Law professor Ann Althouse comments on a CNN segment analyzing the appeal of right wing talk radio, but her thoughts go beyond the matter and reflect on human motivations for all beliefs:
Is it that CNN wants to psychoanalyze the interest in right-wing radio? Although I think it is absurd to characterize conservatism as a disease that needs treatment, I am strongly drawn to analyzing why people believe what they do and why they find satisfaction in some ideas and not others. I don’t think there is anything more compelling than that, and I’ve come to realize lately how much this orientation of mine underlies my blogging and my real-world relationships…
In a conference or a workshop or faculty meeting, when people talk, I never listen only to the ideas they are expressing. I think about the psychology revealed by their choice of words, how long and intensely they speak, their facial contortions and tics, and the look in their eyes… I don’t really know what their inner life is, and I realize they may have problems or illnesses or all sorts of secret things that are manifested as they speak, but I am always thinking about who they really are.
Who they really are. I too am intrigued by why people believe what they believe. What makes one person conservative and another progressive? What is the lure of these life orientations? What makes one person religious and another irreligious? Is it experience, temperament, heredity? Religion doesn’t reduce to psychology or biology, but they are ingredients.
Whatever the answers to these questions, Ann is on the right path: look beneath the surface of words and actions to the inner life that gives rise to them.
I wish I could remember where I read an article I read. It was about how liberals are more apt to look at why people believe what they believe, while conservatives generally just bash people over the head for being “unpatriotic.” They tend to be able to think critically less than those who are willing to challenge their paradigm.
Sociologist Peter Berger tackled this question in at least one of his books: A Far Glory. Basically, he said that sociologists have observed that beliefs tend to come in clusters or packages (e.g., Democrat & pro-choice, or Republican & pro-life) and that the clusters are associated with the interests of various socio-economic groups. In addition, we tend to inherit our political party identifications from our parents and then that identification shapes many of our other beliefs. Our beliefs are also often directly or indirectly connected to our occupations. These are general trends, but there are exceptions.
Sociology does not support Danny Kam’s position – that liberals are critical thinkers and conservatives are head-bashers, although that is certainly a view held by many of my liberal friends.
It’s not my position (I was only saying what I had read), although I do see what you mean about the liberal bias of the piece I read (I believe it may have been posted in the NY Times). The piece talked about how liberals are often able to step back from what they believe and look at criticize their own beliefs and their own country, whereas it is harder for conservatives to step out of that vaccuum. I was just throwing it out there as something I read, not something I necessarily believe.
I think the piece more aptly describes hard-line right-wing radio/TV (O’reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh) then actual conservatives who seem to form the cultural picture (even if it is more hard-line than the actual conservative).
Although I would like to make the point, as per Berger, that critical thinking is something taught more in higher levels of education than in the primary levels and high school levels. Even in AP High School classes, as per Julie’s post , most of the learning up to the end of high school is only memorize, spit out, and forget. There is no challenge of paradigms or anything of that sort. College is where the majority of this happens. Thus, in accordance with Berger, it seems that one of the clusters of those (usually middle class American) college educated types critical thinking seems to be central.
I only brought this up because of the self-reflective nature of this post and how that seems to be associated more with liberals than conservatives.
Yes, Ken, because ALL of sociology is and says ONE thing.
Hmmm… all of this is interesting… I’m thinking about the motto at The Christian Century, a liberal publication, ‘Thinking Critically, Living Faithfully.’ And the tag line for IVP Academic, a conservative publisher, ‘Evangelically Rooted, Critically Engaged.’ I think within conservativism and progressivism there are different degrees and ways of critical thinking. There are unreflective conservatives and unreflective liberals. Conservatives are less inclined to think critically about a tradition, and liberals are less inclined to think critically about their individual perceptions and feelings. IMO.
I think that both sides would like to demonize the other by saying that one or the other does or does not do a certain thing. I think we should leave this demonization process to competing cell phone companies, and as Christians we should try to meet each other where we are at and find our commonalities and talk about our differences, but not label each other with unhelpful names.
Ooohh, that’s interesting, and this part especially: Conservatives are less inclined to think critically about a tradition, and liberals are less inclined to think critically about their individual perceptions and feelings. IMO. I agree.
Ken, what I meant to say was: “Your comment regarding Danny Kam seemed unnecessary and kind of mean or rude.” Sociology isn’t just one thing, and he was only talking about an article he read. I do think you could find sociological articles that look at and analyze political t.v. shows and conclude similarly; but, as Chris pointed out, both “sides” come from different beginning points (tradition, patriotism, x, “vs” deconstruction, high-value of personal opinion, x) and maybe should be analyzed differently? Maybe they don’t stand in dichotomy after all? (I was mad because he’s my boyfriend. I’m sorry for being so mean.)
Sarah
Sorry Sarah, sorry Danny. I misunderstood and thought Danny was citing a statement he agreed with. I would have worded that last sentence differently, not attributing the sentiment to Danny if I had not misunderstood.
My own perspective is more liberal than conservative. It is part of the liberal spirit to question everything, even one’s owns beliefs and ways. I don’t think conservatives are head-bashers and I think it is illiberal to say they are.
I agree with what Danny wrote in his third comment.
Re: the difference between conservatism and liberalism
As conservatives have expressed it, like Edmund Burke, for example, conservatives think critically about how we should live and in that critical analysis they give more value to tradition and the wisdom of the ages that it represents than liberals do. As liberals see it, as seen in the writings of many figures of the enlightenment, reason, rather than the wisdom of the ages, is a better guide to life. Pure liberals and pure conservatives are rare. Most of us are hybrids.
Interestingly, a link at Drudge and Breitbart today links to a youtube video of a fundraiser for Democrats in which Obama was speaking. In the video, Obama says that Democrats think for themselves whereas Republicans do what they are told.
It is a partisan slur that plays to the sentiment held among many on the left that Democrats or liberals are critical thinkers while Republicans and conservatives are rubes. Of course, both parties make such slurs. It helps to stimulate their loyalists to give money. The effectiveness of such slurs adds another dimension to the question you raised in this post. Obama smiled as he said those words and they brought pleasure to his audience. I have seen Republican speakers and audiences do the same – enjoy slurs directed at Democrats. Why do we have this seemingly universal tendency to despise and ridicule those who hold different beliefs? And why do we enjoy it so much?
Henry Adams said, ‘Politics is the systematic organization of hatreds.’ His sentiment is more true than we like to admit.
We define ourselves partly through negation: I am this… I am NOT this. This negation, as a key part of self-definition, fuels the need to ridicule others.
Peace to you.