map, or more precisely, a scatter plot created by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel based on the World Values Survey. It depicts closely linked cultural values that vary between societies in two predominant dimensions: traditional versus secular-rational values on the vertical y-axis and survival versus self-expression values on the horizontal x-axis. Moving upward on this map reflects the shift from traditional values to secular-rational ones and moving rightward reflects the shift from survival values to self-expression values.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Heywood, Andrew (2017). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (6th ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education. pp. 14–17. ISBN   9781137606044. OCLC   988218349.
  2. 1 2 Petrik, Andreas (3 December 2010). "Core Concept "Political Compass". How Kitschelt's Model of Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian and Conservative Orientations Can Fill the Ideology Gap in Civic Education". JSSE - Journal of Social Science Education: 4–2010: Social Science Literacy I: In Search for Basic Competences and Basic Concepts for Testing and Diagnosing. doi:10.4119/jsse-541.
  3. 1 2 Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna; Sznajd, Józef (June 2005). "Who is left, who is right?". Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications. 351 (2–4): 593–604. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2004.12.038.
  4. Lester, J. C. (September 1996). "The Political Compass and Why Libertarianism is not Right-Wing". Journal of Social Philosophy. 27 (2): 176–186. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1996.tb00245.x. ISSN   0047-2786.
  5. Stapleton, Julia (October 1999). "Resisting the Centre at the Extremes: 'English' Liberalism in the Political Thought of Interwar Britain". The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 1 (3): 270–292. doi:10.1111/1467-856X.00016. ISSN   1369-1481.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Knapp, Andrew; Wright, Vincent (2006). "1 French political traditions in a changing context" (ebk). The Government and Politics of France (5 ed.). Taylor and Francis. 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.
  7. Griffin, Roger (1995). Fascism. Oxford University Press. pp. 8, 307. ISBN   978-0-19-289249-2.
  8. Eatwell, Roger (2003). "A 'Spectral-Syncretic' Approach to Fascism". In Kallis, Aristotle A. (ed.). The fascism reader. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN   978-0-415-24359-9.
  9. 1 2 Fenna, Alan; Robbins, Jane; Summers, John (2013). Government Politics in Australia. Robbins, Jane., Summers, John. (10th ed.). Melbourne: Pearson Higher Education AU. pp. 126 f. ISBN   9781486001385. OCLC   1021804010.
  10. 1 2 Love, Nancy Sue (2006). Understanding Dogmas and Dreams (Second ed.). Washington, District of Columbia: CQ Press. p. 16. ISBN   9781483371115. OCLC   893684473.
  11. SAS(R) 3.11 Users Guide, Multivariate Analysis: Factor Analysis
  12. Ferguson, L.W. (1941). "The Stability of the Primary Social Attitudes: I. Religionism and Humanitarianism". Journal of Psychology. 12 (2): 283–8. doi:10.1080/00223980.1941.9917075.
  13. Kirkpatrick, C. (1949). "Religion and humanitarianism: a study of institutional implications". Psychological Monograph. 63 (9): i-23. doi:10.1037/h0093615.
  14. "politics" . Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Eysenck, H.J. (1956). Sense and nonsense in psychology. London: Penguin Books.
  16. Eysenck, H.J. (1953). "Primary social attitudes: A comparison of attitude patterns in England, Germany, and Sweden". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 48 (4): 563–8. doi:10.1037/h0054347.
  17. Dator, J.A. (1969). "Measuring attitudes across cultures: A factor analysis of the replies of Japanese judges to Eysenck's inventory of conservative-progressive ideology". In Schubert, Glendon A.; Danelski, David Joseph (eds.). Comparative judicial behavior: cross-cultural studies of political decision-making in the East and West. Oxford University Press.
  18. Eysenck, H.J. (1981). "Left-Wing Authoritarianism: Myth or Reality?, by Hans J. Eysenck" Political Psychology
  19. "An Interview with Prof. Hans Eysenck", Beacon February 1977
  20. Stephen Rose, "Racism" Nature 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86
  21. Billig, Micheal. (1979) "Psychology, Racism and Fascism", Chapter 6, footnote #70. Published by A.F. & R. Publications.
  22. Stephen Rose, "Racism Refuted", Nature 24 August 1978, volume 274, page 738
  23. Stephen Rose, "Racism", Nature 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86
  24. Stone, W.F. (1980). "The myth of left-wing authoritarianism". Political Psychology. 2 (3/4): 3–19. doi:10.2307/3790998. JSTOR   3790998.
  25. Ray, J.J.; Bozek, R.S. (1981). "Authoritarianism and Eysenck's P-scale". Journal of Social Psychology. 113 (2): 231–4. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9924374.
  26. Rokeach, Milton; Hanley, Charles (March 1956). "Eysenck's Tender-Mindedness Dimension: A critique". Psychological Bulletin. 53 (2): 169–176. doi:10.1037/h0045968. PMID   13297921.
  27. Wiggins, J.S. (1973) Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Addison-Wesley
  28. Lykken, D. T. (1971) Multiple factor analysis and personality research. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 5: 161-170.
  29. Ray JJ (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 9(3):11–12.
  30. 1 2 Rokeach, Milton (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
  31. Rous, G.L.; Lee, D.E. (Winter 1978). "Freedom and Equality: Two values of political orientation". Journal of Communication. 28: 45–51. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01561.x.
  32. Mahoney, J.; Coogle, C.L.; Banks, P.D. (1984). "Values in presidential inaugural addresses: A test of Rokeach's two-factor theory of political ideology". Psychological Reports. 55 (3): 683–6. doi:10.2466/pr0.1984.55.3.683. Archived from the original on 14 May 2013.
  33. Eysenck, Hans (1976). "The structure of social attitudes". Psychological Reports. 39 (2): 463–6. doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.39.2.463. Archived from the original on 14 May 2013.
  34. 1 2 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.CS1 maint: Unfit url (link)
  35. Greenberg, J.; Jonas, E. (2003). "Psychological Motives and Political Orientation—The Left, the Right, and the Rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003)" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin . 129 (3): 376–382. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.396.6599 . doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376.
  36. Mitchell, Brian Patrick (2007). Eight ways to run the country: a new and revealing look at left and right. Greenwood Publishing. ISBN   978-0-275-99358-0.
  37. Gregory, Anthony, "What About the 'Real' Left?" Archived 18 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine , Lewrockwell.com, 6 July 2011.
  38. "American Federalist Journal - News and opinion about politics, culture and current events". Archived from the original on 15 October 2005. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  39. 1 2 Davis, Otto A.; Hinich, Melvin J.; Ordeshook, Peter C. (1 January 1970). "An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process". The American Political Science Review. 64 (2): 426–448. doi:10.2307/1953842. JSTOR   1953842. 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. Stoetzer, Lukas F.; Zittlau, Steffen (1 July 2015). "Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-separable Preferences". Political Analysis. 23 (3): 415–428. doi:10.1093/pan/mpv013. ISSN   1047-1987. 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.”
  43. 1 2 Alós-Ferrer, Carlos; Granić, Đura-Georg (1 September 2015). "Political space representations with approval data". Electoral Studies. 39: 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.04.003. hdl:1765/111247. 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. Forman, F. N.; Baldwin, N. D. J. (1999). Mastering British Politics. London: Macmillan Education UK. pp. 8 f. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-15045-8. ISBN   9780333765487.
  45. Jones, Bill; Kavanagh, Dennis (2003). British Politics Today. Kavanagh, Dennis. (7th ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 259. ISBN   9780719065095. OCLC   52876930.
  46. Körösényi, András (1999). Government and Politics in Hungary. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press. p. 54. ISBN   9639116769. OCLC   51478878.
  47. Horrell, David (2005). "Paul Among Liberals and Communitarians". Pacifica. 18 (1): 33–52. doi:10.1177/1030570X0501800103. hdl:10036/35872.
  48. Blattberg, Charles (2009). "Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies". Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy. McGill-Queen's University Press. SSRN   1755117 .
  49. Diamond, Stanley, In Search Of The Primitive: A Critique Of Civilization, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 1.
  50. "The new political divide". The Economist. 30 July 2016. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
  51. Pethokoukis, James (1 July 2016). "The Closed Party vs. the Open Party". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
  52. Sulakshin, S. (2010). "A Quantitative Political Spectrum and Forecasting of Social Evolution". International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 5 (4): 55–66. doi:10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i04/51654.