Social Conservatism is not a political philosophy

[Screaming Lord Byron]

Social Conservatism is not a political philosophy, it's an excuse for fuzzy logic and bigotry. It defines itself by what it is against, rather than what it is for, which makes it a difficult theory to define. Social Conservatism to me seems to be at heart to be an excuse to deal with the difficult questions facing modern society through condemnation. So-Cons are opposed to definitions of family that do not reflect the nuclear model. They are hostile to most forms of immigration because they see it undermining the societal model they hold dear. The fact that their societal model is totally outdated only heightens their angst. They oppose homosexuality because they see it as a threat to their structure. They despise taxation because they see it funding programs that encourage diversity and giving power to government.
It's a concept built on fear, a theory of defending a model that never existed. As such it only deals in problems not solutions. Cast an eye on your local Social Conservative. Do they constantly oppose, have you ever heard them propose anything positive? The language is of dollars wasted, of programmes failing, of rising tides of people different to them who are going to swamp their lifestyle. This is not a valid philosophical viewpoint to me, this is a justification of prejudice.

What do you think, I wrote this in about fifteen minutes, so feel free to critique it vigorously.

[Gman]

1. Creation "science" advocates

take exactly the same tact when attacking evolution. They always refer to "failed" or "discredited" or "unproven". Of course, they never say by whom. In the rare event that they do way who has discredited something, it's usually some person with credentials out of some diploma mill or with credentials as some "fellow" from some "creation 'science' institute" with a P.O. box for an address.

CS advocates are essentially the same people as the SoCons.

[theivoryqueen]

2. social conservative as hypocrite

the few Socons that I am aquainted with do indeed wish for a return to the "good ole days" when everyone got married at an early age,women had dinner on the table and popped out the 2.5 kids on demand, never spit on the sidewalk, cussed or talked to a black person in public (unless she was your maid), and being arrested or divorced was a capitol offense. Of course, having known these folk a while, I can also say that they have taken advantage of every possible loophole afforded society: abortion(s), indulgence in booze and drugs, sex outside of marriage and the occasional not-quite-legal money making scheme. It's funny - listen to anyone long enough and poking holes in the holier-than-thou defense gets pretty easy.

[Blue_Chill]

3. Social conservatism is about greed, hatred, and anti-intellectualism

They don't want to help anyone, jobless bastards should starve on the street or beg at a church door for table scraps.

They don't want to solve problems with their heads, they solve everything by increasing punishment for disobedience. Whats that? People are breaking the law?...double the time spent in jail. Whats that a nation dares to disobey us, nuke them immedaitely!

They seem to be very primitive in their thinking. Once they make up their mind they don't want to hear opposing views, if you voice them they identify you as a enemy that must be punished.

[HereSince1628]

4. But political conservatism maybe motivated social cognition.

Or so say the authors of a government funded research project published in the May issue of Pyschology Bulletin.

Summary of Jost et al “Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.” Psychological Bulletin vol 129, pp 339-375

(Parenthetical remarks should be attributed to me not the authors of the paper...)

Intitially, the authors (Jost et al) review the work of 19 historians, journalists, and political scientists concerning the ideology of conservatism. From the review, Jost et al derive two features that represent persistent features of conservatism regardless of its geopolitical, or temporal context. They used these to describe the core dimensions that characterize conservative principles:

1. Opposition to change (privileges the status quo or urges return to idealized old state. This is the standard trait usually attributed to conservatives)
2. Acceptance of inequality (legitimizes asymmetries of wealth and status. This is a less often used trait for describing conservatism. To some extent its inclusion is a consequence of early conservatives interest in holding on to european monarchies, but as shown below it also helps explain why conservatives of Ann Coulter's ilk can get away with saying the poor are poor because they are stupid or lazy).

Other dimensions of conservatism are context dependent and are considered peripheral dimensions. Because of the influence of historic circumstance what is considered conservative may not be deemed so at another time, and it would seem at times some of these peripheral dimensions may play more significant roles in describing conservatives than at other times.

(The principle at work here seems to be that peripheral aspects of political conservatism reflect responses to problems that create a psychological need to manage personal or social variables that distress an individuals’ relationships with the core dimensions of conservatism. Such need(s) motivates conservative individuals toward social attitudes whose predictable manifestation characterize day-to-day political conservatism.)

Various theories postulate explanatory correlations between social-psychological variables and conservatism. (Consequently, the paper presents an interesting summary of behavioral and attitudinal orientation that characterize the peripheral dimensions of conservatism. It should be noted that Jost et al don’t fully discriminate right wing from conservative politics.).

Personality Theories–
-Authoritarianism (exploits status inequalities for decision/rule making, and includes acquiescence to authority)

-Dogmatism (opposes new explanation/interpretive models, promotes reliance on tried solutions)

-Intolerance to Ambiguity (emphasizes boundaries/distinctions , literal interpretation of rules)

Existential Needs Theories--
-Closure (provides release from anxiety of ambiguity, promotes adoption of available solutions over wrestling with uncertainty and confusion.)

-Regulatory focus (emphasizes stability , promotes cravings for security)

-Terror management/Fear of Death (promotes and protects systems that provide avenues of death denial/transcendence)

Ideological Rationalization--
-Social dominance (promotes legitimizing myths (such as divinely chosen people) that support personal or group hegemony and enables/endorses identification and punishment of deviants/minorities)

-System justification (resolves conflicts about personal status/treatment by rationalization of the system’s worth, promotes defense of the system against threats even at high social or personal cost–as required for justifying death in war)

The authors evaluated 88 published studies to determine if correlations exist between political conservatism and the expectations derived from the above mentioned theories...they found the following correlations:

death anxiety (r.=.50)
system stability (.47) (not surprising since opposition to change is a core dimension)
dogmatism/intolerance to ambiguity (.34)
openness to experience (-.32)
uncertainty tolerance (-.27)
needs for order/structure/closure (.26)
integrative complexity (-.20)
fear of threat and/or loss (.18)
self-esteem (-.09)

(Consequently, these correlates represent how the political conservatives orient to some social/psychological variables that had been previously successfully used to characterize the peripheral dimensions of conservatism. Sorry, but comparison of political liberals and political conservatives along these same variables is hampered by the lack of studies of political liberalism. It is likely these same dimensions influence liberals, though perhaps in response to different issues and perhaps to a different (lesser?) degree.)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

5. I think Psychology is a major factor here.

Social Conservatism appeals to people who like to see problems in black-or-white either/or terms, people who have a strong need to define themselves as members of a group where dissent is minimal (see - Dittoheads) and who when faced with difficult choices opt for the least difficult choice.

[HereSince1628]

6. Implications of pysch. motivated social cog to homosexuality

I know Jost's article is tough to read. It took me several days and many side trips to other papers...but here is how I apply my understanding of their results to homosexuality.

Homosexuals challenge the conservative peronality's ability to deal with ambiguity and open rather than close the issue of the meanings of sexual orientation and of gender itself. It creates a stressful situation for conservatives.

Homosexuality also challenges the concept of a stable social order. In as much as this also challenges what Christian conservatives see as a divine mandate for social order, it also challenges their myth that they are the chosen people of god (hence entitled to all the fruits of that relationship including a social dominance that gets to create the rules)

Homosexuality provides social conservatives with an out group upon which they (SC's) can practice what they see as endorsed discrimination flowing out of a divinely constructed social order and dominance hierarchy.

As I consider this, I don't believe that you can argue a conservative away from their discrimination against social rights for homosexuals unless you can reduce the psychological stress that motivates them. In general, that means reframing the issue into something that conservatives can also defend. Unfortunately this is particularly hard for liberals whose thinking is embedded within its own perceptions of social structure ofen not just at odds but in perfect opposition to positions staked out by conservatives.